Developing the writing skills of ESL students

through the collaborative learning strategy

Khaled Besher Albesher

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

(Integrated) in Education and Applied Linguistics

School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences

Newcastle University

August 2012
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Allah, who gave me the strength and perseverance I needed during

my years of study. I am really indebted to my thesis supervisor, Professor Vivian Cook,

whose guidance, knowledge, advice, kindness and insights had a positive effective on the

successful completion of my thesis. In addition, I would like to thank my viva examiners:

Professor Martin Bygate and Dr Clare Wright, for their useful comments on my thesis.

If I forget anyone, I shall not forget my parents, whose prayerful supplications were a

source of success. I am really grateful to my wonderful wife Manal for her emotional

support. She was a source of strength and inspiration. I am grateful for her love, patience,

encouragement and confidence that I would complete my PhD successfully. My special

thanks go to my lovely children, Shoug, Lara, and Marwan, for being nice to me all the

time I was so busy with my studying. No single word could express my thanks for their

tolerance during my long journey of study.

My PhD programme could not have been completed without the assistance of my sincere

friends who gave me support and encouragement. I am grateful to Dr. Grami Al-Grami,

Suliaman Al-Nasir, Dr.Fahad Al-Jumah, and Fahad Al-Furaeh.

Finally, I would like to thank all the students and teachers in the English Language

Department at Al-Qassim University for participating in my study.

Table of Contents
Abstract ………………………………………………………………..….……………………………………...............I

List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………………………...............II

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………………………...............III

List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………………..……...............IX

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………......……………………………………………................1

1.1 Statement of the problem ...........................................................................................2

1.2 The context of the study ..............................................................................................3

1.3 Purpose of the study ....................................................................................................5

1.4 Research questions.......................................................................................................5

1.5 Significance of the study ..............................................................................................6

1.6 Definitions of terms .....................................................................................................6

The Process approach to writing……….………………………………………………………………..7

Collaborative learning (CL) ……….……………………………………………………………………….7

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) ….……………………………………………………………8

Positive interdependence ……………………………………………………………………………….…8

1.7 Organization of the Thesis ……………………………………………………………………………………..8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………….......………………...................10

2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………..………10

2.2 Writing approaches ……………………………………………………………………………………………….10

2.2.1 The product approach …………………………………………………………………………………………11

2.2.2 The genre approach ….………………………………………………………………………………………..13

2.2.3 The Process approach to writing …………………………………………………………………………15

2.2.3.1 Stages and activities of the process approach to writing ………………………16

A) Pre-writing ……………………………………………………………………………................17

B) Composing / Drafting …………………………………………………………………….…….18

C) Revising ……………………………………………………………………………………….……….19

D) Editing ………………………………………………………………………………..………….…….19

2.2.3.2 Studies related to the process approach to writing ……………………………….19

2.3 Theoretical Framework of Collaborative Learning Strategy ………………….….……………22

2.3.1 Distinguishing collaborative learning from other uses of group work…………………..27

2.3.2 Collaborative learning and communicative language teaching…………………………...28

2.4 Benefits of collaborative learning for language education …………………………….………36

2.5 Elements of Collaborative Learning ……………………………………………………………………….43

1- Positive interdependence ………………………………………………………………………….…….44

2- Individual Accountability ………………………………………………………………..………………..44
3- Face-to-Face Interaction ………………………………………………………………….………………45
4- Social skills ……………………………………………………………………………………….................45
5- Group Processing …………………………………………………………………………………………….46
2.6 Collaborative writing in ESL classes ………………………………………………………………………46

2.7 Paulus’s (1999) Essay Scoring Rubric………………………………………………………………………48

2.8 Previous studies of Collaborative Learning ………………………………………….………………..50

2.9 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….68

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ………………………………………………..69

3.1 Introduction……………………………………..…………………………………………....….....................69

3.2 Research questions ……………………………………………………………………………………………….70

3.2.1 Research question (1) ………….…………………………………………………………………..70

3.2.2 Research question (2) ………………………………………………………………………………71

3.3 Research Hypotheses …………………………………………………………………………………………….73

3.4 Ensuring similarity between the experimental CL and control TL groups……………….79

3.5 Essay-scoring rubric ……………………………………………………………………………………………….81

3.6 Research design and materials ……………………………………………………………………….……..83

3.6.1 Writing Essays …………………………………………………………………………………………….87

3.6.2 Questionnaires ……………………………………………………………………………………………88

3.6.3 Semi-Structured Interview …………………………………………………………………………..98

3.7 Study sample ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….103

3.7.1 The numbers of students in the experimental CL and control TL groups who
completed pre- and post-test essays………………………………………………………………………….104

3.7.2 The numbers of students in the experimental CL and control TL groups who
completed pre-and post-test questionnaires……………………………………………………………..104

3.8 Pilot study ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………105

3.9 Description of the activities and tasks used in the study ………………………………………106

3.10 Reliability, validity and replication ……………………………………………………………………..122

3.11 Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..125

3.12 Originality and Limitations of Methodology ……………………………………………….………126

3.13 Summing Up ……………………………………………………………………………………………….……..127

Chapter 4: Analysis and Findings …………………………………………………………………….……….129

4.1 Introduction..…………………………………..…………………………………………....…....................129

4.2 The judges and judging………………………………………………………………………………………..129

4.3 Equivalence of the experimental CL and control TL groups before receiving

treatment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………133
4.3.1 Essay scores in the pre-test……………………………………………………………………………….133

4.3.2 Attitudes and perceptions at the pre-test …………………………………………………………133

4.4 Pre- and post-test scores for the essays of students in the experimental CL and
control TL groups ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….135

4.5 Research hypotheses analysis ………………………………………………………………………………138

4.6 The analysis of the general writing questionnaire…………………………………………………191

4.7 Interview Analysis and Findings…………………………………………………………………………….208

4.8 Summing Up…………………………………………………………………………………………………………217

Chapter 5: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations for Future Research…218

5.1 Discussion of the study findings …………………………………………………………………………..218

5.1.1 Research Question one ……………………………………………………..……………………………..219

5.1.2 Research Question Two ………………………………………………………….………………………..223

5.1.2.1 Collaborative learning questionnaire (Questions 1-20) ….……………………………..223

5.1.2.2 General writing questionnaire (Questions 1-23) ….………………………………………..230

5.1.2.3 Interview ….……………………………………………………………………………………………………236

5.2 Implications and suggestions for ESL teachers and learners …………………………………241

5.3 Implications for further research …………………………………………………………………………245

5.4 General contribution of the study…………………………………………………………………………247

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..248

References ……………………………….………………………………………………………………………….......249
Appendix A ………………………………………….……………………………………………………..........262
Appendix B-1 ………………………………………..…………………………………………………............263

Appendix B-2 ………………………..…………………………………………………………………............264

Appendix C ……………………………………………………………………………………………….............265
Appendix D ……………………………………………………………………………………………….............266
Appendix F-1 …………………………………………………………………………………………….............271
Appendix F-2 ………………………………………………………………………………………………..........272
Appendix G...…………………………………………………………………………………………................273
Appendix K ……………………………………………………………………………………………….............277
Appendix M ……………………………………………………………………………………………….............278
Appendix N ……………………………………………………………………………………………..….............279
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of using collaborative learning

to improve the writing skills of students of English as a second language. The aim was to

determine whether students who were involved in collaborative leaning produced better

written texts in terms of organization, development, coherence, structure, vocabulary and

mechanics than students who wrote individually, and whether engaging in collaborative

learning had a positive effect on the attitudes and perceptions of learners. The subjects of the

study were 48 male Saudi Arabian university students distributed randomly in two groups: 23

were assigned to the experimental group and were taught to write essays collaboratively,

while the other 25 were assigned to the control group and taught to write essays individually.

Both groups of students were asked to write an essay and complete questionnaires at the

beginning and at the end of the study. Four students from the treatment group were selected

at random for interview at the end of the study. The experiment consisted of a total of eleven

weeks of teaching writing skills. The post-test scores and questionnaire responses of students

in the treatment group were compared not only with those of students in the control group but

also with their pre-test scores and responses. The study results indicated that collaborative

writing benefitted the students a great deal in terms of the quality of their writing

(development, cohesion and organization); however, it was also found that collaborative

writing did not help them much in terms of the accuracy of their writing (mechanics and

structure). The analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaires and interviews revealed

that the attitudes of students in the experimental group had improved after their involvement

in collaborative learning settings. The overall conclusions were therefore that not only did

students who wrote their essays in collaboration with each other produce better written texts

than those who wrote their essays by themselves, but also that involvement in collaborative

learning had a positive effect on the students’ attitudes towards writing in English
I
LIST OF APPREVIATIONS

L1 First Language

L2 Second Language

ESL English as a Second Language

EFL English as a Foreign Language

CL Collaborative learning

CW Collaborative writing

ELTD English Language and Translation Department

QU Al-Qassim University

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

II
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Previous studies of collaborative learning………………………………………………………….62

Table 3.1 Methods employed to answer the research questions………………………………………..72

Table 3.2 Group distribution based on treatments and tests………………………………………………84

Table 3.3 Procedures adopted during the 11 weeks of the study …………..………………………….85

Table 3.4 Questionnaire to collect students’ attitudes towards writing………………………………93

Table 3.5 Questionnaire on students’ attitudes towards collaborative learning……………..….97

Table 3.6 The total number of participants from the experimental CL and control TL groups
who completed pre-test and post-test essays……………………………………………………………..……104

Table 3.7 The total number of participants from the experimental CL and control TL groups
who completed pre-test and post-test questionnaires…………………………….……………………….105

Table 4.1 Cronbach’s alpha for the two judges………………………………………………………………..130

Table 4.2 Correlations of pairs of variables……………………………………………………………………..131

Table 4.3 Consistency between the judges…………………………………………………………….………..132

Table 4.4 Intra-class Correlation Coefficient…………………………………………………………….……..132

Table 4.5 Comparing overall pre-test scores of essays written by students in the
experimental CL group and in the control TL group ……………………………………………………….133

Table 4.6 Comparing pre-test scores relating to attitudes of students in experimental CL and
control TL groups towards collaborative learning …………………………………………………………..134

Table 4.7 Pre- and post-test scores for the essays of students in the experimental CL group
before and after involvement in collaborative learning settings………………………………………136

Table 4.8 Pre- and post-test scores for the essays of students in the control TL group before
and after involvement in traditional learning settings……………………………………………………..137

Table 4.9 Comparing overall pre- and post-test essay scores of students in the experimental
CL group…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..139

III
Table 4.10 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the experimental CL group in
terms of organization ……………………………………………………………………………………………………...140

Table 4.11 Comparing pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental CL group in terms of
development …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...140

Table 4.12 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the experimental CL group in
terms of cohesion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………...141

Table 4.13 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of experimental CL group in terms
of vocabulary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….141

Table 4.14 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the experimental CL group in
terms of structure …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..142

Table 4.15 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the experimental CL group in
terms of mechanics …………………………………………………………………………………………………………142

Table 4.16 Summary of the results of the students’ pre- and post-test essay scores in the
experimental CL group according to categories of the rubric…………………………………………....143

Table 4.17 Comparing pre- and post-test attitudes towards CL questionnaire of students in
the experimental CL group………………………………………………………………………………………………..144

Table 4.18 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group concerning
collaboration during pre-writing stage …………………………………………………………………………....147

Table 4.19 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning collaboration during revision stage ……………………………………………………………...148

Table 4.20 Comparing pre- and post-test responses of experimental CL group concerning
collaboration during editing stage ………………………………………………………………………………….148

Table 4.21 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning the importance of collaborative learning for writing essays…………………………..151

Table 4.22 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning benefits of CL in helping to get better scores ………………………………………………..152

Table 4.23 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing …………………………..152

Table 4.24 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability…………………………153

IV
Table 4.25 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group
concerning benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups……………154
Table 4.26 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group in terms
of benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary………………………………………………….154

Table 4.27 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group concerning
benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays………………………..155

Table 4.28 Summary of the pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL
group in the attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire………………………………………..156

Table 4.29 Comparing overall pre- and post-test essay scores of students in the control TL
group ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….157

Table 4.30 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the control TL group in terms of
organization …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….158

Table 4.31 Comparing pre-test and post-test scores of the control TL group in terms of
development ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………159

Table 4.32 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the control TL group in terms of
cohesion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….159

Table 4.33 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the control TL group in terms of
vocabulary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………160

Table 4.34 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of control TL group in terms of
structure ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….160

Table 4.35 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the control TL group in terms of
mechanics ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….161

Table 4.36 Summary of the pre- and post-test essay scores of students in the control TL
group in terms of categories of the rubric………………………………………………………………………..161

Table 4.37 Comparing pre- and post-test attitudes of students in the control TL group in the
collaborative learning questionnaire ……………………………………………………………………………….162

Table 4.38 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
collaboration during pre-writing stage …………………………………………………………………………….163

V
Table 4.39 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
collaboration during revision stage ………………………………………………………………………………...164

Table 4.40 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
collaborating during editing stage …………………………………………………………………………………..165

Table 4.41 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning the
importance of collaborative learning for writing essays………………………………………………….166

Table 4.42 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of CL in helping to get better scores ………………………………………………………………….167

Table 4.43 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing …………………………………………….168

Table 4.44 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability …………………………………………..168

Table 4.45 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups ……………………………..169

Table 4.46 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of the control TL group in terms of
benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary……………………………………………………...170

Table 4.47 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays…………………………171

Table 4.48 Summary of the analysis of the pre- and post-test responses of students in the
control TL group in the attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire…………………………172

Table 4.49 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and in
the control TL group ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..173

Table 4.50 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and in
the control TL group in terms of organization …………………………………………………………………174

Table 4.51 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and in
the control TL group in terms of development ………………………………………………………………..175

Table 4.52 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and in
the control TL group in terms of cohesion………………………………………………………………………..175

Table 4.53 Difference between post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL
group and those of students in the control TL group in terms of vocabulary……………………176

VI
Table 4.54 Difference between post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL
group and those of students in the control TL group in terms of structure ……………..........176

Table 4.55 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and in
the control TL group in terms of mechanics ……………...........................................................177

Table 4.56 Summary of the analysis of the post-test essay scores of students in the
experimental CL and control TL groups in terms of categories of the rubric…….………........177

Table 4.57 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups in the
collaborative learning questionnaire …….……….....................................................................178

Table 4.58 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning collaboration during pre-writing stage …….………..............................................181

Table 4.59 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning collaboration during revision stage …….………....................................................182

Table 4.60 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning collaborating during editing stage …….……….....................................................182

Table 4.61 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning the importance of collaborative learning for writing essays…….………..............184

Table 4.62 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning benefits of CL in helping to get better scores in writing exams …….……….........185

Table 4.63 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing…….………...............186

Table 4.64 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability…….……….............186

Table 4.65 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups ……........187

VII
Table 4.66 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups in
terms of benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary ……....................................188

Table 4.67 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups in

terms of benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays……......189

Table 4.68 Summary of results showing the post-test attitudes towards collaborative
learning of students in the experimental CL and control TL groups……...............................190

Table 4.69 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL
and control TL groups concerning the first factor ‘Attitudes of students towards writing
skills’……................................................................................................................................198

Table 4.70 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses in experimental CL and control TL
groups concerning the second factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the pre-writing
stage’……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….202

Table 4.71 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses in experimental CL and control TL
groups concerning the third factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the drafting and revising
stages’………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………205

Table 4.72 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses in the experimental CL and control
TL groups concerning the fourth factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the editing
stage’……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….207

VIII
LIST OF Figures

Figure (1) Stages of the process approach to writing………………………………………………………….17

Figure (2) Zone of proximal development…………………………………………………………………………..25

IX
Chapter 1: Introduction
Collaborative learning has become not only an essential concept in the field of education

(Kohonen, 1989; Kohonen, 1992; Gaillet, 1992; McWham et al., 2003, Nunan, 1992) but also a

well-known and widespread activity in most English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English

as a Second Language (ESL) writing classes. The term ‘collaborative learning’ as used in this

thesis refers to students working together in small groups on specific activities, with everyone

being required to participate actively (Cohen, 1994). According to Dillenbourg (1999),

collaborative learning is ‘a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn

something together’ (p. 1). Collaborative learning (CL) emphasizes helping young learners to

learn the skills necessary for learning successfully with one another (Schmuck, 1985). There are

both theoretical and pedagogical bases for the widespread use of group and pair work in

education. According to Vygotsky (1978), the development of human beings takes place in

social situations. From a theoretical point of view, using collaborative group interaction has

become a topic of research in aspects of both education and social psychology. From a

pedagogical perspective, the use of small groups is based on using the communicative approach

to L2 instruction that focuses on helping learners to use L2 (Storch, 2005).

Collaborative learning refers to ‘a small group of learners working together as a team to

solve problems, complete a task, or accomplish a common goal’ (Graham, 2005, p.11).

Collaborative or cooperative learning differs from traditional learning because it provides

structural opportunities for individuals, who are given specific roles within their groups, to work

together to reach common goals. It is usually contrasted with traditional or competitive

classroom environments (Kessler, 2003). When students learn separately, their individual

performances do not necessarily affect one another either positively or negatively. Competitive

1
learning, on the other hand, means putting them in direct competition with each other, with the

idea that this will have an effect on individual performances.

Many benefits have been claimed for collaborative learning. For example, it may help

weak students to learn more effectively when they work with strong partners (Gabriele, 2007;

Winskel, 2008). It enables students to acquire and develop various skills such as leadership,

thinking, building self-esteem, motivating and encouraging low-motivated students (D. Johnson

& Ahlgren, 1976; Garibaldi, 1979; Gunderson & D. Johnson, 1980; Hill & Hill, 1990).

Collaborative learning in the context of collaborative writing means two or more people

working together to produce and complete a text, through practising stages and activities such as

collecting, planning and organizing ideas, drafting, revising and editing (Rice & Huguley, 1994).

Storch (2002) claims that collaborative learning in the form of collaborative writing in EFL

classes might help students to act socially and cognitively, and suggests that teachers should

encourage learners to become involved in social activities that promote interaction and the co-

construction of knowledge. Graham (2005) found that collaborative learning of writing skills

helped students to find new ideas together and exposed them to various opinions, encouraged

them to discuss, debate, disagree and teach one another as well as helping them to practise

aspects of the process approach to writing such as generating ideas.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Having taught writing skills for many years at a variety of Saudi universities and

colleges, such as in the English Language and Translation Department (ELTD) at Al-Qassim

University, the present researcher noticed that ESL students were not reaching the intended

writing assessment goals by the end of the course. Students at all levels in the ELTD are required

2
to write essays and compositions both in class and in final exams, and these are normally marked

and judged by their teachers on the basis of their proficiency, accuracy and quality.

Many studies have shown how using collaborative learning in the form of collaborative

writing in classrooms has a positive effect on students’ social activities and writing strategies

(Elbow, 1975; Storch, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007; Williams, 2003; Noël & Robert, 2003; Graham,

2005). It seemed therefore that a collaborative learning strategy might be an effective way of

teaching writing to ESL students in Saudi Arabia and thus may be a possible way to raise their

achievement levels. Al-Ahmad (2003), who studied the impact of collaborative learning on L1

and L2 students’ apprehension about and attitudes toward writing, claimed that the collaborative

learning strategy has enormous advantages over more traditional instruction techniques such as

the teacher-centred approach. He found that students in traditional writing classrooms

communicate solely with the teacher about their writing, and that individual and competitive

learning are the main focus in this approach. Bruffee (1986) mentions that collaborative learning

has a positive impact on writing skills when writers are involved in group work and conferences.

One of the reasons for believing that CL can improve ESL writing skills is that collaborative

learning is not only a way to improve aspects of writing accuracy such as grammar, vocabulary

and punctuation, but that it also helps to establish a social atmosphere conducive to meaningful

learning and to solving students’ problems.

1.2 The context of the study

Before talking about the study context, it is important to indicate that the teaching of

writing is not paid much attention in the Saudi context compared to the teaching of other skills

3
such as vocabulary and grammar (Aljamhoor, 1996; Alnofal, 2003; Al Haysony, 2008).

According to Aljamhoor (1996),

‘Teaching English writing in Saudi schools is based on the belief that the students
who learn more vocabulary will be good writers. Therefore, students are required to
memorize a great deal of vocabulary in order to speak, read, listen, and write in
English, but little emphasis is placed on other important writing techniques, such as
planning, organization’ (p. 16).
When Saudi students write essays, they are generally concerned with surface aspects such as

spelling, choosing vocabulary and correcting any grammatical mistakes (Alnofal, 2003).

The context of the present study concerns EFL students in the English Language and

Translation Department (ELTD) at Al-Qassim University. The department was established in

1993 as one of the main departments of the Social Science College. It aims to produce qualified

teachers who are able to teach English to young students at the primary, elementary and

secondary stages. By 2010, more than 800 students had graduated and acquired a Bachelor

degree in English Language and Translation. The ELTD is considered the only resource

responsible for teaching and developing the English language proficiency necessary for all

students at Al-Qassim University (QU). One of the main conditions for a new student to be

admitted to the department is that he should have successfully completed a course of

approximately 400 hours of English at the ELTD. This course is called an Intensive English

Programme (IEP), during which students have to study English for three months. After

successfully completing the course, they then transfer to the bachelor programme, which

normally includes four years’ study of a variety of courses and skills such as writing, speaking,

reading, listening, linguistics, translation and literature. Writing is one of the essential skills that

students must develop during their four years of study.

4
1.3 Purpose of the study

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of collaborative learning on the process

approach to teaching writing (pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing) and on the attitudes of

ESL students. In other words, it seeks to determine whether using the collaborative learning

approach would be more effective than using traditional approaches such as individual learning.

Collaborative learning might encourage ESL students to write and express their ideas in

proficient and effective ways.

Previous work in this field indicates some promising lines of investigation. Grami, for

instance, looked at evaluating the effectiveness of integrating peer feedback into ESL writing

classes in terms of developing writing and social skills, and found students improved their skills

effectively (see Appendix K for more details). Similarly, some other studies, such as Storch

(1999, 2005); Storch & Wigglesworth (2007, 2009), studied the quality of written texts produced

by students in cooperation with their peers compared with that of texts produced individually, in

terms of accuracy (grammar) and fluency, and found CL helped students to write better essays in

terms of grammar. The present work differs from the work of Grami and others in crucial

aspects, such as the study sample, and the placing of an expert student in each group, with this

student playing an essential role during the writing process. This will be discussed further in the

account of the background to the research from page 22 onwards.

1.4 Research Questions

The aim of this investigation was to answer the following main research question:

Does collaborative writing benefit students? In other words, will the writing ability of

students improve if teachers encourage them to use a collaborative learning strategy?

5
Particularly, do ESL learners in the English language department at Al-Qassim University

write better after collaborating with others than after working individually?

The main research question gave rise to two sub-questions:

1- Would students who are involved in collaborative writing settings produce better written

and better organized essays than students working individually?

2- Are students’ attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement in

collaborative learning settings?

1.5 Significance of the study

This research investigates the effectiveness of collaborative learning in helping ESL

students develop their English writing skills. The study is thus significant because it is designed

to explore in depth whether students produce better writing when working in small groups than

when working individually. The use of the collaborative writing strategy provides an opportunity

for them to express their ideas in small groups instead of individually. Since this is the first study

designed specifically to explore in detail the effectiveness of the collaborative learning strategy

for Saudi universities, the findings will pave the way for further studies to be carried out globally

as well as in other Saudi Arabian universities.

1.6 Definitions of Terms

Some terms that are crucial to this study need to be clarified in advance. This section

provides brief explanations and discussion of some of these:

6
The process approach to writing

This is an approach that is concerned with linguistic writing skills, namely planning, revising,

drafting and editing, rather than linguistic writing knowledge, namely structure and mechanics

(Badger & White, 2000). It concentrates on teaching writing through the process and stages of

writing (Belinda, 2006). In Chapter 2, this approach is compared with two other approaches that

are used in writing and teaching writing: the product and genre approaches.

Collaborative learning (CL)

As discussed earlier, collaborative learning refers to learners working in small groups to solve

problems or complete particular tasks (Artz & Newman, 1990; Graham, 2005). In other words, it

means an active give-and-take of ideas between more than one person in order to discover

solutions and create knowledge together (Damon, 1984). According to Storch (2002), the use of

small groups is based on the communicative language teaching approach that is concerned with

encouraging students to use L2 actively in the classroom. Group behaviour in collaborative

learning (CL) differs from that of groups in communicative language teaching (CLT), however,

in its involvement of the expert and the application of elements such as positive interdependence,

individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, social skills and group processing. One of the

crucial aspects of the collaborative learning strategy applied in this study, as mentioned above,

was the placing of an expert student in each group, a student who played an essential role during

the learning process. Collaborative learning in the form of collaborative writing refers to a group

of writers working in small groups as a team to produce and complete a shared piece of writing.

It can be accomplished by more one than one person and includes activities such as collecting

ideas, brainstorming, planning, making an outline, revising and editing (Rice & Huguley, 1994).

7
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

The concept of the Zone of Proximal Development was defined by Vygotsky as follows: ‘The

distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving

and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult

guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). This concept

forms the basis of the notion of expert as used in this research.

Positive interdependence

Positive interdependence refers to an entire group working together effectively and successfully

(Kagan, 1994). It establishes mutual benefits for learners and a sense of joint responsibility that

make their social environment more supportive, motivated, confident and excellent in academic

achievement (Nunan, 1992, and Kohonen, 1992). Positive interdependence is an essential part of

the concept of CL. It is considered to be both the basis and the heart of CL (Graham, 2005;

Kagan, 1994).

1.7 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis is organized into the following five chapters:

Chapter One: Introduction

This is the current chapter that contains an introduction to the research, describes the purpose of

the research, introduces the research questions and points out the significance of the study.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

The purpose of this chapter is to review various issues related to the topic of the study. It

contains an overview of ESL writing skills, including an examination of various approaches to

writing such as the product, genre and process approaches. It also contains a detailed discussion

8
of collaborative learning (CL) through an examination of various points such as the theoretical

framework of the collaborative learning strategy, the benefits of CL for language education,

elements of CL, collaborative writing in ESL classes, and some previous studies of CL.

Chapter Three: Methodology and Research Design

The research questions and the methods used to answer them are presented in this chapter. The

design of the study and the strategy and methodology used are also described here. The chapter

also includes a description of the sample used for the study, of the data collection procedures and

of the tasks and activities used during the data collection. Finally, information is provided

concerning the statistical tests used to analyse the data.

Chapter Four: Analysis and Findings

In this research, both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection were employed. The

principal approach was quantitative, with data being collected from writing tests and

questionnaires. These data were supplemented by qualitative data obtained from interviews with

the students. In this chapter, all the collected data are presented and analysed.

Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, Recommendations for Future Research and

Conclusion

This chapter presents (a) a discussion of the findings of the study, relating them to those of

previous studies, (b) implications and suggestions for both ESL teachers and learners, and (C)

recommendations for future research and the conclusion.

9
Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

A review of the relevant literature was conducted in order to provide a theoretical

framework for teaching writing skills through the collaborative learning strategy used in this

research. The purpose of this chapter is to review the existing literature on the use of the

collaborative learning strategy, to reflect on the opinions and perspectives of previous

researchers, and to examine the results of a number of previous studies: in other words, to

provide a proper foundation for this research. The chapter is divided into two main sections: 1)

an overview of ESL writing skills; 2) a discussion of the collaborative learning strategy. The first

section will focus on writing approaches, briefly highlighting both the product and genre

approaches. The process approach to writing will be discussed in more detail since it is the

approach used during the current investigation of the impact of collaborative learning on the

development of ESL writing skills. In the second part of this chapter, several relevant issues and

points related to collaborative learning are discussed: the theoretical framework of CL,

distinguishing collaborative learning from other uses of group work, the benefits of CL for

language education, elements of CL, collaborative writing in ESL classes and finally, previous

studies of CL.

2.2 Writing approaches

According to Raimes (1993), there are three principal writing approaches: the product

approach that is concerned with form, the process approach that concentrates on the writer, and

10
the genre approach that pays attention to the reader. All these approaches are described below.

Since the aim of this research was to study the influence of collaborative learning in improving

ESL writers, the main focus in this chapter is on the process approach to writing, which consists

of the pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing stages and the activities associated with these

stages. The product and genre approaches are therefore discussed only briefly here.

2.2.1 The product approach

Before the development of the process approach to writing, researchers saw writing as a

product, and thought that the most important component of good writing was linguistic

knowledge rather than linguistic skill. Young (1978) defined the product or traditional approach

to writing as ‘the emphasis on the composed product rather than the composing process; the

analysis of discourse into words, sentences, and paragraphs; the strong concern with usage

(syntax, spelling, punctuation) and with style (economy, clarity, emphasis); and so on’ (cited in

Matsuda, 2003, p.70). It is called the ‘product’ approach because its aim was to produce correct

texts (Richards, 1990). According to Pincas (1982), it concentrates on the appropriate use of

vocabulary, syntax and cohesive devices. Other researchers believe that the product approach to

writing concentrates mainly on helping students to learn grammatical rules and how to avoid

errors and mistakes. Badger and White (2000, p.154) mention that ‘product-based approaches

see writing as mainly concerned with knowledge about the structure of language’.

According to Pincas (1982) and Hyland (2003), four stages characterize the product

approach: familiarized writing, controlled writing, guided writing and free writing.

Familiarization means ‘preparing students for actual writing by demonstrating one or other of the

skills that are to be practised’ (Pincas, 1982, p.78). One example of an effective familiarization

technique is the provision of contrasting examples and having students write about the

11
differences between them: for example, hearing a spoken invitation and then reading a written

invitation. Another method of familiarization is to give students confusing instructions and ask

them to put them into the correct order and carry them out (Pincas, 1982). According to Hyland

(2003), familiarization can be accomplished by teaching students specific grammar and

vocabulary through the use of a specific context. While exercises at the familiarization stage are

concerned with showing students the type of writing they will produce, at the controlled writing

stage students are given permission to practise the exercises. The exercises in the controlled

writing stage are divided into two types: combining exercises, such as joining words by matching

or by re-ordering; and substituting exercises, which involve both imitating items produced by the

teacher and following the teacher’s guidance. For example, teachers may present a few

paragraphs and then provide certain words or sentences that can be substituted for existing words

(Pincas, 1982). ESL classes in this stage, according to Reid (1993), consist of structuring

grammatical sentences and receiving instructions about or making discrete changes in a piece of

discourse. Raimes (1983) thinks that controlled composition is a useful technique that provides

students with both content and form.

The guided writing stage is considered as a bridge between controlled and free writing.

The exercises in this stage are divided into several types: a) completion exercises such as filling

in the blanks or matching words with their pictures; b) reproduction exercises such as re-writing

something from memory; c) comprehension exercises such as note-taking, and d) paraphrasing

exercises concerned with changing a statement from the active voice (e.g., ‘I accept your

advice’) into the passive (e.g., ‘your advice was accepted’) (Pincas, 1982). Guided writing gives

the writer some freedom in writing, but this freedom is still limited to structuring sentences and

exercises that focus on comprehending questions and building vocabulary (Reid, 1993). Free

12
writing is the last stage in the product approach in which students are given the opportunity to

write freely without stopping (Elbow, 1973). This is sometimes called express writing (Elbow,

1973; Reid, 1993; Rohman, 1965) and depends on spontaneity and sincerity, when students

discover themselves through language. Instead of focusing on the final product and correcting

their mistakes, the students are concerned with self-discovery and pay no attention to

grammatical, structural or critical comments. However, this stage does have some negative

aspects: a) various errors are made in grammar, spelling and vocabulary; b) teachers are left with

no opportunity to guide or give feedback to their students (Elbow, 1973; Pincas, 1982).

According to Elbow (1973), free writing encourages students to keep writing and not make any

stops to check for errors so that they do not forget or miss important ideas or thoughts.

On the other hand, Silver and Leki (2004) claim that the product approach to writing does

not pay attention to the reader or the purpose of writing. The reader in this approach is the

teacher and the context is the classroom. According to Zamel (1983), the product approach helps

students in the beginning stages to develop and improve their grammatical accuracy. However, it

neglects writing processes such as planning and outlining a text, collecting ideas etc (Badger &

White, 2000).

2.2.2 The genre approach

According to Swales (1990), the genre approach consists of ‘a class of communicative

events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes’ (p. 58). In addition,

this approach is defined as a ‘goal-oriented, staged social process’ (Martin, 1992). People using

this approach interact to achieve social processes and they have goals of achieving particular

things (Hyland, 2003). Badger and White (2000) mention that the genre approach is considered a

13
newcomer to English language teaching; however, there are some similarities between this and

the product approach. Although it is concerned with linguistic knowledge, the main focus in the

genre approach is on writing about various social contexts. They add that there are three stages to

teaching the genre approach: 1) introducing the text by the teacher; 2) constructing the text by

the student with some help from the teacher; 3) producing the complete text by the student.

According to Tribble (1996), Badger and White (2000) and Hyland (2003), this approach could

be used in any social context (for example, medicine, economics or politics), to use writing in

various situations: for instance, writing articles, receipts and reports. Hyland (2003) states that

the central emphasis in this approach is not merely on writing but on writing something to

achieve a specific purpose, as in telling a story or describing a technical process.

According to Silva and Colleen (2004), the genre approach examines various contexts and

moves from writing general essays to more particular essays and from school-sponsored writing

to the real world context. While the general essays involve writing in the classroom, in testing

situations or in laboratories, the particular essays can include many genres: for instance, nursing

notes, care plans, personal or business letters, research proposals, doctoral narratives, research

article publications, textbooks and summaries.

Regarding the teacher’s role in this approach, he or she needs to discuss the genre with

the students at the beginning of the class, then the students can carry on and complete their work

by themselves. According to Brindly (1994), the teacher should produce and supply information

and input for the students at the beginning of the class.

The most useful feature of the genre approach to writing is that a great deal of emphasis

is placed on the audience and the readers of the written texts (Kay & Dudley-Evans, 1998).

According to Hyland (2003), teachers using the genre approach look beyond composing

14
processes, subject content or the forms of texts to see writing as a bridge of communication with

readers. The writer employing this approach is thus able to build a good relationship with his or

her readers by conveying specific information. In addition, it assimilates context with discourse,

something which is usually neglected in both the product and process approaches to writing

(Hyland, 2003).

However, some researchers have expressed a negative view of the genre approach. For

example, Kay and Dudley-Evans (1998) mention that ‘the genre-based approach is restrictive,

especially in the hands of unimaginative teachers, and this is likely to lead to lack of creativity

and de-motivation in the learners and it could become boring and stereotyped if overdone or

done incorrectly’ (p. 311).

2.2.3 The process approach to writing

Recent approaches to writing have focused on the process rather than the end product of

writing (Kelly & Graham, 1998; Nunan, 1989; Leki, 1991). The process approach was

introduced in the mid-1960s. According to Rohman, in this approach the writing is classified into

three stages: 1) the pre-writing stage, that includes tasks that take place before writing; 2) the

drafting and writing stage; 3) the re-writing stage, in which attention is paid to any grammatical,

punctuation or spelling mistakes (Rohman, 1965). However, Rohman did not describe the

process approach to writing in sufficient detail (Williams, 1998).

More light was shed on the process approach to writing in research conducted at the

beginning of the 1970s. Thus, ‘although Janet Emig (1971) is rightly credited with originating

process pedagogy in composition, it is important to recognize that the late 1960s witnessed an

intellectual shift in many fields toward process’ (Williams, 2003, p. 100). It has been found that

15
writing is not linear but a recursive process that necessitates the activities of pre-writing, writing

and post-writing (Emig, 1971; Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1983; Hyland, 2003; Rose, 1980; El

Mortaji, 2001; El-Aswad, 2002). With regard to the use of the term ‘recursive’, during the

process of composition writers can move forwards or backwards to any activities whenever they

find that useful (Perl, 1978, 1980; Raimes, 1985). This means that even if a writer has almost

finished a composition, he or she may find that it is necessary to collect additional data from the

library. As a result, they may have to revise their essay in order to cope with any new

information (Tribble, 2003; Hyland, 2003).

The process approach to writing also places more emphasis on writing skills (planning,

revising and drafting) than on linguistic knowledge (spelling, grammar, punctuation and

vocabulary) (Badger & White, 2000). Students therefore have to be taught writing through its

process and stages such as planning, drafting, revising, editing and publishing in order to write

freely and arrive at a product of good quality (Belinda, 2006). Moreover, one of the beneficial

aspects of the process approach to writing in the ESL setting is that teachers consider a writer to

be an ‘independent producer of text’ (Hyland, 2003, p. 10). However, while the process approach

to writing has positive advantages for the writer, it does not pay much attention to the reader,

which is not particularly helpful for those readers who expect to acquire some knowledge from a

text (Tribble, 2003).

2.2.3.1 Stages and activities of the process approach to writing

According to Kroll (2003), some stages and activities of the process approach to

writing that take place in L2 classes (for instance, pre-writing, drafting and revisions that could

be made through feedback from the teacher or from peers) are important. These activities take

place when writing in both L1 and L2 classes (New, 1999). Williams (2003) also mentions that

16
all students involved in writing need to engage in the activities contained in the various stages of

the process approach: namely, pre-writing stage activities such as brainstorming, collecting

ideas, discussing; the drafting stage, and the revising and editing stages. In addition, these

activities can be used as many times as the writer needs (Tribble, 1996, 2003). Figure (1) clearly

shows the four stages of the process approach to writing.

Figure (1) Stages of the process approach to writing

Pre-writing
(Specifying the task/planning and outlining/collecting data/making notes)

↓
Composing

↓
Revising
(recognizing/shifting emphasis/focusing on information and styles for your
readership)

↓
Editing
(checking grammar/lexis/surface features: for example, punctuation, spelling, layout,
quotation conventions, references)

A) Pre-writing

A significant feature of the process approach to writing is that students collect and produce ideas

before finishing the actual writing (Zamel, 1982). According to Hewings and Curry (2003),

brainstorming and student discussions are helpful strategies that may be used to collect and

17
gather ideas effectively. During the pre-writing stage students can use various methods, such as

brainstorming, word clustering and free writing, as a way of discovering themselves and their

ideas (Elbow, 1973). Brainstorming means thinking quickly in order to produce and collect ideas

for a specific topic or problem; it should therefore be done freely without any structure or

judgment, and collaborative learning is the best way of ensuring that it is carried out effectively

(White & Arndt, 1991). Planning a topic is another important strategy of the pre-writing stage

that helps learners to organize and write successfully (Peacock, 1986). According to Flower and

Hayes (1981), planning is a mental strategy, so students may return to it at any time during the

writing process.

Another technique of the pre-writing stage is writing and making notes in order to collect,

generate and organize ideas. Ideas are generated in a free and unstructured way and without

being organized. Organizing ideas is a structuring strategy that could be carried out through

selecting appropriate names as headings and categories (White & Arndt, 1991). Making an

outline during the pre-writing stage is another useful strategy. According to Williams (2003),

writers may find it necessary and useful to write down their important ideas in outline form,

starting with small ideas and moving to more general ones.

B) Composing / Drafting

Getting started in writing an essay is one of the difficult stages in the process approach to

writing, because it requires a great deal of attention, application and focus (Harris, 1993; Hedge,

2000). The drafting stage comes after the completion of pre-writing activities such as specifying

the writing topic, collecting data and making an outline (Williams, 2003; King & Chapman,

2003; Tribble, 1996, 2003). During drafting students should keep writing their essay from

beginning to end without stopping (Gebhard, 2000). According to King and Chapman (2003),

18
during this stage writers should focus on the actual writing and leave checking both grammatical

and spelling mistakes to the final stages.

C) Revising

Hedge (1988) mentions that ‘good writers tend to concentrate on getting the content right first

and leave details like correcting spelling, punctuation and grammar until later’ (p. 23). The main

concern of the revising stage is to complete the content correctly, whereas correcting

grammatical and spelling mistakes can be done during the editing stage (Tribble, 2003).

Focusing on reorganizing sentences and adding more appropriate vocabulary are essential

aspects of the process approach to writing (Williams, 2003). In the revising stage writers should

carry out activities such as deleting unnecessary sentences and moving certain words or

paragraphs forward or backward (Zamel, 1981; Williams, 2003; Hedge, 2000).

D) Editing

The last stage of the process approach to writing is editing. This stage concentrates on linguistic

accuracy: grammar, spelling and punctuation (Harris, 1993). Hewings and Curry (2003) state

that the editing stage involves checking references and formatting the students’ writing. In this

stage students may employ various strategies to correct their mistakes, such as working in pairs

or in groups, and use any available resourses such as textbooks, dictionaries and computers

(King & Chapman, 2003; Hewings & Curry, 2003).

2.2.3.2 Studies related to the process approach to writing

Various studies and researchers have examined the process approach to writing in different

situations in order to show the advantages and benefits of this approach.

19
Using the process approach to writing plays a role in changing the attitudes and opinions

of students. Belinda (2006) implemented six writing programmes on process writing in six

primary classrooms in Hong Kong, three in the upper primary levels and three in the lower

levels. She investigated the effectiveness of these processes on changing students’ writing and

attitudes by comparing all six classrooms with each other and the upper and lower levels in

general. These comparisons were between pre- and post-tests of questionnaires, interviews and

observations. The study purpose was to improve students’ writing strategies in all stages of the

process approach, including pre-writing, drafting and revising. Because children at primary

levels are interested in reading, they were taught how to write a story through processes and

stages. This type of writing was used for both pre- and post-tests. The researcher noticed that the

process approach to writing had been found to be a useful and helpful strategy; however, it could

be more effective for students fluent in English in strengthening their writing skills.

Belinda’s study was concerned with primary school children, whereas the current

research involved adult ESL learners. It is thus important to understand the background of

teaching English and specifically writing skills in Saudi Arabia in order to evaluate how closely

Belinda’s study fits with this research. The system of education in some Middle Eastern

countries, including Saudi Arabia, is divided into the following stages: primary schooling for six

years, intermediate for three years, secondary for three years, and post-secondary for four to five

years. The teaching of English language starts in the final year of primary schooling and is

confined to teaching the letters of the English alphabet. At intermediate and secondary levels, the

dominant pedagogical approach is still the grammar-translation approach (El-daly, 1991;

Aljamhoor, 1996; Alnofal, 2003; Alhaysony, 2008). ESL students at Saudi schools start to learn

writing skills at both secondary and post-secondary levels. However, according to Alnofal

20
(2003), the teaching of writing skills has not been paid much attention compared to the teaching

of the skills of reading, listening and speaking.

In order to assess the relevance of Belinda’s study to this research, it is also important to

know that ESL students in Hong Kong start to practise writing skills at primary level. Belinda

mentions that the product-oriented approach is used in teaching writing (p. 2). She adds,

however, that over the last few years the process approach to writing has been recognized as

being more effective than the traditional methods of teaching writing. Thus, despite the

differences in age between Belinda’s sample of primary school children and the sample of adult

Saudi students used in this study, the similarities in the classroom teaching of English in both

cases means that the results of Belinda’s research are useful for the current study.

A few researchers have compared the effectiveness of self-assessment in students’

process-based writing in L1 or L2 with that used in product-based writing. El-Koumy (2004)

compared ESL students adopting the process approach to writing with other students using a

product approach. The sample was 80 male Arab students divided into two classes. The students

were studying at a general secondary school in Menoufya in Egypt. The students in both process

and product groups were given a pre-test and a post-test to enable the researchers to assess the

difference between the two groups in terms of self-assessment. In the pre-test the students were

asked about the role of TV in our lives, whereas the post-test was about the impact of computers

on our lives. The results showed that the process group produced a greater quantity of writing

than the product group, whereas the product group was better than the process group in terms of

the quality of writing. El-Koumy found that self-assessment of the process of writing encouraged

students to develop their thinking skills and writing strategies, so they became able to discover

and elaborate their ideas effectively.

21
Regarding using the process approach to writing in the field of technology, Parks, Huot,

Hamers and Lemonnier (2005) investigated whether process-based writing would be appropriate

in the context of ESL language arts courses over a four-year period. Francophone high school

students in Quebec studying on an information and communication technologies (ICTs)

programme took part in the research. The researchers used some qualitative methods to obtain

their data, namely, the analysis of documents, observation, videotaping and interviews. At the

end of the study, the researchers noticed that the students had become able to describe the

writing process (meta-linguistic knowledge). Before the Grade 7 students had been involved in

the study, they had no knowledge of the process approach to writing. The results obtained from

some of the excerpts from the interviews showed that the students were able to describe the

processes and stages of the writing approach and that they had become able to use certain labels

to identify some of these processes

2.3 Theoretical Framework of the Collaborative Learning Strategy

In the mid-1930s, well before the development of the process approach to writing at the

beginning of the 1970s, the Russian researcher Lev Vygotsky was already talking about the

importance of writing in developing thought. Vygotsky’s research reached the English-speaking

world around 1962. The main theoretical perspective and framework of collaborative learning in

groups comes from Vygotsky’s social constructivist view (Thousand, Villa & Nevin, 1994;

Gillies & Ashman, 2003; Vanderburg, 2006; Rojas-Drummon & Merce, 2003). According to

Vygotsky, children can learn and perform tasks individually only when they interact with more

capable people who can help and ‘scaffold’ them effectively. ‘Scaffolding’ is defined by Dennen

(2004) as ‘a metaphor for a structure that is put in place to help learners reach their goals and is

22
removed bit by bit as it is no longer needed, much like a physical scaffold is placed around a

building that is under construction and removed as the building nears completion’ (p. 815).

At that time, social interactions and an inner voice were two important concepts for most

writing research, which focused on the positive role played by social interactions in developing

writing. Vygotsky believed that the repeated social interactions of people with experts can

develop thought. Vygotsky’s theory of learning supports the collaborative learning approach

because ‘it analyzes how we are embedded with one another in a social world’ (Kessler, 1992, p.

56). Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) concept of the ZPD is considered to be the theoretical background

for peer collaboration in second language writing. The ZPD establishes two levels of

development: the actual level, which is determined through the ability of the learner to do

something individually, and the possible level, which is determined by the ability of the learner

to do it with the help of an adult or a more advanced and capable classmate (De Guerrero &

Villamil, 2000). The functions in the ZPD are called ‘buds’ of development and the actual

development is called the ‘fruits’ of development (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky believed that the

child can be developed on both the social plane and the psychological plane (1978). According to

Lantolf (2000), Vygotsky’s idea is that ‘all higher mental abilities appear twice in the life of the

individual: first on the intermental plane in which the process is distributed between the

individual, and some other person(s) and/or cultural artifacts, and later on the intramental plane

in which the capacity is carried out by the individual acting via psychological mediation’ (p. 17).

To explain the difference between the inter-mental and intra-mental planes, Wertsch

(1997, cited in Smith, 2007) describes inter-mental speech as a functional tool in communicating

with others; whereas intra-mental speech is a psychological tool that occurs inside the person

23
with him/herself. The inter-mental plane is therefore considered as a social level and the intra-

mental plane is considered as a psychological level (Lantolf, 2000).

According to Vanderburg (2006), three concepts are fundamental to the development of

learning: the ZPD, scaffolding and the inner voice. Advanced individuals can scaffold, develop

and create an inner voice in individuals who are weak or who need more support through their

zone of proximal development. Van der Veer and Valsiner (2000) state that there is an

association between concepts of scaffolding and the ZPD, that were originally adopted by

Vygotsky to refer to how adults present cultural meanings to children. The term ‘scaffolding’

was then popularized by Bruner and became well known in the field of education (cited in De

Guerrero & Villamil, 2000). Bruner (1978) used the word ‘scaffolding’ metaphorically to

describe a mother’s efforts to keep talking to her child. Five features characterize a mother’s

scaffolding: a) the difficulty of the task is reduced; b) the child becomes more focused and

concentrated; c) the support is offered for children; d) more models are offered (cited in De

Guerrero & Villamil, 2000). The ZPD may be illustrated simply by Lier’s (1996) diagram,

shown in Figure (2), below:

24
Figure (2) Zone of proximal development

Zone of proximal
development

Self-regulation
ZPD

The circular area of ‘self-regulation’ shown in Lier’s diagram refers to anything people may do

by themselves confidently without asking for help from others. Outside this circle is the area of

the zone of proximal development, which includes any skills or knowledge with which a person

needs help and assistance from more capable persons. In addition, any things beyond the area of

the ZPD are considered out of the reach of learners, so they are not available for learning. Self-

regulation, according to Lantolf and Appel (1994), is the movement from the inter-mental to the

intra-mental plane that helps young learners to gain and exercise full control over their

behaviour.

Moreover, Kessler (1992) mentions that learning is a collaborative process in which

dialogue between adults and children plays an important role in enabling children to solve their

problems effectively. In the field of education, this means that learners are able to perform

25
particular activities under the guidance and supervision of an advanced person such as a teacher

or another student who knows more than they do.

In addition, Vygotsky (1978) measured cognitive development in children by asking

them to solve standardized problems. After two eight-year-old students had cooperated with each

other, one of them had the ability to solve problems designed for a twelve-year-old, while the

other child had only acquired the ability to solve problems designed for a nine-year-old. The

zone for the first child was therefore four (this being the difference in years between his actual

age [8] and his ability [that of a twelve year-old]); by contrast, the zone for the second child was

only one. This difference between the chronological mental age of children and their ability to

solve problems is what Vygotsky called the ZPD.

In parallel to Vygotsky’s perspective on learning in small groups, Piaget (1932) also

developed a theory of collaborative learning called the cognitive development theory. According

to this theory, children reconstruct and re-examine their understanding when contradictions occur

during their interactions with others. Through this re-examination they acquire new

understanding and additional information which helps them to resolve the contradictions (Gillies

& Ashman, 2003). Piaget’s theory requires not only the assimilation but also the accommodation

of stimuli in the environment (Wadsworth, 1989). As stated by another group of researchers,

‘this new approach described itself as a socio-constructivist approach: it enhanced the role of

inter-actions with others rather than actions themselves’ (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye & O'Malley,

1996, p. 3). This dyadic technique is based on getting two students with different ideas about

something to discuss how to respond to a particular issue or question together for a few minutes

and then testing them individually to determine whether students who disagreed on a particular

issue can now solve the problem easily and effectively (Thousand, Villa & Nevin, 1994).

26
2.3.1 Distinguishing collaborative learning from other uses of group work

Collaborative learning can include various different strategies, one of which is peer

feedback (Van Gennip, Segers & Tillema, 2010). Studies on the teaching of writing skills do not

differentiate between collaborative writing and peer feedback (Gebhardt, 1980; Storch, 2005;

Grami, 2010). According to Grami (2010), ‘Because peer feedback involves group work, it can

be seen as a collaborative learning practice’. It is important to understand the role of feedback in

collaborative learning. According to Gebhardt (1980), ‘Feedback, in fact, can almost be

considered the base of collaborative writing because it is what allows all the other principles to

work’ (p. 67). There are various kinds of feedback, such as peer feedback, teacher feedback and

conferencing (Freedman, 1987). A clear definition of the application of feedback in learning

writing skills is provided by Freedman (1987), who states that such feedback

‘Includes all reactions to writing, formal or informal, written or oral, from teacher or
peer, to a draft or a final version. It can also occur in reaction to talking about
intended pieces of writing, the talk being considered a writing act. It can be explicit
or less explicit’ (p. 5).

Collaborative learning helps students to give and receive feedback to and from each other (Al

Ahmad, 2003; Hansen, 2005; Baker, 2009; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Pilotti & Chodorow, 2009).

According to Storch’s study (2005), ‘the students’ feedback on the experience of collaborative

writing was overall very positive’ (p. 169). Giving and receiving feedback and working in groups

are thus considered to be two of the principal features of collaborative learning. According to

Grami (2010, p. 30), ‘peer feedback is still considered a novel concept in the Saudi educational

context’. Feedback is not only useful for beginners but also for advanced writers because it

enables them to evaluate their drafts and avoid any possible mistakes (Ferris, 2002; Hyland &

Hyland, 2001; Ashwell, 2000). Not receiving feedback either from teachers or from peers could

27
result in complicated and unrevised drafts (Hyland, 2003; Ferris, 2002; Hyland & Hyland, 2001;

Ashwell, 2000; Hedge, 1988; Zellermayer, 1989; Freedman, 1987; Cardelle & Corno, 1981).

Collaborative learning in the form of collaborative writing has been variously referred to

in the literature in different contexts as ‘peer feedback’ (Gebhardt, 1980; Storch, 2005; Al-Hazmi

& Scholfield, 2007; Grami, 2010), ‘peer response, review, editing and evaluation’ (Berg, 1999;

Lundstrom & Baker, 2009), ‘peer revision’ (Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996; Suzuki, 2008) and

‘peer learning’ (Chen, 2007).

There is also a variety of additional forms of feedback available in the classroom: for

instance, written or oral conferencing (Mooko, 1996; Hyland, 2003; Rollinson, 2005); teacher-

students face-to-face conferencing (Hyland, 2000, 2003; Ferris, 2002), and error feedback, which

involves drawing students’ attention to the type of error they have made: for example, - mistakes

in choosing the appropriate verb tense (Ferris, 2001). Another form of feedback that can be given

in the classroom is direct and indirect teacher feedback (Ferris, 1995, 1998, 2001). Direct

feedback occurs when the teacher explains the error in the form to the student, whereas indirect

feedback happens when the teacher tells the students that there is a mistake in the form and that it

needs to be corrected. Other forms are ‘corrective feedback’ (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova &

Lyster, 2002; Lochtman, 2002; Ellis et al., 2008; Shaofeng, 2010); ‘praise feedback’, such as

‘that’s great’ and ‘that’s nice’; affirmative feedback (e.g., ‘yes’ and ‘no’); laughter, and non-

verbal usages (e.g., gestures) (Reigel, 2008).

2.3.2 Collaborative learning and communicative language teaching

Since using small groups in learning a second language is based on the communicative

approach to L2 instruction that focuses on helping learners to use L2 (Storch, 2002, 2005, 2007),

28
it is important to look at some aspects of communicative language teaching theory, such as the

definitions, framework and elements related to CLT, and to analyse some of the implications of

its use for second language teaching and learning.

Communicative language learning depends on involving all the members of the group in

the process of cooperation (Savignon, 1983). Communication is the exchange of feelings,

knowledge, ideas, opinions and information among people. We use language to communicate, so

we do not just communicate facts to each other, but we also convey what we feel about those

facts (Revell, 1979). Educators have hoped that the adoption of communicative language

teaching will help second language students master the necessary skills for communication with

speakers of the target language. It is important to mention the fact that in the 1970s, research into

communicative competence distinguished between linguistic and communicative competence, in

order to highlight the difference between knowledge about linguistic forms and the knowledge

that enables a person to communicate functionally and interactively. As Littlewood (1984) has

mentioned, the communicative approach emphasizes communication rather than structure. For

example, learning how to use the pattern can + infinitive enables learners to employ a variety of

communicative functions.

The major discussion on the importance of communicative competence for language

teaching was introduced by Canale and Swain (1980), who came up with a new framework of

communicative competence. This framework is composed of the following four elements:

grammatical competence, pragmatic competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic

competence. The first two elements are concerned with knowledge of the linguistic system itself,

and the rest are related to more functional aspects of communication. Grammatical competence,

which is the first element, refers to the aspect of communicative competence that encompasses

29
‘knowledge of lexical items and of rules of the morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics

and phonology’ (p. 29). This element focuses on sentence-level grammar and production of texts

(written and verbal) (Bachman & Palmer, 1996).

The second element is pragmatic competence. It concerns the user’s knowledge of rules of

discourse. This means everything from simple spoken conversation to lengthy written texts

(articles, books and the like). While grammatical competence is concerned with sentence-level

grammar, discourse competence focuses on inter-sentential relationships.

The third element is sociolinguistic competence, which refers to knowledge of the

sociocultural rules of the language and discourse. This type of competence includes an

understanding of the social context in which the language is used, the function of the interaction

in which the learners are engaged and the information they share. Savignon (1983, p. 37) says

that only in a full context of this kind can a judgment be made on the appropriateness of a

particular utterance.

Strategic competence (later called the effectiveness of communication) refers to ‘the

verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for

breakdowns in communication due to insufficient competence’ (Canale & Swain, 1980, p. 30). It

is this kind of strategy that is useful in persuasion. The implication is that people are concerned

with knowledge about how to solve communicative problems in general, which may then be

exploited when actual problems occur and performance is required.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) focuses on language skills: namely, speaking,

listening, reading and writing (Littlewood, 2007). The learner is considered the centre of the

teaching-learning process (White, 2007). Teachers provide learners with activities that enable

students to practise in their classroom. CLT differs from other learning approaches such as

30
grammar-translation in that the learner is at the centre of the teaching and learning process

(Littlewood, 1981; Nunan, 1995; White, 2007). In communicative activities, the learner should

start looking not only at language forms (grammar and vocabulary), but also at how people use

these forms when they want to communicate with each other, because communicative ability is

the goal of foreign language learning. For example, the form “Why don’t you close the door?”

could be used for different communicative goals, such as making a suggestion, giving an order or

even asking a question (Littlewood, 1984). One of the most important implications of this

approach is thus that teachers should focus on activities and exercises that enable the student to

communicate within different meaningful contexts, instead of focusing on grammatical rules.

Brown (1994) says: ‘the search for fluency should not be done at the expense of communication’

(p. 245). This means that the teacher should allow students to continue to communicate as long

as the message is clear. The literature is full of examples of how second language speakers who

have a good command of grammar have failed to communicate with speakers of the target

language. This is because they were not trained to communicate in real life situations, and

therefore were not exposed to authentic language.

Littlewood (1984) has talked about some contributions that communicative activities can

make to language learning. He claimed that communicative activities can provide whole-task

practice. This means that instead of training students to acquire skills in part, they are given

opportunities to practise them in their entirety. For example, learning to swim involves not only

practising individual movements (part-skills) but also swimming short and long distances

(whole-task). In foreign language learning, providing learners with whole-task practice in the

classroom means giving them different types of communicative activities. Littlewood also

mentioned that communicative activities can increase the learners’ motivation, because they

31
know that their objective is to communicate with their classmates. Their motivation to learn will

be increased when they notice how their classroom learning is related to their objectives.

Communicative activities can also take place inside and outside the classroom as a natural

process, which operates when a person is involved in using the language for communication. In

addition, communicative activities can provide an opportunity for positive personal relationships

to develop among learners and between learners and teachers (Littlewood, 1984).

While a communicative activity is taking place, a classroom is far from quiet, however.

The students do most of the speaking, and frequently the scene of a classroom during a

communicative exercise is active, with students leaving their seats to complete a task. Because of

the increased responsibility to participate, students may find they gain confidence in using the

target language in general. Students are more responsible managers of their own learning.

Teachers in communicative classrooms will find themselves talking less and listening more, and

becoming active facilitators of their students’ learning. The teacher sets up the exercise, but

because the students’ performance is the goal, the teacher must step back and observe,

sometimes acting as referee or monitor (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). Similar to Freeman’s statement

concerning the roles of the teacher in communicative language teaching, the following

description of these roles is provided by Littlewood (1984):

1- He is a general overseer of his learner’s learning, so he should organize and coordinate the

activities so that his learners perform their tasks effectively and coherently.

2- He is a classroom manager, so he should distribute his learners into grouping activities and

make sure that these are organized satisfactorily at a practical level.

32
3- He is sometimes a language instructor, so he may present new language, evaluate and correct

the learners’ performance.

4- He is a consultant and advisor, so he may help and advise his learners and also may discuss

their weaknesses and strengths.

5- He is sometimes a co-communicator, so he may participate in the activity. In this role, he

stimulates and presents new language without being the main initiator of the activity.

The presence of the teacher in a communicative activity functions as psychological

support for many learners because they regard him as a source of guidance and help. For

example, if they are not able to cope with the demands of a situation, the teacher can provide

them with the necessary language items or if they cannot agree with each other, he should

resolve their disagreement (Littlewood, 1984). Revell (1979) discussed what the teacher should

do about mistakes made by students in second language learning. She concentrated on not

disrupting their communicative activities and even on not disturbing their concentration. The

teacher in this case can make a note of any mistakes he hears, and go through them with

individual students when the activity has finished. Another method that the teacher may use to

deal with mistakes made by a group of students is to record the activity, using a video or audio

recorder, and then play it back to them several times. Playing is usually not only enjoyable for

them, but also useful for generating a good deal of discussion. The teacher may discuss issues

with them or ask them to discuss things with each other in groups or in pairs.

33
Second language skills may be categorized into four broad domains which make the

person communicate competently (Littlewood, 1984):

1- The learner has to attain a high range of linguistic competence spontaneously and flexibly in

order to express his or her message effectively.

2- The learner should be able to distinguish between the form that he needs for linguistic

competence and the function that he needs for communicating and performing the message.

3- The learner should be able to improve and develop different strategies and skills of language

in order to communicate and convey meanings effectively and correctly. Moreover, he

should be able to solve problems and remedy any failures by using different language.

4- The learner must be aware of the different social meanings of language forms in order to use

generally acceptable forms and avoid potentially offensive ones.

Following the literature, it is possible to define the term ‘group’ as used in CLT as two or

more people performing a task together. Group behaviour in collaborative learning as defined

here differs from that of groups in communicative language teaching by virtue of the existence of

the expert and in the use of some distinctive features of CL: the elements of positive

interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, social skills and group

processing (see pages 43-46 for more details). As stated earlier, in this study Vygotsky’s (1978,

1986) concept of the ZPD is considered the theoretical background for CL in ESL (see pages 22-

26 for more details).

Collaboration refers to an active give-and-take of ideas between persons, rather than one

person passively learning from another. Collaborative learning experiences are those in which

participants discover solutions and create knowledge together (Damon, 1984, p. 334). According

to Cohen (1994), collaborative learning means that students work together in small groups on a

34
specific activity and each student has to participate effectively. Yamarik (2007) considered

collaborative learning as ‘a teaching method where students work in small groups to help one

another learn academic material’ (261). Klingner and Schumm (1998) stated that collaborative

learning doesn’t only mean putting students together and asking them to work cooperatively; the

most important factor affecting the success of small group work is to know how to structure the

learning environment in order to develop the students’ performance. Collaborative learning

should not only be about students communicating and discussing with each other in groups, but

also about sharing materials and following elements of CL successfully (Johnson & Johnson,

1987, 1990; Graham, 2005).

Bossley (1989) defines collaborative learning in the form of collaborative writing as

simply two or more people working together in a group to write a document (cited in Lowry

Curtis Lowry, 2004). Rice and Huguley (1994) state that it is performed by two or more people

to produce and complete a text, and includes brainstorming and generating ideas, planning and

organizing, drafting, revising and editing.

Collaborative learning is based on Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) concept of the ZPD that is

considered the theoretical background for peer collaboration in second language writing.

According to De Guerrero and Villamil (2000), the ZPD establishes two levels of development:

the actual level and the possible level (see page 56 for more details). The more capable person

(expert) can assist the less capable person (Storch, 2005). So, collaborative learning involves

students who are less advanced in knowledge and who need support and help from more

advanced students, who act as experts. Some studies (Gabriele, 2007; Schmitz & Winskel, 2008)

studied the effectiveness of using more advanced peers to improve less advanced students and

found that this strategy was more beneficial than having students collaborate with each other.

35
2.4 Benefits of collaborative learning for language education

The findings of research conducted into the use of CL in second language learning have

been positive (e.g., Storch, 2002, 2003, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; DiCamilla & Anton,

1997). The results indicate that CL has a positive effect not only on accuracy in grammar but

also on discourse. According to Williams (2003), small groups are clearly beneficial not only in

writing activities but also in most teaching activities. Gillies and Ashman (2003) mention that

compared to certain traditional approaches, such as individual and competitive learning, the

collaborative learning strategy has a beneficial effect on a large number of dependent variables:

for instance, achievement, productivity, motivation, good relationships with participants,

overcoming stress and adversity. The collaborative learning strategy was thus found to be

beneficial and useful not only in language education specifically but also in various aspects of

education in general, such as motivation and interactive activities (Swain & Lapkin, 1989;

Phipps, Kask & Higgins, 2001; Graham, 2005).

Collaborative learning provides structured opportunities for individuals to work together

to reach common goals. It is usually contrasted with traditional individualistic and competitive

classroom environments (Kessler, 2003). For example, individual learning does not help students

to benefit from their contribution to their learning, whereas the main concern of competitive

learning is to place students in competition with each other. Hill and Hill (1990) assert that CL

can enable learners to achieve highly, develop their thinking and deepen their understanding,

develop leadership skills, promote positive views about other learners, build self-esteem and

acquire a sense of belonging, and that it also makes for enjoyable learning. Performing tasks in a

group can therefore lead children to provide each other with information, suggestions, reminders

and encouragement (Gillies & Ashman, 1998, 2003). Harmer (2004) suggests that successful

36
group activities help students to learn from each other and enable each one to access the other’s

mind and knowledge. Graham (2005) studied how students’ reflections on and performance in

collaborative writing encouraged them to discuss, debate, disagree and also to teach one another.

CL also enabled them to be more interactive and cooperative and perhaps prepared them more

suitably for the twenty-first century. By contrast, he found that during their collaboration,

students concentrated on the product rather than the process of writing, and therefore paid a great

deal of attention to sentence-level errors rather than to the content and ideas of the text.

Collaborative learning is a strategy that helps to increase both the quality and productivity

of writing skills. Ferguson-Patrick (2007) was interested in developing beginner writers, so she

studied the effectiveness of implementing CL to develop the literacy of L2 children at a primary

school in Newcastle, Australia. The students were taught interpersonal skills in order to help

them to collaborate effectively. They were then given writing tasks to accomplish in pairs and

each one was asked to use a different colour in order to adopt the concept of individual

accountability. Both observation and tape-recording were used to analyse the pair’s talk during

each writing session. The findings showed that using coloured pencils was an effective strategy

in helping children to share tasks. However, the recordings of all seven sessions indicated that

the children did not engage in pre-writing talk even though the researcher kept reminding them

to talk and discuss with each other before writing. However, the recordings of the sessions

indicated that they did nevertheless employ a strategy of re-reading written texts in order to

understand the meaning before continuing on. This strategy helped to increase their productivity

in writing. The recordings also revealed other types of cooperative behaviour such as developing

the skill of turn-taking. Writing collaboratively helped pairs to increase the number of different

words they used.

37
Moreover, cooperation in small groups is effective in enabling weak students to learn

from strong partners. It is clear that students who work individually may get stuck, so that

working collaboratively with strong students may help them to understand the materials more

easily. Gabriele (2007) examined the influence of high achieving peers on improving the

achievement goals and comprehension monitoring of low achieving students. This study was

conducted in an urban school in the mid-west of the United States, where thirty-two low upper

elementary students were paired with high achieving students to improve their level of

constructive activity (solving problems). Videotapes were made of the students solving

mathematical word problems collaboratively, and these were then transcribed. The day following

the experiment, the students were post-tested individually on similar problems. The results

indicated that the low achieving students had improved in the post-test in terms of the

constructive activities.

According to Schmitz and Winskel (2008), having low achieving students collaborating

with experts or more able helpers is more beneficial than having them collaborate with each

other. They studied the effectiveness of children partnering each other in a collaborative

problem-solving task. The aim was to determine whether children of low-middle-ability dyads

who engaged in exploratory talk with helpers would be better in a problem-solving task than

children of low-middle-ability dyads who worked collaboratively with their partners. The study

recruited 54 children (26 boys, 28 girls) from a government primary school in Western Sydney,

Australia. The students’ ages ranged between 10 and 12 years. The participants were given a pre-

test problem-solving task to complete individually. Any students who took more than 20 minutes

to complete the task would be assigned to the low-task-specific-ability category. Students who

took between 12 and 20 minutes to complete it were categorized in the middle-task-ability group,

38
while those who finished in less than 10 minutes were classified as high-task-ability. After the

first classification, 27 children were selected from the original 54; 13 of the 27 were found to be

of low-high ability and 14 of low-middle ability. Because the researchers aimed to measure the

effectiveness of helpers and experts, 7 of the low-high dyads were asked to help and assist 6 of

the low-middle dyads by giving them roles to play and instructions to use during the

collaboration. On the other hand, 7 of the low-high dyads and 7 of the low-middle dyads were

asked to collaborate with each other without being given any roles or instructions. The roles and

instructions were modified from Mercer, Wegerif and Dawes’ (1999) study, as follows:

(1) Share all information

(2) Encourage others to speak
(3) All ideas are respected
(4) Asking why is okay
(5) Give reasons for your ideas
(6) Try to agree
(7) Discuss each other’s ideas before making a decision.
All participants were given small clip-on microphones and audio recorders were placed on the

desks. The study’s results showed that although no significant differences appeared between

those dyads who were given roles and instructions and those who were not, it was clear that the

exploratory talk of students who collaborated with the low-middle-ability students was more

effective than that of students in the low-high-ability dyad condition.

As mentioned earlier, collaborative learning has been used to solve problems in education.

According to Kagan (1994), it helps to (1) increase academic achievement; (2) increase the level

of competitive relations among students; and (3) encourage students to become involved in

social and effective settings. Slavin (1983) examined the influence of collaborative learning on

academic achievement. He chose 46 learners from classes in elementary and high school and

39
focused on their achievements. He found that 63% achieved impressive outcomes during

involvement in CL, 33% indicated no differences, and only 4% showed good achievement in

traditional methods.

Collaborative learning is considered an effective strategy for problem solving. Fawcett

and Garton (2005) investigated the impact of CL on the problem solving ability of 100 children

(aged between 6 and 7 years) at a primary school in Western Australia and attempted to

determine whether using explanatory language or knowledge differences were contributing

factors. The children completed two sorting tasks involving blocks of various colours, shapes

and sizes, and were given the choice to work together collaboratively or to work individually.

The findings indicated that children who completed the activity collaboratively achieved a higher

number of correct sortings than those who completed it individually. A comparison between the

pre- and post-test results of the collaborative group revealed that children of a lower sorting

ability who completed their work collaboratively with peers of a higher sorting ability had

improved significantly in the post-test.

The collaborative learning strategy has also emerged as a significant concept within the

field of language education. According to Nunan (1992) and McWham et al. (2003),

collaborative learning is now a necessity for education. They list several reasons for this. First,

students need to develop certain aspects of their learning together. Second, the number of

projects that require a team approach in the classroom has increased recently all over the world.

Third, teachers often want to experiment with alternative techniques that may help them to

control and organize their classrooms. Finally, researchers, teachers and students all have the

desire to create a collaborative environment that will help students to learn from each other

equitably. Kessler (2003) investigated the extent to which CL is used in teacher education

40
courses and the problems associated with using it. He emailed surveys randomly to 595 teachers

who used to teach in the United States. The divisions of the survey were designed for four

different categories of teacher: a) those who had never before used CL; b) those who had used it

before but did not like it; c) those who had used it; d) those who had used only some elements of

CL. He found that 86% of the teachers believed that learning is a social, interactive process, so

the outcomes of using CL would be positive compared to using the traditional method of

teaching. The survey revealed various problems associated with using CL, such as an inability to

develop student commitment to work with their groups collaboratively. This method was also

found to be problematic when teachers wanted to assess and evaluate individual work.

Collaborative learning is considered by some as a new, cheap strategy, which is easy to

teach, and, whenever students work with each other collaboratively, they will have the

opportunity to acquire new skills, knowledge and understanding; consequently they will be able

to improve their performance effectively (Webb, 1993). CL methods are ‘inexpensive, relatively

easy to implement, and consistently effective in a time of diminishing resources and rising

expectations for education’ (Slavin, 1987, p. 78). CL is also beneficial and useful in motivating

and encouraging students at most stages of learning, in elementary, intermediate and secondary

education, and even at postgraduate level. Working in small groups can improve students’

motivation. Students who are strongly motivated can encourage low-motivated students by

collaborating with them (Garibaldi, 1979; Gunderson & D. Johnson, 1980; D. Johnson &

Ahlgren, 1976).

In addition, learning in groups helps students to interact with each other collaboratively.

According to Williams (2003), working in groups provides learners with the opportunity to talk

about their activities socially and collaboratively. Discussing in groups is considered one of the

41
best ways to make writing more meaningful and clearer and to help students to improve their

writing strategies. In addition, interactive activities help students to become able to read their

work critically (Hawkins, 1980; Huff & Kline, 1987, cited in Williams, 2003). Being able to read

critically helps students to build their mental processes and become better writers. Somapee

(2002) investigated the effectiveness of CL in developing students’ critical thinking skills in

Business English I at Chiangrai Commercial School in Chiangrai, Thailand. The researcher

designed an experimental study that included two groups: a treatment group that was taught

business English using a collaborative learning strategy and a non-treatment group that was

taught through the traditional method. The findings indicated that the thinking skills of learners

who used collaborative learning improved more than those of students in the other group. The

results from the questionnaire showed that the attitudes of learners in the experimental group

were moderately positive.

Although some aspects of CL have been found to have positive results, however, some

research findings have revealed a negative side. Storch (2005) noticed that some students were

reluctant to work in pairs. They preferred to perform their tasks individually rather than

collaboratively. Moreover, collaborative learning may not help to reduce the writer’s anxiety and

apprehension. Murau (1993) investigated the effect of peer review on writing anxiety.

Questionnaires about attitudes and feelings were given to four Japanese, four Brazilian and two

Chinese, one Mexican and one Israeli student. He found that 92% of the participants used peer

review. Although 100% of the participants believed that peer review was helpful, their feelings

about it were negative. They felt anxious, embarrassed and uncomfortable, even though they

thought it was beneficial to receive feedback and correct each other. Moreover, peer review may

give some students a lack of confidence in their writing. Only one student felt positive about peer

42
review. Since English was not his first language, he saw making mistakes as normal. By contrast,

Kagan (1994) claims that CL is appropriate for ESL students because it helps to reduce anxiety

and give each student in a small group the opportunity to interact with others.

The examination of previous studies presented in this section has shown some of the

positive and beneficial aspects of CL. One of the main questions in this study concerns whether

or not these benefits are experienced by ESL learners in a Saudi context.

2.5 Elements of Collaborative Learning

The collaboration of students in small groups does not mean students simply sitting side

by side in order to communicate and discuss with each other. Nor does it mean allowing only one

member of a group to complete all the work by him/herself with the others simply putting their

names on the final product (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). Collaboration means talking about

and/or sharing materials with others in the group and using the aspects and elements of CL

successfully (Graham, 2005). In this section we present some of the distinctive features of CL

that were used in this research.

In order to establish a formal collaborative learning strategy, teachers need to take into

consideration five basic elements: (1) the ability of students to participate collaboratively in tasks

and be ready to share their work with others; (2) individual and group responsibility; (3) face-to-

face interaction; (4) teamwork skills, and (5) group processing (Smith, 1998). According to

Johnson and Johnson (1999), there are five elements of collaborative learning that help students

to increase their achievement and to improve, as follows:

43
1- Positive interdependence

The first element that leads to successful collaborative learning is the belief that failing at

least one student of the group means failing all, so that one member cannot succeed unless all

members do, and vice versa (Johnson & Johnson, 1987, 1989). The success of each member in

the cooperative group thus basically depends on all the others. Strong positive interdependence

refers to the whole group working together effectively and successfully (Kagan, 1994). It is

established when all members of the team become encouraged and motivated to ensure that

everyone does well. However, weak positive interdependence is created when the success of the

cooperative group is seen as being dependent on the success of at least one member in the group

(Kagan, 1994). Positive interdependence helps students to improve their individuality and their

social identity (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). In addition, positive interdependence is considered to

be both the basis and the heart of CL (Graham, 2005; Kagan, 1994). Therefore, positive

interdependence establishes mutual benefits for learners, a sense of joint responsibility that

means they care about the success not only of themselves but also of other members in the

group; it makes their social environment more supportive and thus helps them to be more

motivated, confident and excellent in academic achievement (Nunan, 1992; Kohonen, 1992).

2- Individual Accountability

This element is based on Vygotsky’s (1978) belief that ‘what a child can do with

assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow’ (p. 87). The individual

accountability technique is important and useful because it helps the group to know which

students need more support, encouragement and assistance. One of the main purposes of the

students cooperating together is therefore to strengthen every member of the group (Graham,

2005). Moreover, it enhances the concept that students cannot ‘hitch a ride’ on the work of other

44
members of the group. Teachers thus need to ensure that not only are all members of the group

working collaboratively, but also that every single member of the group takes individual

responsibility for making a concerted effort to contribute effectively to the group’s work.

According to Johnson (1991), there are some good ways to structure individual accountability,

such as giving every member of the group a test to answer individually, choosing one of the

group’s members to represent the whole group, and asking some members to teach what they

have learned to others.

3- Face-to-Face Interaction

Face-to-face interaction is fostered by the positive interdependence element. It can be

defined as facilitating, supporting and encouraging individuals to assist each other’s efforts

(Johnson & Johnson, 1987). Face-to-face interaction has several effects on individual members

of the learning group (Johnson & Johnson, 1987):

a- It helps them to exchange information and materials with others.

b- It provides feedback that helps them to improve their performance effectively.

c- It challenges the conclusions of each member and this helps to improve the quality of

decision making.

d- It encourages students to be strongly motivated.

e- It decreases levels of anxiety and stress.

4- Social skills

The fourth important element of successful collaborative learning is using the appropriate

social skills. Students can learn together successfully when they know and trust each other,

communicate accurately, support and help each other, resolve any conflicts and solve problems

successfully (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). However, the collaborative learning strategy will not be

45
used accurately and effectively if students do not learn the appropriate interpersonal skills. The

teachers’ role is thus to clarify to their students the social skills they need for their collaborative

learning groups, skills such as leadership, conflict management, trust-building and decision

making (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999, 2003). The more skilful collaborators are socially, the

more feedback they receive or give on this skill, the higher the achievement of the CL group will

be (Graham, 2005).

5- Group Processing

This element is a reflection on sessions of collaborative learning in order to determine

whether the actions of the group’s members are helpful or if there is a need to make some

changes. Group processing is therefore important because it gives the students the opportunity to

evaluate and maintain their social skills and receive some feedback on their practice during the

sessions. Moreover, in this stage teachers have an essential role to play in order to help students

achieve successful collaborative groups. For example, observations of the students are a good

way to find out whether the students understand all the structures, information, strategies and the

basic elements of collaborative learning (Graham, 2005).

2.6 Collaborative writing in ESL classes

Using small groups in learning a second language depends on both a theoretical

background and a pedagogical perspective (Storch, 2002). With regard to the pedagogical

approach, the use of small groups is usually based on the communicative approach to L2

instruction that focuses on helping learners to use L2 (Storch, 2002). Collaborative writing refers

to a group of writers working in small groups as a team to produce and complete a shared piece

of writing. Although, according to Noël and Robert (2003), CW helps students to express their

46
viewpoints and ideas and saves time and effort, ESL writers have difficulties accomplishing it.

Ballard and Clanchy (1992) claim that collaborative writing is not an easy task, especially for

ESL/EFL speakers, because learning in group settings requires double the amount of effort: for

instance, in sharing work together, responding to each other and accepting critiques from each

other. However, as Elbow (1973) points out, CW in the classroom is useful and important, since

if someone is stuck in his or her writing, it is better to contact and talk with someone else. He

claims that ‘two heads are better than one because two heads can make conflicting material inter-

act better than one head usually can’ (p. 49). Moreover, Storch (2002) interviewed a sample of

ESL students and found that writing collaboratively could encourage them to share responsibility

for making decisions on all aspects and categories of writing, including content, structure and

language.

Some researchers, such as Hardaway, Murray and Elbow, believe that the effectiveness of

collaborative writing is limited to the final stages of the process approach to writing: i.e., revising

and editing. However, Gebhardt (1980) argues that collaborative writing has a positive effect not

only in these final stages but also in the beginning stages: for instance, in brainstorming,

collecting ideas, planning and outlining. In his opinion it would be a shame to limit collaboration

to the final stages of the writing process because ‘It seems to me that collaborative writing

strategies should be applied to finding a promising topic, generating details on the topic, and

locating the intended audience for a paper’ (p. 73). Moreover, Storch’s studies (1999, 2002 &

2005) indicated that using a collaborative learning strategy in writing classes is effective in

beginning activities: namely, brainstorming and discussing collaboratively, and also in final

stages such as the peer review and editing stages. One of the stages in the collaborative writing

process involves reviewing (including peer editing, peer evaluation and peer response); in this

47
stage students either collect and get feedback on their own writing or give additional feedback on

the papers of others (Hansen, 2005; Baker, 2009; Mangelsdorf, 1992). In the peer review stage,

students tend to make suggestions to each other in order to improve their final drafts. In addition,

peer review activities such as peer editing, peer evaluation and peer response function to give the

students feedback. Gebhardt (1980) mentions that feedback is the basis of collaborative writing,

so that the influence of peers is nothing without it. Moreover, Elbow (1975) advises the use of

peer response in the revising and editing stages because it helps both the reader to become

familiar with the writer’s style and the writer to gain more experience in understanding the

comments of others.

However, the peer review stage focuses mainly on the product rather than the process of

writing. Nelson and Carson (1998) indicate that students in peer response groups focus on

finding mistakes. They pay a great deal of attention to the correction of words and sentence-level

problems, which is considered to constitute the final editing phase of the writing process. Nelson

and Carson (1998) found that the main focus in group interactions was on aspects of the written

product such as grammar, spelling and punctuation.

2.7 Paulus’s (1999) Essay Scoring Rubric

In this research it was clearly necessary to measure changes in the students’ essays over

time. There are many scales for evaluating essays, such as the ‘FL Composition Profile’ and the

‘Six Traits of Writing’. The FL Composition Profile scale was designed by Valdes and Dvorak

(1989) to assess students in certain aspects of their writing on a scale of 0 - 100. The scale of the

Six Traits of Writing was designed by Carlin-Menter (2006) to measure ideas, organization,

voice, word choice, sentence fluency and conventions.

48
The scale that seemed most appropriate for this study, however, is known as Paulus’s

rubric (Paulus, 1999). It is therefore important to discuss her study here and to show evidence of

the success of the rubric. The aim of Paulus’s study was to determine whether training

undergraduate ESL students studying on a pre-university composition writing course in the USA

to practise feedback and revisions would be effective in improving their writing skills. When the

students finished their first draft, they received both written and oral feedback from their

classmates. After revising and writing the second draft, they received feedback from the teacher.

Finally, they were asked to revise and submit the final draft. Paulus found that students produced

843 revisions in total, 62.5% of which focused on changes in surface aspects of the essays such

as spelling and structure, while 37.5% concerned changes in meaning. She also found that both

peer and teacher feedback helped students to improve their multiple drafts.

Her Essay Scoring Rubric was developed from the composition rubrics in the Michigan

English Language Assessment Battery (MELAB) (Hamp-Lyons, 1991) that only measures

essays holistically. Paulus’s change was to add writing categories “in order to reflect what was

taught in the course and the goals of this particular persuasive essay” (p. 285). The writing

categories were Organization, Development, Cohesion/Coherence, Structure, Vocabulary and

Mechanics. These categories will be explained further on page 81.

Paulus’s own research showed that the rubric could be used successfully for evaluating

students’ essays and assessing aspects of their writing both globally and locally. Other studies

concerned with teaching writing skills have used Paulus’s Essay Scoring rubric: for example,

Lundstrom and Baker (2009), who felt that it “allowed for an analytical assessment of both the

global and local aspects of writing, in addition to providing a holistic, overall final assessment

score” (p. 34). The rubric has been widely used in research such as that of Lundstrom and Baker

49
(2009), and Grami (2010). It was used in the current research because it suited the types of

classroom and the approach adopted, and because it measured appropriate aspects of the

students’ performance (see pages 81-83 for further details).

2.8 Previous studies of Collaborative Learning

During the last three decades, the positive advantages of collaborative learning and its

effective role in improving students’ skills have become clear in many fields of learning, such as

reading, second language acquisition, natural and social studies (Slavin & Madden, 1999;

Shachar & Sharan, 1994; Foley & O’Donnell, 2002). This section sheds light on the relationship

of CL with second language acquisition with an emphasis on learning L2 writing skills.

Gooden-Jones (1996) selected 10 immigrant volunteer students from a community

college in New York City. These students had several times failed the language proficiency test

that was a main condition for entrance to the college. Through different kinds of evaluation such

as observation, questionnaires, interviews and written essays, he examined how the students

developed their writing proficiency through a collaborative learning strategy. The students were

taught the collaborative learning strategy for six weeks. They were also asked to keep a journal

about their learning experiences. The researcher found that 80% of the students had passed the

written achievement test (WAT) administered by the college. An analysis of the students’ essays

indicated that the collaborative learning strategy had led to an improvement in their writing

skills.

Regarding the effectiveness of discussion during the pre-writing stage, Shi (1998)

attempted to determine whether peer-talk that occurred during the pre-writing stage of writing

could help ESL learners to write better quality essays than teacher-led discussions. The results

50
showed that peer discussion during the pre-writing stage helped students to produce strong

essays in terms of verbs. In addition, it was found that students who had not engaged in any

discussion produced long essays compared with those who had been involved in teacher-led talk,

who wrote shorter drafts. Moreover, peer-talk during the pre-writing stage helped students to

immerse themselves in the social context, either as a result of scaffolding by their teachers or by

assisting each other to discover various words and ideas.

With regard to the development of fluency and accuracy of L2 in collaborative

classrooms, Storch (1999) aimed to determine whether discussing grammar collaboratively could

help students to produce accurate written texts more than working individually. The students

were given three different exercises: a closed exercise, text reconstruction and composition. Each

exercise included two versions: one was done individually and the other was carried out

collaboratively. After comparing the three exercises that had been done collaboratively with

those completed individually, the students’ scores in the closed exercise revealed some

development in certain grammatical aspects such as verb tense and derivational morphology,

although the use of articles had not improved. The total score in the first version was 58%, but

this had increased to 77% in the second version. Similarly, the finding in the text reconstruction

exercise indicated an increase in average accuracy from 63% in the first version to 86% in the

second version. The results of the composition exercises showed that the pairs wrote short essays

in terms of numbers of words, sentences and clauses. However, the students produced less

complex sentences after being involved in collaborative learning. In addition, the average

percentage of errors in the first version was 13.6, but this had decreased to 7.75% in the second

version. It was therefore clear that CL had a positive effect on overall grammatical accuracy.

51
Various researchers have studied the influence of collaborative learning on improving

writing skills. Storch (2005) examined the effectiveness of using either pairs or small groups in

improving English writing skills by making a comparison between texts written in groups with

others written individually. The experiment was applied in an ESL classroom at a large

Australian university. Storch gave the participants the opportunity to complete their work either

individually or collaboratively. Only five of the participants chose to work individually while the

remainder preferred to work collaboratively. They were asked to write one or two paragraphs.

The researcher taught the class for four weeks. The students’ scores in the diagnostic test ranged

from 5 to 6 on a scale of 9. Those students who worked collaboratively used a tape-recorder to

record their conversations while completing their compositions. They were then interviewed

individually in order to obtain further information about their experience in the collaborative

writing process. Storch found that the students who worked collaboratively spent a great deal of

time writing their compositions but produced short texts compared to the students who wrote

individually. Another finding was that writing collaboratively helped students to produce better

grammatical and complex written texts. In addition, the pairs tended to write more complex

sentences than those who wrote individually, as measured by the percentage of dependent

clauses and T-units. A T-unit is defined by Hunt (1996) as ‘one main clause plus whatever

subordinate clauses happen to be attached to or embedded within it’ (p. 735). Storch found that

the length of the T-units was 16 words in the collaborative groups, but only 12 words with

individuals. In terms of the process approach to writing, he found that working in small groups

encouraged students to collaborate in order to generate ideas. Moreover, Storch reported after

interviewing some of the students that collaborative writing had enabled them to collect and

generate ideas and become able to use them effectively. In addition, both the ESL and EFL

52
students had become able to provide and obtain feedback from each other successfully, and

stated that CW was a simple way to give and receive feedback on language, which might explain

why students in pairs produced better essays in terms of grammar than others who wrote

individually.

In another study, Storch and Wigglesworth (2007, 2009) made a comparison between

texts produced by students writing in pairs with other texts produced individually in order to

determine whether there were differences in certain aspects of writing, such as accuracy, fluency

and complexity. The study was conducted at an Australian University; two thirds of the

participants were female and one third was male and they all came from an Asian background.

The first test involved writing a report based on visual prompts, while the second was an

argumentative task. Since some studies have shown that pairs take a longer time in talking (e.g.,

Storch, 1999, 2005), individual students were given 20 minutes to finish the report task and 40

minutes for the essay, whereas pairs were given 30 minutes for the report and 60 minutes for the

essay. A data analysis was carried out on the written texts of both individuals and pairs, and

transcripts were made of the work of 12 pairs selected at random. The results indicated that there

were significant differences between students who completed their tasks in pairs and those who

worked individually in terms of accuracy; however, the differences in terms of fluency and

complexity were not significant.

Storch’s previous studies were all relevant to this research, since they compared the

quality of written texts produced by students in cooperation with their peers with that of texts

produced individually, in terms of accuracy (grammar) and fluency (Storch, 1999, 2005; Storch

& Wigglesworth, 2007, 2009).

53
Peer revision is considered to be one of the collaborative writing strategies and has been

investigated by several researchers. Suzuki (2008) examined the significance of pedagogical

differences between self-revisions and peer revisions of written compositions among adult ESL

learners. She aimed to study the relationship between self-revisions and peer revisions and

negotiation. She also wanted to know which changes occur during both self- and peer revisions.

The participants, who were all middle-class students and who had all obtained the same score on

the TOEFL test, were asked to write essays on two different topics. They were then divided into

two similar groups (A & B) in terms of language proficiency, writing accuracy, gender, age and

length of L2 learning. The researcher used a variety of techniques to collect the data. She

observed the whole class for three months and interviewed the students’ teacher. She gave the

students the opportunity to read a few chapters each week and to write summaries of what they

had read. All students in both groups were asked to spend half an hour writing an essay about a

famous historical personage. Group A was asked to complete a questionnaire giving

demographic information. Then they listened to instructions on how to think aloud and practise

how they could solve their writing problems. The L2 writers in group A engaged in self-revision

for 15 minutes and their revisions were recorded. The students in group B, on the other hand,

were instructed in methods of peer revision, and each student was asked to spend 15 minutes

revising his/her classmate’s essay for 15 minutes using clearly distinguishable writing. They then

engaged in discussions with each other that were also tape-recorded. The instructions on both

self- and peer revision were given not only in English but also in Japanese (this being the native

language of the students). Suzuki found that the number of episodes of negotiation in peer

revision was high (682 episodes) compared to the number of self-revisions (522 episodes). In

contrast, students who had engaged in self-revisions had changed their texts 287 times, whereas

54
those who had engaged in peer revision had changed them only 166 times. These results indicate

that those students who had engaged in peer revision had paid more frequent attention to both

meta-talk, content and ideas, whereas the students involved in self-revisions focused on choosing

words, correcting grammar and improving language form. In another part of Suzuki’s (2009)

study, she examined the L2 writers’ self-assessments for changes in their texts after both self-

and peer revision, concentrating on linguistic accuracy. The participants, procedure and analysis

were similar to those in Suzuki’s previous study (2008). The results showed that the number of

text changes was slightly higher after peer revisions than after self-revision.

The relevance of Suzuki’s (2009) study to this research lay in its concern with peer

revision. For this research, collaboration during the revision stage was investigated through the

questionnaire. It was therefore useful to consult Suzuki’s study in order to see the significance of

pedagogical differences found between self-revisions and peer revisions of written compositions

produced by adult ESL learners.

In addition, Villamil and de Guerrero (1996) investigated several points relevant to peer

revision, as follows: a) the kinds of revision activities in which pairs were involved; b) the

strategies students use when engaging in peer revision, and c) the categories of social behaviour

that occur when students are involved in dyadic peer revision. 54 students from the Inter-

American University of Puerto Rico were chosen for this study. The students had been taught

two writing courses: narration and persuasion, for four weeks. They were asked to write sample

essays and taught how to engage in peer revision. The main purpose of the training was to

produce a first draft that included peer revisions. Students were required to read their first draft

aloud before engaging in peer revision. After revising the first draft in pairs, they were asked to

write their final draft at home. The students’ revisions were recorded and transcribed by graduate

55
students. The results showed that during peer revision collaborative dyads are encouraged to

perform various social cognitive activities such as handling problems, drafting, making notes,

reading and writing comments. In addition, five strategies were used in peer revisions:

employing symbols and external resources, using the Ll, scaffolding, resorting to inter-language

knowledge, and vocalizing private speech. The categories of social behaviour found to occur in

dyadic peer revision were management of authorial control, collaboration, affectivity and

adopting reader/writer roles. As the study of Villamil and de Guerrero (1996) investigated some

points related to peer revisions, the findings were helpful for this research in demonstrating the

type of behaviour found in such dyads.

In another study conducted by Villamil and Guerrero (2000), an in-depth investigation

was carried out into the types of behaviour and mechanisms that make scaffolding and the use of

the ZPD more effective in second language peer revision. Two Spanish male intermediate ESL

college students, who had taken a course in writing development, were selected for this study.

Thus the interaction of only one dyad was observed in order to assess the students’ behaviour

during ZPD activities. The students were first told to write sample essays, then instructed in

methods of peer revision, and finally engaged in a peer revision session. One student was chosen

at random to be the reader and the other to be the writer of the composition. They were also

taught how to revise the draft and asked to record their discussion during the revision session.

The methodology used was similar to that used in a previous study they had conducted in 1996.

The results showed that the reader acted as a mediator and that various types of behaviour were

facilitated. Scaffolding and use of the ZPD helped both participants to manage their interaction

effectively, to explain and illustrate various grammatical issues, and to make their written texts

more critical and analytical. This study was also useful for this research because it provided clear

56
observations concerning the importance of mechanisms of scaffolding and the ZPD during

collaborative interaction between two ESL learners.

Berg (1999) investigated the effectiveness of using peer response in both revision and

quality of writing. One group of 23 ESL students was trained in using peer response, while

another group of 23 ESL students received no training. Berg then compared the first and second

drafts of the trained students with the drafts of the untrained students. The main research

question for this study concerned whether trained students would produce better results in both

revision techniques and quality of writing. One of the interesting findings was that the trained

ESL students were better able to improve their drafts through revision than the untrained

students. Secondly, the trained students were found to have made more revisions in meaning than

the untrained students. Both the improvements in the revised drafts and the increase in the

number of meaning revisions resulted in the trained ESL students producing better quality

second drafts than the untrained students.

Shull (2001) examined the effectiveness of the collaborative learning strategy that

included peer-editing used to improve the writing skills of two high school English 11 standard

classes at Romeoville High School in the USA. He aimed to determine if CL could be an

appropriate approach to solving the problems in their writing. The data were gathered from

essays written at the beginning and end of the study. He thus used a quasi-experimental approach

that included teaching expository compositions to the experimental and control groups. The

experimental group included 28 students and was taught through a collaborative learning

strategy, whereas the non-treatment group contained 26 students and was taught using either

traditional or teacher-centred methods. After conducting qualitative tests, Shull found that the

57
writing of students taught using a collaborative learning strategy had improved more than that of

the control group.

Several researchers have examined students’ perceptions of CL. Phipps, Kask and Higgins

(2001) investigated the perceptions of 210 college students. Their results were contradictory:

although the students’ perceptions were positive regarding some elements of CL, such as positive

interpersonal activity, small group skills and individual accountability, they were negative about

certain other techniques, such as face-to-face interaction and group processing. In addition, 48

per cent of them considered CL to be useful for motivating students to learn effectively. Only 18

per cent of them believed that the collaborative learning strategy affected learning positively.

Moreover, some other students said that although they did not mind sharing their marks for

regular projects and assignments and during class, they did not like sharing marks for exams.

Mulryan (1994) examined the perceptions and attitudes towards working together

cooperatively of 48 students in the fifth and sixth grades at a school in the USA and compared

these with their teachers’ perceptions. She interviewed the students in three stages: 1) at the

beginning of the study; 2) at the end of the study, and 3) after observation of each lesson.

Similarly, the teachers were interviewed at the beginning and at the end of the study. The study

results showed that students’ perceptions of CL were positive. They believed that CL helped

them to minimize their mistakes by exchanging information and by giving them the total

freedom to solve their problems in a supportive atmosphere. The teachers’ perspectives on CL

were also positive. They thought that CL gave their students the opportunity to learn from each

other, work with and help others, and to seek help from others. The teachers added that the

students should not only be working with each other but they should also be engaging in other

58
CL activities, such as encouraging, explaining and discussing. They felt the students should be

willing to open their ears and listen to the opinions of others and to be active in their groups.

A collaborative network environment has also been found to enhance essay-writing

processes. Lindblom-Ylänne and Pihlajamäki (2003) interviewed 25 law students who were

studying on a course in legal history at the University of Helsinki. Both the students and their

teacher had positive experiences of the essay-writing process. The students were divided into two

groups. The first group contained students who felt that sharing their written drafts with peers

was an interesting idea; the second group consisted of those who felt that sharing written drafts

was a threatening idea. The study findings indicated that an active use of a computer-supported

learning environment resulted in students getting good marks in their essays. Moreover, the

majority of students felt that sharing written drafts collaboratively was a highly beneficial and

useful experience.

It has also been noticed that the use of scaffolding may help students to regulate their

learning effectively. Azevedo, Cromley and Seibert (2004) investigated the effectiveness of three

different types of scaffolding (adoptive scaffolding, fixed scaffolding and no scaffolding) in

regulating students’ learning using hypermedia. The participants were 51 undergraduates (13

male and 38 female) at the Mid-Atlantic University in the USA. Various types of measurement

were used with the students: a pre-test and a post-test, and a questionnaire. The topic was human

circulatory systems, and parts of the tests involved matching words with corresponding

definitions, labelling 20 components on a picture of the heart, drawing the path of the blood

through the body, and writing an essay about circulatory systems. Students were shown a CD-

ROM about the human body (e.g., heart, circulatory system and blood). The results showed that

adoptive scaffolding improved students’ mental processes more than the other two types. Fixed

59
and no scaffolding were found to be less effective in regulating learning than adoptive

scaffolding.

Table 2.1 below contains a summary of previous studies on collaborative learning,

indicating the nature of the study, numbers of participants involved, types of experiment used

and the findings of the study. The table shows that the issues investigated in most previous

studies on collaborative learning were:

The benefits of peer-talk as opposed to teacher-led discussions (Shi, 1998).

The quality of written texts produced by students in cooperation with their peers

compared with that of texts produced individually, in terms of accuracy

(grammar) and fluency (Storch, 1999, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007,

2009).

The use of self-revisions and peer revisions of written compositions (Suzuki,

2008).

The types of behaviour and mechanisms that make scaffolding and use of the

ZPD more effective in second language peer revision (Villamil & Guerrero, 1996,

2000).

The attitudes and perceptions of both teachers and students concerning

collaborative learning (Mulryan, 1994; Phipps, Kask & Higgins, 2001).

The effectiveness of the collaborative learning strategy on improving writing

skills (Shull, 2001).

Table 2.1 also details the research methods commonly employed, as follows:

Observation (Shi, 1998).

60
Collection of essays and conducting interviews with students (Storch, 1999, 2005;

Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007, 2009).

Having the subjects write essays and conducting observation (Villamil &

Guerrero, 1996, 2000).

Interview and questionnaire (Mulryan, 1994; Phipps, Kask & Higgins, 2001).

61
Table 2.1 Previous studies of collaborative learning
Study Aim Participants Type of Treatment Groups Findings
Evaluation
Gooden-Jones 10 immigrant Observation, The volunteers were taught the CL 80% of the students had passed the written
(1996) volunteer stud- questionnaires, strategy for six weeks and asked to keep achievement test (WAT) administered by
To examine how ents from a interviews and a journal about their learning the college.
the students devel- community written essays experiences. CL strategy had improved students’
oped their writing college in New discovery of writing skills as a method of
proficiency through York city learning
CL strategy
Shi (1998) 47 internation- Tape recording Some analytic instruments were used in Peer discussion during the pre-writing
To determine al students at and this study such as non-parametric tests stage helped students to produce strong
whether peer-talk elementary, Observation. for rating scores, length of essays in essays in terms of verbs.
during pre-writing intermediate terms of the numbers of verbs used in the Students who did not engage in any
stage could help and advanced pre-writing discussions. The researcher discussion produced long essays compared
improve quality of levels of Eng- developed a coding scheme for verbs that with those who had been involved in
essays more than lish in Ontario, helped to determine whether there was a teacher-led talk who produced shorter
teacher-led Canada. difference between peer-discussions and drafts.
discussions. teacher-led discussions. Peer-talk during the pre-writing stage
helped students to involve themselves
more deeply in social contexts because
they were scaffolded by their teachers or
they assisted each other cooperatively to
discover various words and ideas.

62
Study Aim Participants Type of Treatment Groups Findings
Evaluation
Storch (1999) Eleven internat- Three different Every exercise included two versions; The students’ scores in closed exercises
To see if discuss- ional students exercises: a the first version was done individually, showed development in some grammatical
ing grammar had finished closed whereas the other version was aspects such as verb tense and derivational
collaboratively their English exercise, text completed collaboratively. morphology but articles were not improved.
could help students academic course reconstruct- Comparing the three exercises that had Text reconstruction indicated an increase in
to produce more from an ion, and been done collaboratively with those average accuracy from 63% in the first
accurate written Australian composition. completed individually. version to 86% in the second version.
texts than working University with CL had a positive influence on overall
individually. an English level grammatical accuracy.
of intermediate
or advanced.
Storch (2005) 23 adult ESL Students were Students were given the choice to work Pairs wrote shorter compositions than
Comparing texts learners at a asked to either in pairs or individually and were individuals.
produced by pairs large Australian compose a asked to write one or two paragraphs. Collaborative writing helped students to
with other texts University short (one to Students were taught for four weeks. produce better texts in terms of grammatical
produced individ- two Their scores in the diagnostic test accuracy and complexity.
ually and investig- paragraphs) ranged from 5 to 6 on a scale of 9. The Higher percentage of dependent clauses and
ating the nature of text. students in pairs were given a tape T-units found for pairs than for individuals.
the writing Tape-recorded recorder to tape their conversation while Interviewing indicated that CW enabled
processes evident interview. completing their compositions. students to discover ideas together and
in the pair talk. They were interviewed individually to exposed them to different views. In addition,
obtain more information about their CW helps to provide feedback on language.
experiences during CW.

63
Study Aim Participants Type of Treatment groups findings
Evaluation
Storch & The study was Writing an Individual students were given 20 There was no difference in terms of fluency
Wigglesworth carried out at an essay and a minutes to finish the report task and 40 and complexity between students who
(2007, 2009) Austrian report. minutes for the essay, whereas pairs completed their tasks individually and others
Comparing written University. Two were given 30 minutes for the report who completed in pairs.
texts produced by thirds of the and 60 minutes for the essay. The differences between the two groups in
students working participants terms of accuracy were significant. The
in pairs with other were female and pairs produced more accurate and more
texts produced one third was error-free clauses.
individually to find male; all
out whether there students were
were differences in from an Asian
certain aspects of background.
writing such as Their average
accuracy, fluency ages of 26 and
and complexity. 24.
Suzuki (2008) 24 Japanese Observation Observing the whole class for three Number of episodes of negotiation in peer
To assess differ- sophomore Interviews months. revision was higher than in self-revisions.
ences between students at the Questionnaire Interviewing students’ teacher. Students using self-revision had changed
self-revisions and university who Thinking Summarizing some chapters weekly. their text 287 times; in the peer revisions
peer revisions of were studying aloud. Writing an essay for half an hour. this had occurred 166 times.
written composit- English as a Peer revisions paid more frequent attention
ions among adult compulsory to both meta-talk, content and ideas,
ESL learners. course. whereas choosing words, correcting
2- The relationship grammar and improving language form were
between self- paid more attention in self-revisions.
revisions and peer
revisions and
negotiation.

64
Study Aim Participants Type of Treatment groups Findings
evaluation
Villamil & Only 54 students Writing essays Students had been taught two writing Encouragement by collaborative dyads
Guerrero (1996) from the Inter- and recording. courses: narration and persuasion, for during peer revision using some social
To investigate American four weeks. They were asked to write cognitive activities such as reading, assess-
points relevant to University of some sample essays and taught how to ing, dealing with trouble sources,
peer revision: Puerto Rico. engage in peer revision. Students read composing, writing comments, copying and
a) What kinds of their first draft aloud before discussing task procedures.
revision activities involvement in peer revisions. After
do pairs engage in? revising the first draft in pairs, they
b) Strategies that were asked to write their final draft at
students use during home. Students’ revisions were
peer revisions, and recorded and transcribed by graduate
c) what categories students.
of social behaviour
occur when
students engage in
dyadic peer
revision?
Villamil & Two Spanish Dyad’s One student was chosen to be reader The reader was a mediator.
Guerrero (2000) male interaction. and one to be writer of the composition. Scaffolding and use of ZPD helped
In-depth investig- intermediate They were taught how to revise the participants to manage their interaction
ation into types of ESL college draft and asked to record their effectively, explain and illustrate some
behaviour and students. discussion during revision. grammatical issues make their written texts
mechanisms that more critical and analytical.
make scaffolding
and use of ZPD
more effective in
second language
peer revision.

65
Study Aim Participants Type of Treatment groups Findings
evaluation
Berg (1999) 23 ESL students First and Comparing the first and the second Training helped ESL students to improve
To assess were trained in second draft drafts of trained students with drafts of their revised drafts more than untrained
effectiveness of using peer essays were untrained students. students. The trained students made more
using peer meaning revisions than the untrained
response and collected to
students.
response on both compared with measure the
revision and another quality of
quality of writing. untrained 23 writing and
ESL learners. revision.

Shull (2001) The treatment Collection of Experimental group was taught using Students in the experimental group
To assess group consisted pre- and post- CL. improved their writing more than the control
effectiveness of of 28 students; tests of Control group, or non-treatment group, group.
collaborative non-treatment students’ was taught though traditional or
learning strategy in group contained essays. teacher-centred methods.
improving writing 26 students.
skills.
Phipps, Kask and 210 college Written Measuring students’ attitudes towards Students’ attitudes were more positive
Higgins (2001) students questionnaire and perceptions of the five elements of concerning some elements of CL, such as
To assess attitudes (freshman, CL. positive interpersonal activity, small group
towards and sophomore, skills and individual accountability, but less
motivation for junior) positive regarding face-to-face interaction
using collaborative Different and group processing.
learning strategy disciplines
(psychology, 48% considered CL useful for motivating
economics and students to learn effectively.18% considered
so forth). CL to affect learning positively.

66
Study Aim Participants Type of Treatment groups Findings
evaluation
Mulryan (1994) 48 students in Interview. Interviewed students in three stages: 1) CL helped students to minimize their
To assess students’ fifth and sixth at the beginning; 2) at the end; 3) after mistakes by exchanging information and
and teachers’ grade in USA. observation of each lesson. Similarly, giving them total freedom to solve their
perceptions of problems in a supportive atmosphere.
teachers were interviewed at the
CL. The teachers’ perspectives were that CL
beginning and at the end of the study. gave their students the opportunity to learn
from each other, work with and help others
and seek help from others.
Azevedo, Cromley 51 undergraduates Pre-test and The topic was circulatory systems; parts Adoptive scaffolding improved students’
and Seibert (2004) (13 male and 38 post-test, and of students’ tests involved matching mental process more than the other two
To investigate the female) at the questionnaire words with corresponding definitions, types.
effectiveness of University of the labelling 20 components on a picture of
three different Mid-Atlantic in the heart, drawing the path of the blood Fixed and no scaffolding were less effective
types of scaffolding the USA. through the body, and writing an essay in regulating learning than AS.
in regulating about circulatory systems.
students’ learning
using hypermedia.
Grami (2010) 61.6% of the Pre-test and The treatment group trained to use peer Even thought that students in both groups
Evaluating the students were in post-test, feedback beside to teacher-written did better in the test, students who involved
success of both first and Semi feedback; whereas a control group in the peer feedback group outperformed the
received only teacher-written feedback. other group in every aspect of writing
integrating peer second year, structured
investigated
feedback into ESL whereas the questionnaire
writing classes in remaining was in
terms of third and fourth
developing writing year.
and social skills.

67
2.9 Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to review the literature related to the collaborative learning

strategy. The discussion of the theoretical framework of CL revealed that, although it is not a

new idea, it has recently been seen as applicable to, and even necessary for ESL classrooms.

The findings of previous studies have shown that CL has a positive influence at some stages

of the writing process: for instance, in allowing students to discuss their writing with each

other, enabling them to discover various additional words and ideas, and helping them to

produce better texts in terms of grammatical accuracy. In addition, CL has been found to be

beneficial for enhancing critical thinking and problem solving skills, involving students in

various social contexts and in encouraging them to interact with each other effectively.

However, various aspects of CL have not been covered and explored in previous research, as

was seen in Table 2.1. These include investigating the effectiveness of collaborative learning

in producing better written texts in terms of organization, development, cohesion, vocabulary,

grammar and mechanics. As a result, this study aimed to answer the following two questions:

1- Would students who are involved in collaborative writing settings produce better written

and better organized essays than students working individually?

2- Are students’ attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement in

collaborative learning settings?

In the following chapter the methodology used in the study will be discussed in detail,

including appropriate ways to answer the research questions, the research design, participants

and procedures.

68
Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design

3.1 Introduction

Taking previous research into account, the present study sought answers to the two

main research questions, outlined in Chapter 1 (see page 5). The first question concerned the

performance of students after involvement in CL; having the students write pre-and post-test

essays and rating them by using a rubric was therefore considered an appropriate method to

employ, based on Shull (2001). The second question involved assessing perceptions and

opinions both before and after involvement in CL; questionnaires and interviews were

considered to be appropriate methods of accomplishing this, as used in Storch (1999, 2005);

Storch and Wigglesworth (2007, 2009); Mulryan 1994), and Phipps, Kask and Higgins

(2001). The methods employed in this study therefore resemble methods used in previous

studies that helped the researcher to notice the development of students after involvement in

collaborative learning.

The aim of this chapter is to discuss in detail the methodology used in the study. In the

first section, the research questions and the methods used to answer them are described. The

second section contains a presentation of the research design, including both the strategy and

the methods employed in the study. In the third section, the sample used for the purposes of

this study is described, including descriptions of both the subjects of the research and the

general student population from which the sample was taken. The various procedures used in

conducting the study are also highlighted in this section. In the final section, several other

methodological concerns are discussed, such as reliability, validity and replication of the

study’s methods and instruments, methods of data analysis, and the originality and limitations

of the methodology.

69
3.2 Research questions

The principal aim of the study was to discover whether collaborative writing benefits

students, involving two sub-research questions:

1- Would students who are involved in collaborative writing settings produce better written

and better organized essays than students working individually?

2- Are students’ attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement in

collaborative learning settings?

The research questions, therefore, required a design in which all students would be given a

pre-test at the beginning of the study and a post-test eleven weeks later. It was also decided

that experimental and control groups would be set up; the experimental collaborative learning

(CL) group would receive special treatment for two or three hours a week for three months

and the control traditional learning (TL) group would receive their usual classroom

instruction.

The two sub-research questions were answered through the following questions:

Is there a difference between the experimental CL group and the control TL group at pre-

test?

Does the experimental CL group change from pre-test to post-test?

Does the control TL group change from pre-test to post-test?

Is the experimental CL group different from the control TL group at post-test?

3.2.1 Research question (1)

Would students who are involved in collaborative writing settings produce better

written and better organized essays than students working individually?

The aim of the first research sub-question was to assess the performance of students before

and after involvement in collaborative learning; a pre-test and a post-test design was therefore

70
considered to be appropriate. Students in both the experimental (CL) and control (TL) groups

were therefore asked to write essays on a specific topic in the first week of the study as a pre-

test. At the end of the study, they were asked to write the same essay again; this formed the

post-test (see appendix A). The pre-test/post-test method was deemed to be appropriate for

this study because it would involve collecting and marking students’ essays and according

scores to their work that could be considered to be representative of their achievement; thus, a

comparison between the scores obtained in the two tests would be a valid method of

determining whether or not CL is effective.

3.2.2 Research question (2)

Are students’ attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement in

collaborative learning settings?

The data necessary to assess the students’ attitudes and perceptions were obtained

from questionnaires and interviews. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: general

writing questions (1-23) and collaborative writing questions (1-20) (see appendixes B-1 and

B-2). The students in both groups were given the questionnaires at the beginning and at the

end of the study in order to assess any changes in their attitudes and perceptions concerning

collaborative writing.

The students in the experimental CL group had experienced using CL and been given

the two parts of the questionnaire to complete at the beginning and at the end of the study.

Although the important post-test information about attitudes would come from the

experimental group who had been trained in CL, rather than from the control TL group who

had not received such training, the students in the control TL group were also given the same

two parts of the questionnaires to complete before and after the end of the study. The

rationale behind asking the control TL group to comment on CL practices was to see how

aware they were of CL through other English language courses and skills: namely, listening,

71
speaking and reading, without having been trained specifically in CL. In addition, the

statements in the questionnaires were made easy to understand so that the researcher was able

to collect valid and reliable answers from students in the control group.

Four students from the experimental CL group were also selected for interview at

random and on the basis of marks they had obtained for writing during the previous term. The

interview questions are found in Appendix C. Table 3.1 presents a summary of the research

questions and the methods used to answer them; a detailed description is provided in the

following section.

Table 3.1 Methods employed to answer the research questions

Research Question Method Type of measurement

Q1. Would students who Essays were collected from Judgment of expert teachers

are involved in collab- all students at the beginning rating the students’ essays for

orative writing settings and end of the study. organization, development,

produce better written cohesion, structure, vocab-

and better organized ulary and mechanics (Paulus’s

essays than students Scale, see appendices F-1 and

working individually? F-2).

Q 2. Are students’ attit- Questionnaires were admin- Questionnaires designed by the

udes and perceptions istered to all students at the researcher (See appendix B).

positively affected by beginning and the end of the

involvement in collabor- study.

ative learning settings? Interviews of four students Expressed opinions of students

from the experimental CL in an interview designed by the

group after their involvement researcher (See appendix C).

in collaborative learning.

72
3.3 Research Hypotheses

1. There will be a significant difference in the experimental CL group

between the pre-test and the post-test as measured by the following sub-
hypotheses:
1.1 There will be significant differences in the essays of students in the experimental CL

group before and after involvement in the collaborative learning strategy.

1.1.1 The organization of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

1.1.2 The development of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

1.1.3 The coherence of students’ essays will be significantly different after their involvement

in collaborative learning.

1.1.4 The vocabulary used in the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

1.1.5 The structure of students’ essays will be significantly different after their involvement

in collaborative learning.

1.1.6 The mechanics of students’ essays will be significantly different after their involvement

in collaborative learning.

1.2 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire will be significantly different.

1.2.1 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the pre-

writing stage will be significantly different.

73
1.2.2 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the revision

stage will be significantly different.

1.2.3 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the editing

stage will be significantly different.

1.2.4. The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the importance of collaborative

learning will be significantly different.

1.2.5 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in helping

them to get better scores will be significantly different.

1.2.6 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in providing

comments on students’ writing will be significantly different.

1.2.7 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in increasing

understanding of accountability will be significantly different.

1.2.8 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of reading and

listening to other students’ essays in groups will be significantly different.

74
1.2.9 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the factor that collaborative

learning helps in acquiring and using new vocabulary correctly will be significantly

different.

1.2.10 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the factor that students feel more

satisfied after writing their essays in collaborative groups will be significantly different.

2. There will be a significant difference in the control TL group between the

pre-test and the post-test as measured by the following sub-hypotheses:

2.1 There will be significant differences in the students’ essays before and after

involvement in the traditional learning method.

2.1.1 The organization of the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional learning method.

2.1.2 The development of the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional leaning method.

2.1.3 The coherence of the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional leaning method.

2.1.4 The vocabulary used in the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional leaning method.

2.1.5 The structure of the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional leaning method.

2.1.6 The mechanics of the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional leaning method.

75
2.2 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes

to collaborative learning questionnaire will be significantly different.

2.2.1 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the pre-writing stage

will be significantly different.

2.2.2 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the revision stage will

be significantly different.

2.2.3 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the editing stage will be

significantly different.

2.2.4 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the importance of collaborative learning will

be significantly different.

2.2.5 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in helping them to get

better scores will be significantly different.

2.2.6 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in providing comments on

students’ writing will be significantly different.

2.2.7 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in increasing

understanding of accountability will be significantly different.

76
2.2.8 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of reading and listening to other

students’ essays in groups will be significantly different.

2.2.9 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the factor that collaborative learning helps in

acquiring and using new vocabulary correctly will be significantly different.

2.2.10 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes to

collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the factor that students feel more satisfied

after writing their essays in collaborative groups will be significantly different.

3. There will be a significant difference between the experimental CL group

and the control TL group at time 2 as measured by the following sub-
hypotheses:
3.1 There will be significant differences between the post-test essays written by students

in the experimental CL group and those written by students in the control TL group.

3.1.1 The organization of the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group will

be significantly different from that of the post-test essays written by students in the control

TL group.

3.1.2 The development of the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group will

be significantly different from that of the post-test essays written by students in the control

TL group.

3.1.3 Cohesion in the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group will be

significantly different from that in the post-test essays written by students in the control TL

group.

77
3.1.4 The vocabulary used in the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group

will be significantly different from that used in the post-test essays written by students in the

control TL group.

3.1.5 The structure of the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group will be

significantly different from that of the post-test essays written by students in the control TL

group.

3.1.6 The mechanics of the post-test essays written by students in the experimental CL group

will be significantly different from that of the post-test essays written by students in the

control TL group.

3.2 There will be significant differences between the attitudes and perceptions of the

students in the experimental CL group and those in the control TL group as tested by

the collaborative learning questionnaire at the post-test.

3.2.1 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning collaboration during the

pre-writing stage at the post-test.

3.2.2 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning collaboration during the

revision stage at the post-test.

3.2.3 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning collaboration during the

editing stage at the post-test.

3.2.4 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the importance of

collaborative learning at the post-test.

78
3.2.5 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in helping to get better scores at the post-test.

3.2.6 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in providing comments on students’ writing at the post-test.

3.2.7 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in increasing understanding of accountability at the post-test.

3.2.8 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of reading

and listening to other students’ essays in groups at the post-test.

3.2.9 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in acquiring and using new vocabulary at the post-test.

3.2.10 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in increasing the students’ satisfaction with their writing at the post-

test.

3.4 Ensuring similarity between the experimental CL and control

TL groups

The current study aimed to compare two groups: the experimental CL group that

received collaborative learning instruction and the control TL group that received traditional

language teaching (see pages 106-122 for a full account of the treatment for both groups).

79
Essentially, while students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups were taught

the process approach to writing and were involved in writing essays individually, the

experimental CL group had additional training in writing essays collaboratively.

According to Dornyei (2007), ‘from a theoretical perceptive, the ultimate challenge is

to find a way of making the control group as similar to the treatment group as possible’ (p.

116). The researcher needs to make sure that both the control and treatment groups are equal

at the time of commencement of the experiment (Mitchell & Jolley, 1988). It was thus

important to ensure that both the groups used in this research were as equal in proficiency as

possible at the beginning of the study, that they had the same or very similar backgrounds and

that they were studying in the same context in the same department and the same (second)

year of study. The equivalence between the experimental CL group and the control TL group

was as follows:

a- All participants in both groups were studying in the second year in the English language

department at Al-Qassim University in Saudi Arabia. All students were therefore

considered to be at the lower-intermediate level.

b- All the students were male and aged between 20 and 26, with an average age of 23.

c- The teacher taught both groups equally three times a week for eleven weeks. He taught

not only the experimental CL group but also the control TL group the process writing

approach that included the stages and activities of pre-writing, drafting, revising and

editing.

d- The study procedures will be described in more detail from page 106 onwards.

The scores of the students in both groups from the previous semester were used to

show that the proficiency of the experimental CL group and that of the control TL group were

equal at the beginning of the study. A full comparison will be presented in Chapter 4 (page

133). In brief, after comparing the two groups through an independent t-test, we found that

80
the means were 68.6 for the experimental CL group and 69.5 for the control TL group, with a

mean difference of 0.9; the difference between the two groups was thus 0.77, which is greater

than 0.05, and was therefore not significant (see Appendix M). The means found for both

groups indicated that they were similar in proficiency before the beginning of the study.

3.5 Essay-scoring rubric

The main method for assessing essays in this study is based on Paulus (1999), who

investigated not only the difference between the first and third drafts of students’ essays in

improving their writing skills but also the effectiveness of teacher response and peer response

on the revisions of undergraduate ESL students studying on a pre-university composition

writing course in America. Her ‘rubric’ for assessing the essays was based on a scale from 1

as the lowest score to 10 as the highest score for six categories of writing (Baker &

Lundstrom, 2009), as follows:

- Organization refers to the unity of ideas and paragraphs. The topic sentence and

supporting details of the essay are clear and the ideas are related to each other. The

paragraphs include introduction, body and conclusion.

- Development means using examples and supporting ideas appropriately. Each point in the

essay is developed using any kind of supporting evidence, such as examples.

- Cohesion/coherence refers to using transition words correctly and to the relationships

between ideas.

- Structure focuses on grammatical issues: e.g., using verbs and tenses, such as present,

past, and past participle, correctly.

- Vocabulary refers to precision in using words and clarity in meaning.

- Mechanics refers to spelling, punctuation and capitalization.

The full form of the rubric used in this research is provided in Appendix D.

81
Each essay was scored by two judges. These were expert teachers who measured the

students’ compositions according to the scales of Paulus’s rubric (1999) (see Appendix D).

They measured the organization and the ideas in the development of the essays. They also

measured the accuracy of the essay structure, vocabulary and mechanics, taking into account

grammatical errors (e.g., errors in using prepositions and articles, verb tense and so on), the

selection of appropriate vocabulary, and the avoidance of any mistakes in spelling and

punctuation.

The two expert teachers were given the pre-test and post-test essays of students in

both the experimental CL and the control TL groups for marking and judging (see Appendix

F). A third expert acted as adjudicator if there was no correlation between the first and second

markers. After collecting the students’ scores from the two markers, a satisfactory IRR co-

efficient was calculated to examine the level of correlation. Then, mean scores were

calculated for each student.

The two expert teachers were near-native speakers with mother tongues of Pakistani

and Arabic working in the English language department at Al-Qassim University who had

been teaching English as a foreign language, including writing skills, for a long time. Their

experience was not limited to teaching writing skills but also included rating and grading

essays using various kinds of rubric. The two expert teachers marked and assessed both the

pre-test and the post-test for both experimental CL and control TL groups. The essay scores

were collected from both markers for analysis in order to ensure inter-rater reliability.

The use of Paulus’s scale to assess the students’ writing proficiency was appropriate

for this study for the following reasons:

1- Baker and Lundstrom (2009) successfully used a version of Paulus’s rubric to assess 30-

minute essays. Since the aim in the present research was to assess 60-minute essays, it

was decided that this researcher could also use a version of Paulus’s rubric.

82
2- The rubric provided the opportunity for both holistic and analytical scoring. Holistic

scoring refers to the overall assessment of the work by combining many categories into

one level, whereas analytical scoring gives a more detailed description of each category

(Lee & VanPatten, 1995).

3- The rubric scale provided levels for each categories starting from 1 as the lowest and

ending with 10 as the highest. Paulus’s rubric thus has an advantage over other rubrics

that use scales of 4, 5 or even 6 levels.

4- The categories in Paulus’s rubric were easy for the markers to grasp as they related to

everyday criteria used by teachers, and hence it would be easy to explain the results to

teachers.

5- The student’s essays could be allocated marks on a scale of 1 to 10. For each sub-scale,

overall marking was out of 60. Other scales, such as TOEFL, either paper-based (PBT),

computer-based (CBT), or internet-based (iBT), range from only 1-6; the Test of Written

English (TWE) placement test ranges from 0-6; the Six Traits of Writing Rubric has a

range of 1-4. Paulus’s rubric thus provides a fairly delicate measure for each scale.

3.6 Research design and materials

After obtaining permission from Al-Qassim University in Saudi Arabia, the study was carried

out among ESL students in the English language department. It was decided to take a

quantitative approach to collecting data for this research, which would be supplemented by a

small amount of qualitative data. Since the main purpose of the research was to study the

effectiveness of collaborative learning as a method of improving ESL students’ writing skills,

it was deemed appropriate to use an experimental approach. The current study included two

groups: the experimental CL group, who were taught using CL and the control TL group,

who were taught using a traditional learning method, as shown in the table below.

83
Table 3.2 Group distribution based on treatments and tests
Pre-test Treatment Post-test

Experimental CL Group O CL method O

Control TL Group O TL method O

The symbol (O) refers to the measurement of the effects of the treatment (Campbell &

Stanley, 1963). The experimental strategy gave the researcher control over the study

environment and the selection of participants so that the whole population in the English

language department could be equally represented. The researcher could assign classes to the

two conditions and control any variables that may influence the subjects’ behaviour (Blaxter,

Hughes & Tight, 1996). The study was begun in April 2009 and lasted twelve weeks; the

following table clarifies the procedures adopted for applying the tests and methods of this

study.

84
Table 3.3 Procedures adopted during the 11 weeks of the study

First week From the second to the eleventh week The last week

Writing essays Each week, the experimental CL group Writing essays

All students wrote was taught how to write essays through All students wrote

essays. Expert teach- collaboration, whereas the control TL essays. The same expert

ers were selected to group was taught how to write essays teachers judged the

judge students’ through the traditional learning students’ essays on

essays on Paulus’s method. Paulus’s rubric (1999).

rubric (1999).

Questionnaire Questionnaire

A questionnaire The same questionnaire

tested participants’ was used again to test

perceptions before participants’ perceptions

involvement in the after the twelve weeks.

study.

Interview

Four students from the experimental CL group were selected at random for interview, at

the end of the study in order to measure participants’ perceptions after involvement in

collaborative learning.

As mentioned earlier, the teacher for both the experimental CL group and the control

TL group was the researcher himself. This fact might have some negative effects such as bias

and subjectivity that could affect the validity of the study. The following measures were thus

85
taken to avoid or mitigate the risk of a ‘halo-effect’ from the researcher also being the

teacher:

Although the researcher was himself the teacher for both the experimental CL group and

the control TL group, the students’ essays and results were judged by independent raters

in order to collect valid and reliable findings. In order that the judges did not know who

the students from either the experimental CL or the control TL group were, the drafts

were coded and the students were kept anonymous by using numbers. Moreover, their

main teacher was not involved in rating the essays.

As mentioned in the previous chapter of this thesis, collaborative learning in the form of

collaborative writing is considered a new strategy in Saudi universities. It includes

elements and conditions in which students need a great deal of training in class in order to

achieve improvement. ESL teachers therefore need to have participated in numerous

training courses in order to apply CL effectively. Moreover, since not all the teachers in

the department were willing to teach the course required for this study for three months,

this being considered by many of them to be too long a period of time, the researcher had

to be the teacher of both groups. Because of my long experience in both teaching and

researching in the area of writing skills, the limited amount of time available for the study,

and English department policy, I was aware of how to teach both groups to ensure that

they received both treatments equally. According to Carver et al. (1992), “Teacher

familiarity and facility with apprenticeship techniques and with the design skill model as a

whole is the key to teaching design skills” (p. 400).

The fact that the researcher knows that the study is in progress may affect her/his teaching

(Paulus, 1999). In order to avoid the risk of the ‘halo-effect’, the students should not

know the purpose of the study. According to Paulus (1999), the participants may know

that the research is in progress; however, they may not have information about the study

86
purpose and focus (Paulus, 1999). The students were told at the beginning of the study

that the researcher was a PhD student and was simply collecting data for his research.

They had been told that their main teacher would continue teaching them as soon as the

researcher finished collecting data, so they students knew that the researcher would not be

setting them any examinations or tests in either the mid-term or the final exam. They had

been informed that they would be taught and trained for eleven weeks, so any instruments

used would not influence their marks or official assessment.

As mentioned above, the students’ essays and results were judged by independent raters

in order to collect valid and reliable findings. This is the basic defence against bias in the

analysis, any possible bias being counteracted by the use of two judges. However, it was

also necessary to ensure that there was no bias in the classroom, with one group being

favoured over the other. Thus, the head of the English language department from time to

time observed the researcher’s teaching of both experimental CL and control TL groups in

order to make sure that both groups were taught similarly without preference being given

to either one. He was informed that both groups would be taught the process approach to

writing similarly, but that the first group would receive special training in writing

collaboratively rather than individually. The research aim was explained to him at the

beginning of the study so that he would take note of any bias or subjectivity that might

influence the study validity (see Appendix N).

3.6.1 Writing Essays

In the pre-test and post-test, all students in both groups were asked to write an essay on the

following topic: ‘Describe your reasons for coming to university’ (see Appendix A). This

prompt was specially chosen because it was more or less equivalent in difficulty and

familiarity for all students in the two groups. The students were given 60 minutes to complete

87
their essays. Since they had finished only one year of university studies, they were considered

to be at the lower-intermediate level.

The fact that the same topic was used in both pre-test and post-test might suggest that

any improvement was the result of practising writing on the same topic twice, at the

beginning and at the end of the study. However, there are two ways of testing this claim: 1) if

the improvement was simply the result of practice, this would mean that improvement should

be found not only in the experimental CL group but also in the control TL group. Hence a

comparison was made between the two groups to see if there were any differences between

the essays written by one group and those written by the other group. 2) The pre-test was

conducted in the first week of the study, while the post-test was administered in the twelfth

week; the intervening period was therefore long enough to mean that the students might have

forgotten what they had written in their pre-test.

3.6.2 Questionnaires

A questionnaire was used in this study to collect data on the students’ attitudes towards and

perceptions of collaborative writing. The researcher designed the questionnaire on the basis

of those used in previous studies and of his own long experience in teaching writing. The

students were given the questionnaire at the beginning and also at the end of the study. The

questionnaire was translated from English into Arabic in order to make sure that they

understood it clearly.

The questionnaire was divided into two sections: section 1 questions 1-23 were

concerned with the attitudes and perceptions of students regarding writing skills (see

Appendix B-1); section 2 questions 1-20 were concerned with collaborative learning, with

more emphasis on collaborative writing, as shown in Appendix B-2. All the discussion in the

final chapter will refer to one questionnaire.

88
In both sections of the questionnaire the Likert scale was adopted. This scale is

appropriate for use with closed-ended items that include ‘a characteristic statement’, and

where respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with it

by making one of the responses ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’

(Dornyei, 2007). The students in this study were asked to choose one of five responses, as

shown in the following example:

Working together in groups is a good strategy that helps me to write effectively

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree

During the analysis of the questionnaire data, the answers in the scale were assigned a

number for the purpose of scoring: e.g., ‘strongly agree’ = 1, ‘agree’ = 2 and so on. The

questionnaire was distributed twice to all students in both the experimental CL and the

control TL groups. The first occasion was before they had yet received any treatment, and the

second was after they had finished the course.

The questionnaire that was concerned with the attitudes of students toward CL was

designed specifically for this research. The majority of the questions concerning CL were

worded positively, for two reasons: a) the questions were designed by the researcher; b)

negative questions might make some participants feel confused and lead to misunderstanding;

students in Saudi Arabia normally prefer answering positively worded questions because this

gives them more of a sense of achievement than answering negatively worded questions.

According to Brown and Rodgers (2000, cited in Grami, 2010), when producing a sound non-

standardized questionnaire it is important to avoid using negative items. However, the

researcher designed a few negative statements about CL for inclusion in the questionnaire

(questions 2, 4 and 5) in order to collect some different attitudes from the population.

89
The researcher mitigated the risk of possible skewed answers by the following

methods: first, he tried to make the questionnaire as relevant to the topic as possible by

avoiding any unnecessary questions. After designing the questionnaire, it was revised many

times by the supervisor in order to achieve content validity. Second, the statements in the

questionnaires were simple to understand, short and translated into Arabic in order to obtain

as valid data as possible. Wallace (1998) mentions that a questionnaire should not be too

long, not confused, and must be framed in the first language of the respondents in order to

make sure that they provide valid data. Third, the researcher conducted a pilot study to find

out whether the questionnaires required any changes, modifications or deletions. After

conducting the pilot study with three students, the researcher found that some questions were

ambiguous or confusing and therefore needed to be reworded or rewritten. Fourth, the

researcher also designed another version of the questionnaire in Arabic and showed it to some

Arabic experts, asking them to identify any ambiguous statements that might lead to

misunderstanding among the population. According to Grami (2010), an Arabic version of

the questionnaire ‘would be more convenient for those students whose English proficiency

might be lower than others and for freshmen if they will be included’ (p. 73).

The first section of the questionnaire (questions 1-23), given in Table 3.4 below, was

concerned with the perceptions of students regarding writing skills. The twenty-three

questions were categorized according to the following four factors and sub-factors:

1. Attitudes of students towards writing skills (10 questions):

The first factor included more questions (10) than the others as it was aimed at collecting

general information about writing skills: for instance, ‘Writing essays is very difficult for me’

and ‘I think writing is boring’. It was important to acquire background information about the

students’ attitudes towards writing in general before asking them about their perceptions of

collaborative learning and the process approach to writing in particular. The most important

90
four stages of the process approach to writing were discussed in the previous chapter (see

pages 15-22). The first factor was divided into six sub-factors, as follows:

1.1 Ease and interest of writing skills.

1.2 The importance of writing skills.

1.3 The importance of the process approach to writing.

1.4 The priority of correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes.

1.5 Motivation for practising writing skills.

1.6 Opportunity for practising writing skills.

2. Attitudes of students towards the pre-writing stage (6 questions):

The pre-writing stage was the second factor, and included six questions. This factor was

concerned with various issues, such as planning a topic for the essay, collecting ideas and

vocabulary, making an outline, organizing ideas and understanding the topic of the essays.

The second factor was divided into four sub-factors, as follows:

2.1 Taking enough time to understand the essay topic.

2.2 The difficulty of understanding the essay topic.

2.3 Planning for the topic mentally and physically.

2.4 Collecting and organizing ideas.

3. Attitudes of students towards the drafting and revising stages (4 questions):

Four questions were concerned with the students’ perceptions of the drafting and revising

stages: for instance, ‘During writing, I normally do revisions before finishing my writing

completely’ and ‘During the writing stage, I usually follow the plan that I have written before

writing’. This factor was divided into four sub-factors, as follows:

3.1 Following the essay plan when starting writing.

3.2 Difficulty in starting to write the essay.

3.3 Making revisions before finishing the first draft of the essay.

91
3.4 Using the vocabulary supplied by the teacher.

4. Attitudes of students towards the editing stage (3 questions):

Only three questions were concerned with the editing stage of writing because this stage is a

small technical area: for instance, ‘During the editing stage, I make several revisions before

submitting my final draft’ and ‘During the editing stage, I concentrate on finding appropriate

words and vocabulary’. This factor was divided into four sub-factors, as follows:

4.1 Finding appropriate vocabulary during the editing stage.

4.2 Revising essays several times before submitting during the editing stage.

4.3 Correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes during the editing stage.

The general writing questionnaire is presented in the table below.

92
Table 3.4 Questionnaire to collect students’ attitudes towards writing

N Questions

1 Writing an essay is very difficult for me.

2 I think that writing is an important skill

3 Writing isn't just completing a composition, but planning, drafting, revising and editing.

4 I think that the most important aspect of the skill of writing is grammar.

5 I find it interesting to practise and learn writing skills.

6 I do not have the motivation to learn writing skills.

7 I get a lot of opportunities to practise writing in class.

8 I think learning writing skills is boring.

9 Before starting writing, I spend a lot of time trying to understand and familiarize myself
with the topic.

10 Before I start writing (pre-writing stage), I plan the topic mentally.

11 Before I start writing, I plan my topic by making an outline and writing down my ideas.

12 It is difficult for me to get new ideas for my writing topic.

13 Organizing ideas is the most difficult part for me.

14 Before I start writing, I have difficulty understanding the topic of the essay.

15 During the writing stage, I usually follow the plan that I have written before starting to
write.

16 When I start writing, my priority is to concentrate on grammatical and spelling errors.

17 During the writing and drafting stages, I usually don't know how to start writing.

18 When writing the first draft, no attention is paid to grammatical and spelling mistakes.

19 During writing, I normally do revisions before finishing my writing completely.

20 During writing, I concentrate on using the vocabulary supplied by my teacher.

21 During the editing stage, I concentrate on finding appropriate words and vocabulary.

22 During the editing stage, I make several revisions before submitting my final draft.

23 During my editing stage, I must correct grammatical and spelling mistakes.

93
The second section of the questionnaire (questions 1-20, presented in Table 3.5 below)

was concerned with the impact of collaborative learning on improving writing skills. All the

questions concerned the students’ attitudes towards the practices involved in the collaborative

learning strategy. This section was divided into ten factors. The first three factors were about

students’ practices, while the remainder concerned their attitudes, as follows:

1- Collaboration during the pre-writing stage

The first factor was concerned with the attitudes of ESL students towards collaborating during

the pre-writing stage, and included statements such as ‘Before starting writing (pre-writing

stage), planning a topic with friends is much better than individually’. Since the pre-writing

stage includes various activities such as planning the topic, discussing ideas and making an

outline for the essay, it was important to ask at least three questions (3, 4 and 17) in order to

cover these activities. This factor was therefore divided into three sub-factors, as follows:

1.1 The importance of planning a topic with friends.

1.2 The benefits of making an outline and collecting ideas with classmates.

1.3 The importance of talking with friends to facilitate finding ideas for the topic.

2- Collaboration during the revision stage

The attitudes of the students towards collaborating during the revision stage were the second

factor in this questionnaire; these were examined using statements such as ‘Revising my

essay with classmates many times can improve it effectively’. Since this factor only

concerned revising essays with classmates, it involved only two questions (6, 16).

3- Collaboration during the editing stage

The attitudes of the students towards collaborating during the editing stage were assessed

through their responses to statements such as ‘I prefer editing and proofreading my activities

and tasks in a group rather than individually’. Since the students in both groups were taught

94
that editing means focusing solely on grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes, one

question alone (no. 7) was deemed adequate for this factor.

4- The importance of collaborative learning for writing essays

Five questions (1, 2, 5, 8 and 18) from the questionnaire were concerned with the students’

attitudes towards the factor of ‘The importance of collaborative learning for writing essays’.

5- Benefits of CL in helping to get better scores

Question 9 ‘Writing in a group can help me to get better scores in my writing exams’, was

related to the fifth factor ‘Benefits of CL in helping to get better scores’.

6- Benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing

Questions 10 ‘Colleagues in my group are able to give comments on my writing’ and 11 ‘I

would like to get feedback from my friends on my compositions’ were related to the sixth

factor ‘Benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing’.

7- Benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability.

Question 13 ‘My experience of CL has increased my understanding of my own

accountability’ was related to the seventh factor ‘Benefits of CL in increasing understanding

of accountability’.

8- Benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups.

Questions 14 ‘I like reading the essays of my classmates and I understand what they write’

and 15 ‘I understand and learn from listening to students when they read their essays in

front of others’ addressed the factor ‘Benefits of reading and listening to other students’

essays in groups’.

9- Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary

Question 19 ‘Collaborative writing helps me to acquire and use new vocabulary correctly’

was related to the ninth factor ‘Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary’.

95
10- Benefits of CL in increasing the students’ satisfaction in writing essays

Questions 12 ‘I would like to see students involved in more collaborative writing’ and 20 ‘I

feel more satisfied with my writing when I work in small groups than when I work

individually’ addressed the factor of ‘Benefits of CL in increasing the students’ satisfaction in

writing essays’.

The number of questions varied from one factor to another depending on the need to

collect more or less information or data from the students. For example, five questions were

assigned to the fourth factor ‘The importance of collaborative learning for writing essays’.

Since the core of the research was investigating students’ attitudes towards using a

collaborative learning strategy in an English writing classroom, this factor needed more

questions compared to other factors.

The collaborative learning questionnaire is presented in the table below.

96
Table 3.5 Questionnaire on students’ attitudes towards collaborative learning
N Questions
1 Working together in groups is a good strategy that helps me to write effectively.
2 Writing about something with my friends is not suitable for me.
3 Before starting writing (pre-writing stage), planning a topic with friends is much better
than individually.
4 Before I start writing (pre-writing stage), making an outline and writing down ideas
with classmates are not good methods.
5 Working by myself without help from others is very important for me.
6 Working and writing in groups helps me to know how to revise my essay effectively.
7 I prefer editing and proofreading my activities and tasks in a group rather than
individually.
8 Working with other students is very important for me.
9 Writing in a group can help me to get better scores in my writing exams.
10 Colleagues in my group are able to give comments on my writing.
11 I would like to get feedback from my friends on my compositions.
12 I would like to see students involved in more collaborative writing.
13 My experience of CL has increased my understanding of my own accountability.
14 I like reading the essays of my classmates and I understand what they write.
15 I understand and learn from listening to students when they read their essays in front of
others.
16 Revising my essay with classmates many times can improve it effectively.
17 At the pre-writing stage, talking with my friends can facilitate finding ideas for my
topic.
18 Sharing my essay with my friends collaboratively is useful and beneficial.
19 Collaborative writing helps me to acquire and use new vocabulary correctly.
20 I feel more satisfied with my writing when I work in small groups than when I work
individually.

According to McDonough and McDonough (1997), some advantages of a

questionnaire are: a) they can be small or large-scale; b) data collection can take place

anywhere and at any time. Questionnaires were deemed appropriate for this study because the

97
social climate of the study was open and free, allowing full and honest answers to be given,

since the population were all students in the English language department at Al-Qassim

University. Questionnaires can measure three types of data: 1) specific facts about the

respondents such as age, gender and race; 2) the behaviour, actions, life-style and habits of

respondents; 3) the attitudes, beliefs, opinions and values of the respondents (Dornyei, 2007).

The attitudes and perceptions of ESL students concerning the effectiveness of using

collaborative learning in improving their writing skills were the main concern in this study.

In addition, the questionnaire items were in closed formats, since this helps students to

respond easily and clearly. According to Wallace (1998), closed questions make it easy for

respondents to choose a suitable answer. Free writing by the respondents is not required, as

they need only select one of the given alternatives (Dornyei, 2007). One of the advantages of

closed questions is that respondents have to select from specific given options (agree,

disagree etc); thus the researcher is able to write down the precise answer they have chosen;

the disadvantage is that it in effect puts words in their mouths, rather than letting them speak

for themselves. In the current study the researcher took into consideration some essential

points related to the format of the questionnaire. For example, the questionnaire started with a

general introduction to the content of the questionnaire, including definitions of relevant

terminology, a description of the purpose of the study, and a series of clear instructions that

would help the students to understand exactly how to complete the questionnaires (Dornyei,

2007).

3.6.3 Semi-Structured Interview

The instruments described above, namely, writing essays and the questionnaire, were

considered central to the study design, and it was expected that the data collected would be

sufficient to determine whether or not using CL in writing classrooms would give better

results than using the traditional learning method. However, it has been pointed out that

98
interviews can also be used to achieve the researcher’s objectives, to develop a further

hypothesis or as an additional technique to other instruments (El-Aswad, 2002). Thus, the

interview method was also used in this research to provide supporting or supplementary

information on the students’ attitudes and perceptions concerning collaborative learning in

the form of collaborative writing. The interview in this study was used to explore students’

attitudes towards certain points related to CL. It therefore helped the researcher to obtain

more data about the students’ attitudes and perceptions regarding the effectiveness of

practising collaborative learning in improving the writing skills of EFL learners in Saudi

Arabia; this more in-depth information was used to supplement that obtained through the

questionnaires.

Three kinds of interviews are recognised (Denscombe, 2003; Bryman, 2004): 1) the

structured interview, in which questions are organized before conducting the interview; 2) the

semi-structured interview, in which both freedom in talking and control over the organization

of the questions by the researcher are considered the main features; 3) the unstructured

interview, in which the interviewer has the full right to talk freely without any limitations.

The positive characteristic of the semi-structured interview is that it encourages interviewees

to talk freely without any stress, and without the interviewer forcing them to answer any

specific questions. The researcher thus used semi-structured interviews in this study because

he wanted the interviewees to express their feelings about using CL in writing classrooms

freely. According to Nunan (1992, p. 150), the semi-structured interview gives the

interviewee full control and power to take in free and flexible environments. Denscombe

(2003) and Bryman (2004) mention that the semi-structured interview is a free and flexible

method in which the researcher is able to exercise control and guidance.

A sample of four EFL students from the experimental CL group was selected to

represent the whole population. According to Lee, Woo and Mackenzie (2002), using only a

99
few participants for interview is recommended for studies that use more than one instrument.

The selection of only four students to represent the whole group for this study was based on

the following:

1- As mentioned earlier, the interview was not considered a central method for collecting

data in this study, so selecting only a small number of participants for interview was

enough.

2- Selection was based on the marking system of the university, as follows: category (A)

represented students who had obtained a mark of 50-60; category (B) represented students

who had obtained a mark between 60-70; category (C) represented students who had

obtained a mark between 70-80; and category (D) was for students with a mark of 80 or

over.

The reason for involving only students from the experimental CL group for interview

was because of their eleven weeks of experience and practice of CL during the field study,

even though other students in the control TL group were aware of CL from other courses

without having been specifically trained in it. The interviewees were chosen on the basis of

the marks they had obtained for writing during the previous term. The selection of students

was based on the marking categories in order to represent the whole classroom. Student D

was selected as an ‘expert’ who was the monitor for one of the collaborative learning groups.

With regard to the method of conducting the interviews, they were conducted in a

quiet room and a tape-recorder was prepared to record the students’ answers, which would be

transcribed later. The students were interviewed individually, so that each student could take

his time. They were given the choice of being interviewed either in L1 or L2; thus the

interviewee had the freedom to select the language he thought would enable him to express

his opinions most clearly. The interviews were carried out at the end of the study in order to

measure participants’ perceptions after involvement in collaborative learning.

100
The researcher preferred to converse with each interviewee in Arabic at the beginning

of each interview in order to warm up and make them feel more relaxed. After conducting the

interviews at the end of the study, the students’ answers were transcribed by the researcher.

Eleven questions concerned the attitudes and perceptions of students after

involvement in collaborative learning classrooms (see Appendix C), as follows:

1- ‘When do you think you learn better?’

To warm up, it was important to ask a general question to obtain information and background

about the students’ attitudes to learning.

2- ‘If you get stuck or face a problem while practising any English skill, what do you prefer

to do?’

Students may experience difficulty overcoming English-language problems and may use

different methods and strategies for overcoming these difficulties. This question encouraged

them to talk freely about appropriate methods and solutions.

3- ‘Do you like learning English individually? Why?’

It was important to determine the students’ perceptions of learning individually: whether or

not they preferred it and the reasons behind their preference.

4- Do you like learning English in a group? Why?

This question is similar to the previous one but was directed at finding out whether the

students liked learning English in groups or not. The reason for asking this question was to

make it possible to determine whether the students’ involvement in collaborative learning had

influenced their preference to learn English in groups or individually.

5- ‘Did you enjoy learning writing skills before you were involved in the collaborative

learning method?’

This question was concerned with finding out whether the students were interested in

learning writing skills before their involvement in collaborative writing.

101
6- ‘What kind of difficulties do you normally encounter when you start writing?’

This question is a general one that aimed to encourage students to talk freely about

difficulties and problems they encountered when they started writing.

7- ‘Do you experience difficulties in finding the right vocabulary when you start writing?’

Similarly, the aim of this question was to determine whether finding the right vocabulary

when starting writing was difficult or not.

8- ‘During pre-writing activities such as brainstorming and planning, do you think that you

learn from working together with classmates, for instance in structuring and planning

ideas? Can you explain in some detail?’

Collecting, outlining, planning ideas and brainstorming are activities in the pre-writing stage

of the process approach to writing. It was important to find out whether the students thought

that doing these activities in groups was useful and beneficial in enabling them to write

essays effectively.

9- ‘During drafting activities, do you feel that you write better collaboratively than

individually without any help from others?’

Drafting is the second stage in the process approach to writing. The aim of this question was

thus to identify the students’ attitudes and feelings regarding collaborative work in the

drafting stage and to determine whether or not they found it useful.

10- ‘During the revising and editing stages, do you feel that working together can help you to

overcome difficulties such as correcting mistakes, restructuring ideas, finding the right

vocabulary and so on?’

Both revising and editing are stages in the process approach to writing. This question asked

the students how they felt about collaborating in these stages and whether CL helped them to

solve particular writing problems such as mistakes in spelling, grammar and vocabulary.

102
11- ‘When you read your essay in front of your classmates in the same group, do you feel that

your writing can be better?’

Students may sometimes read their essays aloud after completing their writing, so this

strategy may be helpful in correcting and in writing successfully.

Although the interview was not a central method in this research, it might give

additional information about the attitudes of students towards using CL in English language

classes. It was useful to me because I collected some further data from students who were

different from each other in terms of their proficiency and accuracy in writing essays.

3.7 Study sample

The subjects of this study were male students studying in the second year in the English

language department at Al-Qassim University in Saudi Arabia. The reasons for choosing this

sample were:

1) These students were considered to be at the lower-intermediate level so they had less

experience of writing than some of the other students, such as those in the third or fourth

year.

2) The second-year writing curriculum was concerned with teaching writing skills through

stages such as pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing. The similarities between this

curriculum and the course planned for this study would assist the researcher’s aim to

determine whether learning collaboratively would improve the writing process of ESL

learners.

Male students studying in the second year were selected as the sample of the study.

The students were aged between 20 and 26 with an average age of 23; however, they were

distributed into two different classes prior to administering the study. The researcher chose

103
one class at random to be assigned to the experimental CL group, while another class made

up the control TL group.

3.7.1 The numbers of students in the experimental CL and control TL groups who

completed pre- and post-test essays

Before starting the field study, there were a total of 25 students in the experimental CL group.

However, two students failed to complete either their pre-test or their post-test essays and

were therefore excluded from the analysis. The total number of students from this group who

were included in the analysis was thus 23. Similarly, before starting the field study, there

were a total of 29 students in the control TL group. However, four students failed to complete

either their pre-test or their post-test essays and were therefore excluded from the analysis.

The total number of students from this group who were included in the analysis was thus 25,

as shown in Table 3.6

Table 3.6 The total number of participants from the experimental CL and control TL groups
who completed pre-test and post-test essays

Groups Participants
Experimental CL 23

Control TL 25

3.7.2 The numbers of students in the experimental CL and control TL groups who

completed pre-and post-test questionnaires

Since some of the students from both the experimental CL and control TL groups

were absent on the days when either the pre-test or post-test questionnaires were completed,

they were excluded from the analysis. As a result, only 21 students from the experimental CL

group and another 21 students from the control TL group completed both the pre- and post-

test questionnaires, as shown in the following table.

104
Table 3.7 The total number of participants from the experimental CL and control TL groups
who completed pre-test and post-test questionnaires

Groups Participants
Experimental CL 21

Control TL 21

3.8 Pilot study

It was important to conduct a pilot study in order to examine not only the research

instrument, but also the data collection procedures. The aim of the try-out was to assess the

quality of the instrument so that it might be revised and improved before using it with the

actual subjects of the research (Seliger & Shomany, 1989). The pilot study was carried out in

November 2008 and the sample was three male Saudi students studying at the English

language centre at Newcastle University. Two of them had been in the UK for only two

months, which meant that they were effectively beginners in English. The third one had been

in the country for 10 months and was studying at the upper-intermediate level in the English

language institute at Newcastle University. His experience of English was greater than that of

the other two, which meant that he could help them to progress and improve their English

writing skills. Because the sample in the pilot study was small and the actual research to be

carried out required teaching for a long time, the researcher selected only some of the

proposed activities and instruments. The pilot study was conducted according to the

following steps:

1- The students were given both questionnaires in order to assess their attitudes and

perspectives concerning both writing skills in general and collaborative learning in

particular through the pre-writing, revision and editing stages of writing.

105
2- The students were given a topic to write about collaboratively. They began by collecting

ideas and vocabulary. Next they wrote their first draft without checking for grammatical

or spelling mistakes. Finally, they revised and edited their essays collaboratively.

3- The students were given the same questionnaire again in order to find out whether or not

their attitudes and perspectives had changed.

During the pilot study the researcher noticed the following points:

a- It might be necessary to change the number of members working together in a group.

During the pilot study, the researcher noticed that a group of three was sometimes

inappropriate in order to obtain and receive an adequate amount of information; this

suggested that it might be preferable to organize the classes into groups of different

numbers such as three, four or five members or even in pairs.

b- The researcher might try to find out whether the role played by expert students in either

groups or pairs was positive, negative or neutral. In other words, the researcher needed to

know whether the presence of an expert could result in any improvement or progress for

less capable learners.

c- During the pilot study the researcher realized that some items in the questionnaire were in

need of correction; others needed to be either modified or excluded in order to avoid any

confusion or repetition.

3.9 Description of the activities and tasks used in the study

After obtaining permission from the English language department at Al-Qassim University,

the researcher chose students studying in the second year to represent the study sample for

the reasons mentioned on page 103. He randomly selected one group to be the experimental

CL group and another one to be the control TL group. The study was conducted in the

English Language and Translation Department (ELTD). The students in both groups met
106
three hours a week for three months. Only the first three weeks of the study were assigned for

teaching both groups how to write essays through practising the process approach, based on

the pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing stages of writing and the activities associated

with each stage. The students in the experimental CL group were taught how to accomplish

these stages in collaboration with their classmates, whereas the other students in the control

TL group were taught how to use and practise the stages of the process approach to writing

individually, without any help from other classmates.

As explained in the previous chapter, collaborative learning presupposes the existence

of an expert who gives support and help for the weak students. According to Faigley and

Witte (1981), expert writers are those who make more macrostructure changes to initial drafts

(cited in Paulus, 1999, p. 282). The expert provides the scaffolding suggested by the

Vygotskian approach (see Chapter 2, page 22 onwards). The selection of experts in the

current study was based on their having achieved distinction (90% and over) in the previous

term’s writing course. Five students were chosen to give support to those classmates whose

scores in the previous term’s writing test showed that they needed to pay additional attention

to their academic writing.

The collaborative training in the experimental CL group consisted of putting the

students in sub-groups of four or five members or even in pairs, and making them tackle the

task collaboratively. According to Johnson and Johnson (1987), collaborative learning does

not mean simply sitting students side by side to discuss and complete the work or asking one

member of the group to finish the task by him/herself. Collaborative learning means using

elements of CL effectively in order to produce and complete the work successfully (Johnson

& Johnson, 1987; Graham, 2005). Thus, students in the experimental CL group were taught

to adopt the five elements of CL (see pages 43-46 for more details), as follows:

107
A) Positive interdependence: the students were taught that one member of the group cannot

succeed unless all members do and vice versa. This element helped the students to encourage

each other to make sure that each member was working by giving feedback effectively. They

were reminded from time to time that they should not depend on one member or on the expert

of the group to give comments and feedback. Putting into practice the principle of positive

interdependence should help them to care about their own success and the success of other

members.

B) Individual accountability: the students were trained to focus on the weak students of the

groups in order to give them more support and encourage them to work effectively. They

were also taught that every member of the group should take individual responsibility to

contribute to the group’s work. In order to make sure that each member participate and take

responsibility to share successfully, the expert in the group might ask one person to give or

paraphrase comments to the whole group.

C) Face to face interaction: the students were encouraged from time to time to exchange

information with each other, provide comments that helped them to write effectively and

come up with final comments for each member’s essay.

d) Social skills: the students were taught that to collaborate successfully, they should trust

each other, help each other and argue with each other. Therefore, some social skills were

required, such as trust-building, leadership and decision making. As Graham (2005)

mentions, students can give or receive more comments and feedback if they are more skilful

social collaborators.

E) Group processing: the students were given all the time and methods they would need in

order to use CL effectively (a specific amount of lesson time was allocated to each aspect:

e.g., the pre-writing stage should be completed in forty minutes etc).

108
The expert in each group had various responsibilities: namely, monitoring, guidance,

encouraging others to talk, communicating ideas for the essay with the group members etc.

The members of each group were told to relate to the expert whenever they needed further

assistance.

As the researcher himself was the teacher of the course, his role required not only

teaching both groups the pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing stages of the writing

process but also training students in the experimental CL group how to share and collaborate

with the other members of their groups effectively and continuing with the traditional

instruction for the control TL group. As mentioned earlier, since not all the teachers in the

department were willing to teach the course required for this study for three months, this

being considered by many of them to be too long a period of time, the researcher had to teach

both groups. During the weeks of teaching, the researcher was not only a teacher but also a

trainer, monitor and facilitator for both groups. The students in both groups met three hours a

week for three months. The field study was completed in eleven weeks; the activities and

tasks are summarized below:

Week 1

During the first week, the researcher conducted the pre-tests with the participants. First, both

the experimental CL group and the control TL group were given a topic to write about for

sixty minutes, namely, ‘Describe your reasons for coming to university’. At the next

meeting, all the participants were asked to complete the questionnaire to provide information

on their attitudes and perceptions concerning writing in general and collaborative writing in

particular before they received any treatment.

Week 2

During week two, the researcher taught the students in both the experimental CL and control

TL groups the four stages of the process approach to writing outlined on pages 15-22. The

109
stages in the process approach to writing are considered important for ESL students and

helpful for writers in general to produce good quality writing (Kroll, 2003; Belinda, 2006).

These stages were as follows:

A- Pre-writing stage, including collecting, planning, organizing ideas, finding new words and

vocabulary and producing an outline.

B- Drafting and writing stage, with the emphasis on writing a draft of the whole essay from

beginning to end (Gebhard, 2000). Following King and Chapman (2003), in the drafting

stage the students were encouraged to write without stopping until they had finished.

C- Revising stage, concentrating on the consistency of sentences: for instance, the use of

tenses, changing unsuitable vocabulary and reorganizing paragraphs or sentences.

D- Editing stage, concerned with issues of linguistic accuracy such as spelling, grammar and

punctuation.

Week 3

The researcher had to make sure that all students in both groups understood the four stages of

the process approach to writing as outlined in week 2. The students in the experimental CL

group practised and discussed the writing stages with their classmates, while those in the

control TL group studied the stages individually and asked the teacher if they had any

queries. The study procedures for both groups are explained in detail below:

Organization of sub-groups and ‘experts’ in the experimental CL group

The students in the experimental CL group had been asked to organize themselves into small

sub-groups. There were five sub-groups made up of four or five members and another two

sub-groups consisting of only two members. Students who had obtained high scores in the

previous term’s writing exam (90% or over) were chosen to be experts, guides and monitors

for all the sub-groups. The sub-groups consisting of only two members included one expert

and one weak student. This meant that if any of the expert students from the other sub-groups

110
were absent at any time during the course, it would be possible to combine one or both of the

pairs with other sub-groups whose expert student had not turned up. In addition, all the

students were instructed not to swap or change sub-groups during the remaining weeks of the

study. The students in the experimental CL group discussed with other members of their

groups how they could practise the stages of the writing process effectively. During this week

they were asked to choose any familiar topic to write about with their sub-groups for 120

minutes. They were then told to practise the stages of the process approach, as follows:

A- Pre-writing stage: (Collaborative) – 40 minutes

1- The students in the sub-groups were allowed twenty minutes to brainstorm, discuss,

collect and contribute their ideas together.

2- The members of each sub-group were allowed ten minutes to discuss appropriate

vocabulary and words that could be used in their writing tasks. The expert students were

asked to help their sub-groups concerning the meaning of certain words and were told

they could use dictionaries to check and find other, more suitable vocabulary.

3- They were allowed a further ten minutes to organize their ideas and produce outlines for

the essays.

B- Drafting and writing stage: (Non-collaborative) – 30 minutes

After completing the pre-writing stage collaboratively, each student wrote his own essay for

thirty minutes without asking the other members of the sub-group for help. In this stage the

students took into consideration the fact that the main priority was to use the ideas and

vocabulary they had collected together during the pre-writing stage in their writing without

paying any attention to grammatical, spelling or punctuation mistakes. They should keep

writing until they were sure that they had incorporated all the ideas and vocabulary

successfully.

C- Revising stage: (Collaborative) – 25 minutes

111
This stage took only twenty-five minutes to complete. The students revised their writing tasks

collaboratively by reading and revising together all the drafts produced by the sub-group’s

members. Each student placed his written draft in the middle of the sub-group in a position

where everyone was able to see it and started to read it. They had been taught that the main

aim in this stage was to revise the consistency of sentences, make sure they had used

appropriate vocabulary, and reorganize and rearrange any unclear sentences and paragraphs.

Each member of the sub-group offered comments until the student whose essay was being

discussed felt that his draft had become clear, coherent, and well developed and organized.

The students were informed that they should not offer any comments on grammar, spelling or

punctuation in this stage. After receiving feedback from the other members of their sub-

group, each student started writing the second draft of his essay.

D- Editing stage: (Collaborative) – 25 minutes

The students were allowed a further twenty-five minutes to edit their writing tasks

collaboratively. In a similar way to the revising stage, each draft was placed in the centre of

the sub-group where everyone could see it and the group members started to edit it together

with help from the expert. In this stage the students checked for any mistakes in linguistic

accuracy, including spelling, grammar and punctuation. Correcting errors and mistakes was

the students’ main priority in this stage. If either the sub-group members or the more capable

student experienced any difficulties correcting errors or mistakes, they were allowed to use

any of the available resources, which included dictionaries, computers and textbooks, or to

ask their teachers.

Organization in the control TL group

While students in the experimental CL group practised and discussed the stages of the

process approach to writing at the beginning of week three in sub-groups, the students in the

control TL group discussed the stages with the teacher without any sharing of their ideas with

112
their classmates. The teacher wanted to make sure that all the students in the control TL

group understood how to practise and use the stages of the writing process effectively. As

with the experimental CL group, the students in the control TL group were asked to choose

any familiar topic to write on individually for 120 minutes and were allowed to ask the

teacher any questions or for any further information. Then they were told to practise the

following stages:

A- Pre-writing stage: – 40 minutes

1- The students were allowed twenty minutes to brainstorm individually and collect their

ideas.

2- Ten minutes were given to select appropriate vocabulary and words that could be used in

their writing tasks. The students were encouraged to ask the teacher to help concerning the

meaning of certain words. They were told to use any helpful resources such as dictionaries to

check and find suitable vocabulary.

3- They were allowed a further ten minutes to organize their ideas and produce outlines for

the essays.

B- Drafting and writing stage: –30 minutes

After completing the pre-writing stage, the students started to write their own essays

individually for thirty minutes. In this stage, the main priority was to use the ideas and

vocabulary they had collected during the pre-writing stage in their writing without paying any

attention to grammatical, spelling or punctuation mistakes. They should keep writing until

they were sure that they had incorporated all the ideas and vocabulary successfully.

C- Revising stage: –25 minutes

The time allowed for this stage to be completed was twenty-five minutes. The students

started to read what they had written during the drafting stage. They learned from their

113
teacher that the main focus in this stage was on revising the consistency of sentences and

making sure about using the vocabulary appropriately. They worked hard to reorganize and

rearrange any unclear sentences or paragraphs. They were allowed to show their essays to

their teacher to receive comments and feedback. The teacher checked the essay of each

student in the control TL group in order to give comments and make sure the first draft had

become clear, coherent and well developed and organized effectively. The teacher informed

the students that in the revising stage no attention should be paid to grammatical, spelling or

punctuation mistakes. After making sure that this stage had been completed, the students

started to write their second draft.

D- Editing stage: –25 minutes

Another twenty-five minutes were given for the students to edit their writing tasks. In this

stage the students needed to check and correct any mistakes in linguistic accuracy, including

spelling, grammar and punctuation. The teacher reminded the students that correcting errors

and mistakes should be the main priority in this stage. They were allowed to use certain

available resources such as dictionaries, computers or textbooks in this stage. The students

were also allowed to ask their teacher to explain to them any unclear grammatical or spelling

issues.

To summarize the organization of both groups, the experimental CL group was

divided into sub-groups and incorporated an expert in each sub-group for assistance,

compared to the individual teacher-directed work of the traditional group. In addition, the

expert students in the experimental CL group had no counterparts in the traditional group.

114
Week 4

The students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups were asked to write about

the following topic: ‘Why do you think you attend the English language department? Give

reasons and examples to support your answer’.

The experimental CL group

Continuing with the same sub-groups that had been organized in week three, the researcher

gave the students a topic on which to write essays collaboratively. The time allowed to

complete the essays was 120 minutes, divided as follows:

A- 40 minutes were allocated for practising the pre-writing stage collaboratively in their

subgroups, including discussing the meaning of the topic, writing down appropriate ideas,

checking the meaning of vocabulary, organizing and producing an outline.

B- After they had collaborated in discussing, collecting ideas and vocabulary, writing down

various reasons for attending the English language department and supplying examples to

support these reasons, each student started writing his first draft individually. They wrote

without stopping and without paying any attention to mistakes in grammar, spelling or

punctuation. They were allowed 30 minutes to complete the first draft of their essays.

Writing the first draft had been done individually rather than collaboratively. According

to Gebhard (2000), during drafting students should keep writing their essays from

beginning to end without stopping (Gebhard, 2000). Moreover, all writing tools, such as

ideas and vocabulary, had been collected during the pre-writing stage, so the students did

not need any further help from classmates or an expert and would be able to write the first

draft individually.

C- The students grouped together again in their sub-groups in order to collaborate in carrying

out revisions of all the first drafts. They focused on the clarity of sentences, the

appropriateness of vocabulary and the arrangement of paragraphs. They spent 25 minutes

115
revising the essays. Then, after receiving comments and feedback from the other

members of the group, each student wrote his second draft.

D- The students in each sub-group then collaborated in editing their second drafts. They

focused on correcting any grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes. Finally, the

final draft was produced and ready to submit.

During this lesson, the researcher observed the students’ behaviour and helped them to solve

any problems they encountered when writing collaboratively. After they had finished writing

the essays, each student recorded his attitude towards and experience of writing in a group in

a diary.

The control TL group

The same topic was given to the students in the control TL group to write on individually

with help from the teacher; the time allowed to complete the essay was divided as follows:

A- 40 minutes were allocated for practising the pre-writing stage individually, including

discussing the meaning of the topic with the teacher, writing down appropriate ideas,

checking the meaning of vocabulary, organizing and producing an outline. The students were

allowed to discuss appropriate vocabulary or ideas with the teacher. It was recommended that

they make use of any suitable and available resources such as dictionaries and textbooks.

B- After spending forty minutes in the pre-writing stage collecting ideas, vocabulary and

making an outline for the essay, the students started to write the first draft individually for

thirty minutes. They were reminded that the main focus in this stage should be on what they

had collected in the pre-writing stage, without paying any attention to mistakes.

C- After writing the first draft, the students spent twenty-five minutes revising it individually,

focusing only on reorganizing and rearranging any unclear sentences. They were told that any

grammatical, spelling or punctuation mistakes should be postponed to the last stage. The

teacher’s role was to check the students’ essays in order to make necessary comments.

116
D- The students then spent another twenty-five minutes editing their final draft, concentrating

on any grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes. The teacher checked the students’

essays and gave feedback. The students were also encouraged to use any available resources,

which included dictionaries, computers and textbooks, or to ask their teacher. Finally, the

final draft was produced and ready to submit.

At the end of this week the students in the experimental CL group were divided into sub-

groups, each of which incorporated an expert student to provide help, guidance and

assistance, while those in the control TL group were assigned to work individually.

Week 5

The students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups were asked to write about

the following topic: ‘Do you like living in a village or a city? Give reasons to support your

answer’.

The experimental CL group

The students were given two hours to write collaboratively, as follows:

A- The first 40 minutes were assigned for pre-writing activities, including discussion,

checking the meaning of new vocabulary relevant to the topic of living in a village or a

city, getting ideas and producing an outline that would help them to write their essays

easily. All these activities were performed collaboratively and in their small sub-groups.

B- The second activity was writing the first draft. This activity was performed individually

rather than collaboratively. Students translated the ideas and vocabulary they had

collected and gathered collaboratively in the pre-writing activity into written work

without paying any attention to mistakes in either spelling or grammar. The students spent

approximately 30 minutes on this stage.

C- After finishing the first draft, the sub-groups gathered together to revise their essays

collaboratively. Each student read his draft aloud in front of his sub-group. Then each

117
member offered comments and feedback regarding clarity of sentences, appropriateness

of vocabulary selected, and highlighting any sentences that needed to be omitted or

added. The students followed the same procedure with the drafts of all the members. They

were given 30 minutes to revise and write their second drafts.

D- The final stage was the editing stage, which the students carried out collaboratively. The

focus was on grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes, and each student re-read

his draft in front of the other members of his group in order to obtain their comments and

corrections.

The teacher’s (researcher’s) role in the CL group was to observe, guide and help the students

with any learning difficulties. At the end of the lesson, the students made entries in their

diaries about their attitudes towards and experiences of writing cooperatively and how this

method of teaching was different from the traditional method normally used during their

writing activity.

The control TL group

The students in the control TL group were asked to write about the topic individually, as

follows:

A. 40 minutes were allocated for carrying out activities of the pre-writing stage: collecting

ideas and appropriate vocabulary, discussing with the teacher with any unfamiliar points, and

making an outline for the topic.

B. 30 minutes were allowed for writing the first draft individually. As mentioned before, the

students were required to keep writing without stopping or paying any attention to mistakes.

C. 25 minutes were allocated for rereading, revising, reorganizing and rearranging any

unclear sentences. In this stage the students received comments and feedback from the

teacher. Mistakes in grammar and spelling should be delayed until the next stage.

118
D. Another 25 minutes were allowed for editing the final draft of the essay by focusing on

grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes. The teacher gave comments and feedback to

the students. In addition, the use of any helpful resources such as dictionaries, computer or

textbook was recommended.

As in the previous weeks, each of the sub-groups in the experimental CL groups had

an expert present. They were encouraged to complete the writing of their essays

collaboratively with assistance from the expert, who provided help and guidance. Meanwhile,

the control TL groups were assigned to work and complete their essays individually with

assistance from their teacher.

Week 6

Following the same procedures as in week 5, the students in both groups were asked to write

about the following topic: ‘Which do you prefer, saving money every month for the future or

spending it all at once? Give reasons and examples to support your answer’.

The experimental CL group

The students had two hours to complete their essays collaboratively following the same

processes as in the previous weeks. The only stage that had to be done individually was the

drafting and writing stage, whereas all other stages of the writing process were completed

collaboratively. Again, the teacher’s (researcher’s) role was that of a monitor and observer of

the work of the groups. At the end of the class, the students were asked to make diary entries

about their experiences of and attitudes towards collaborative writing.

The control TL group

The students in the control TL group were given the same topic and also had two hours to

complete their essays individually. Set amounts of time were allocated to each of the stages

of writing: namely, pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing. The teacher’s role was to give

comments and feedback and explain any unclear issues.

119
The difference between the experimental CL group and the control TL group was noticeable

and clear, as in the previous weeks.

Week 7

Following the same procedures as in week 6, the students in both the experimental CL and

control TL groups were asked to write about the following topic: ‘Do you think that TV has a

positive or negative influence on people’s behaviour? Give reasons and examples to support

your answer.’

The experimental CL group

The students had 120 minutes to finish their essays with their sub-groups. They followed the

same steps that had been followed in the previous weeks. The only stage that was carried out

individually was the writing of the first, second and final drafts, while all the other stages

(pre-writing, revising and editing) were completed collaboratively. The researcher’s role was

that of supporter, monitor and observer. At the end of the class, the students wrote about their

experiences in their diaries.

The control TL group

The students in the control TL group were given the same topic on which to write

individually for two hours. They followed the same procedures as in the previous weeks. The

teacher gave comments and feedback on the students’ essays.

The differences between the experimental CL group and the control TL group were the

same as described in week three.

Week 8

The topic on which the students wrote in this week was ‘Do you like eating in restaurants or

at home, and why?’

The students in the experimental CL group had 120 minutes to complete their essays

in their sub-groups. They followed the same processes they had followed in the previous

120
weeks. Similarly, the only stage that was done individually was the writing of drafts, and all

other stages of the writing process were carried out collaboratively. At end of the lesson, the

students were again asked to write up their diaries.

The students in the control TL group were also given 120 minutes to write individually

on the same topic. They practised the same steps and writing stages that had been used in the

previous weeks. They received comments and feedback from their teacher.

Week 9

The topic for this week was ‘Do you think that learning the English language is difficult or

not? Give reasons and examples in support of your answer.’

The students in the experimental CL group again had 120 minutes to complete their

essays in their sub-groups. They followed the same processes and steps as before. The

drafting stage was the only activity performed individually and all the other stages of the

writing process (pre-writing, revising and editing) were accomplished collaboratively. The

role of the expert students was to give support, assistance and guidance. At the end of the

class, the students again wrote up their diaries.

The students in the control TL group were given the same topic and were also given

two hours to complete their essays individually. They were told to divide the time according

to the stages of the process writing approach. The teacher’s role was to give comments and

feedback on their drafts.

Week 10

The topic this week was ‘What do you think the most important animal in your town is? Give

reasons and examples to support your choice.’

The time available for the sub-groups in the experimental CL group to complete their

essays was the same as in the previous weeks; the students practised collaborative learning

and applied the same processes and steps that had been used in the previous weeks. The only

121
stages that were done individually were the drafting and writing stages. Each sub-group

included an expert student who was assigned to give assistance and support. At the end of the

week, the students wrote up their diaries.

The same topic was given to the control TL group to write about individually. They

were reminded to follow the steps and procedures they had used in the previous weeks. They

received comments and feedback from their teacher and were encouraged to use any useful

helpful resources, such as dictionaries and textbooks.

Week 11

Both the experimental CL group and the control TL group were given the post-tests. First, the

researcher asked them to spend 60 minutes writing about the same topic they had written

about in the pre-test, namely, ‘Describe your reasons for coming to university’. After

writing their essays, the students in both groups were asked to complete the questionnaire.

3.10 Reliability, validity and replication

Research would be worthless if it was invalid or unreliable. It is therefore necessary to talk

about the validity and reliability of this study. According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison

(2000), validity in research means that instruments measure what they are supposed to

measure. Qualitative validity can be achieved through honesty on the part of the researcher,

the depth and richness of the data and the suitability of the subjects. On the other hand,

quantitative validity can be achieved through choosing the study sample carefully, using

appropriate instruments and selecting appropriate statistical analyses for the data.

The decision to base the study in the English language department at Al-Qassim

University was instrumental in ensuring the validity of the study. This is because a course in

teaching writing to second-year students which included learning writing skills through

stages and activities: pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing, had already been set up at the

122
department. The setting was thus ideal for the aim of this research, which was to determine

the effectiveness of collaborative learning in improving the process approach to writing.

Regarding the use of appropriate instruments, the pre-test and post-test essays were

assessed using the scales of Paulus’s rubric (1999). All the scores of the participants in both

the experimental CL group and the control TL group were judged and rated by two near-

native expert teachers. The researcher chose two judges or markers and a third to act as

adjudicator if there was no correlation between the first and second markers.

The details of all markers’ ratings are given in Appendix F. The judges used the

essay-scoring rubric from Paulus (1999). The scale went from 1 as the lowest level to 10 as

the highest, and the two judges gave both total and analytical scores (see Appendix D). In

order to test whether there was a correlation between the first and second markers;

Cronbach’s alpha was used to calculate inter-rater reliability between the judges. Cronbach’s

alpha measures intra-class correlation and is considered to be an indicator of internal

consistency (Howell, 2002; Cortina, 1994, cited in Larson-Hall, 2010). It is therefore

important to establish a positive correlation in order to ensure consistency between the two

judges.

In order to achieve reliability, the majority of the judges’ ratings should vary in a

similar fashion according to the participants they are judging. For example, if judge A gives

participant 1 a high score and participant 2 a low score, judge B should also give participants

1 and 2 similar scores. According to Larson-Hall, (2010), variations in the sample are

recommended (e.g., student A got 20, student B got 25), whereas any variation between the

judges will make the rating less reliable. Larson-Hall (2010) also states ‘If judges are

consistent then there shouldn’t be too much variation in these numbers. However, if there

were a certain judge whose data change Cronbach drastically you might consider throwing

out that judge’s scores’ (p. 173). Consistency between the judges would indicate small

123
variations in students’ marks, which is considered a positive correlation. In this case, a mean

score for each student would be recalculated from the combined scores given by markers 1

and 2.

It is important to have validity and reliability among the judges. Huot (1990) refers to

‘The value of the judgment given by a rater (validity) and the ability of the raters to agree

(reliability)’. Raters must judge an essay according to similar features if they are to agree

with each other. The researcher gave all the raters the same rubric and trained them how to

use it effectively in order to obtain valid and reliable results.

In terms of the reliability of both the questionnaire and the interviews, the researcher

discussed with the students the procedure involved in completing the questionnaires and the

importance of doing so honestly and accurately in order to enable him to collect valid and

reliable data. With regard to the interview instrument, the researcher chose four students at

random from the treatment group to represent their classmates. Referring to the previous

term’s writing exams, the researcher selected student A to represent any students who had

obtained 50-60 marks; student B for any students who had got 60-70; student C to represent

any students who had scored 70-80; and student D to represent any students who had got over

80.

The trustworthiness of results obtained from instruments or tests can lead to four

types of validity: content validity, which is a measure of how effectively the items represent

other items. In the current study, in order to ensure content validity, the assessment

instrument had to include all the procedures necessary for measuring writing ability. The

second type of validity is concurrent validity, which is a measure of how accurately the

researcher is able to correlate one test with another. Predictive validity is the third type, and is

a measure of how effectively a test or instrument meets a criterion. It is considered an

important kind of validity in placement tests where the raters are able to predict the success

124
that students will achieve in any specific English language course. Lastly, construct validity

is a measure of how well a test assesses some underlying construct (Huot, 1990; Salkind,

2000).

In addition to the types of validity described above, the researcher in this study used

an experimental design that was evaluated by the two criteria of internal and external validity.

He selected second-year students as the sample for this study to represent all students of the

English language department with the aim of achieving a high degree of generalizability.

Ensuring that this study could be applied in different situations with similar characteristics

was one of the main goals of the researcher, since this would give the research external

validity and mean that the findings would represent all ESL students in the world, thus

achieving the goal of generalizability.

Regarding the reliability of the study, Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000) mention

three principles of reliability relevant to quantitative research: stability, which measures

consistency through both time and across similar samples; equivalence, which can be

achieved either by using similar forms of a test or instrument or by inter-rater reliability,

when two researchers are involved in the research and different independent judges agree that

both researchers entered data in a correct and similar way, and internal consistency, in which

the tests or instruments are required to be applied twice. The researcher tried to make the

research as stable as possible in order to achieve reliability. He selected two groups with

similar characteristics (i.e., level of classes and age) in order to ensure the consistency and

stability of the results.

3.11 Data Analysis

The scores for the students’ essays in both pre- and post-tests were collected and marked by

two expert teachers using Paulus’s rubric. A higher score in the post-tests would indicate that

125
a student had improved. Since it was crucial to determine whether any improvement in

students’ writing from pre-test to post-test was the result of their having been involved in

collaborative writing settings, rather than in writing individually, therefore, in addition to the

independent t-test used to examine the difference between the mean in both the experimental

CL and control TL groups, a paired t-test was also used to examine the difference between

the mean in the pre-test and that in the post-test in the same group (e.g., the pre-test and post-

test results of individual members of the experimental CL group were compared). The aim of

using a paired t-test was to ascertain the Pearson correlation between dependent and

independent variables and to determine whether there were significant differences or

relationships between the two variables.

The students’ questionnaires were also collected and analysed. The analysis took

account of the two different sections of the questionnaire: first, the general questions (1-23),

that required the paired t-test to find the difference between pre- and post-tests in terms of the

mean for both the experimental CL and the control TL groups; secondly, the collaborative

learning strategy part (questions 1-20), which focused specifically on writing skills, for which

an independent t-test was used to compare the experimental and control groups in terms of

the mean and standard deviation. In addition, the pre-test and post-test attitudes and

perceptions of students in the same group were analysed through a paired t-test to determine

whether there were any differences among students in the same group, in either the

experimental or the control groups.

3.12 Originality and Limitations of Methodology

This is the first study of its type to be conducted in a Saudi university context. The aim of this

study was to find out whether collaborative learning has an influence on improving ESL

writing skills. The experimental approach of this study included pre-tests and post-tests

126
involving writing essays, and questionnaires designed to gather data about the subjects’

writing and their attitudes towards the usefulness of collaborative learning in improving

writing skills.

The study has the following limitations: the adopted methodology was limited to three

instruments of data collection: subjects’ essay scores, questionnaires and interviews. One

obvious limitation is that the study provided no direct analysis of the essays themselves, only

of people’s judgments of them. One of the research questions in this study was ‘Are students’

attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement in collaborative learning

settings?’ and this was answered through an analysis of data obtained from questionnaires

and interviews. However, other instruments were not used: for instance, diaries and

observations. Another limitation is that this study was undertaken not only in a particular

place but also with particular classes, and this may affect the generalizability of the findings

and the possibility of applying the study in other, similar teaching situations. In addition, this

research is considered a unique study that focused on collecting data through essay scores,

questionnaires and interviews. The study was thus based primarily on a quantitative

methodology with the addition of a small amount of qualitative research. However, other

qualitative methods, such as video and audio recording, open response questions and so on,

were not used in this study.

3.13 Summing Up

This study may be described as experimental research, since the subjects wrote essays and

completed a questionnaire both at the beginning (pre-test) and at the end of the study (post-

test). The research experiment was conducted over twelve weeks from April to July 2009 in

the English language department at Al-Qassim University in Saudi Arabia. Two second-year

classes were selected: 23 students formed the experimental CL group, who received ten

127
weeks’ training in how to write essays collaboratively, while another 25 students formed the

control TL group and were taught in the normal way, that was based on writing essays

individually. Writing samples were measured using Paulus’s rubric (1999). In the next

chapter, the analyses of both the subjects’ scores for their written essays and of their answers

to the questionnaires are presented.

128
Chapter 4: Analysis and Findings

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of the study was to discover whether applying a collaborative learning strategy

in one particular classroom could improve and develop the students’ writing skills. In this

chapter the findings and results of the study are presented through analyses of the data

obtained using the three different methods employed in this study. These data consist of the

following: 1) the pre- and post-test scores allocated to the essays written by the students in

both the experimental and control groups; 2) the students’ responses to the general and

collaborative learning questionnaires; 3) findings obtained from the interviews.

The pre-and post-test scores of the students in both the experimental CL and control

TL groups were used to answer the first research question ‘Would students who are involved

in collaborative writing settings produce better written and better organized essays than

students working individually?’ while the data obtained from the pre-and post-tests of the

students’ questionnaires were used to answer the second research question ‘Are students’

attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement in collaborative learning

settings?’ In addition, the interview responses of the four students from the experimental CL

group were used to supplement the answers to the second research question.

4.2 The judges and judging

The essays of the students from both experimental CL and control TL groups before and after

eleven weeks’ involvement in the writing class were rated and marked by two near-native

expert teachers. The raters were given a version of Paulus’s (1999) rubric to use, as shown in

appendix D. The rating of the essays was based on six categories of writing: organization,

development, cohesion, vocabulary, structure and mechanics. Since each of the six categories

129
included ten levels, the students’ essays were marked out of 60. After finishing marking the

students’ essays, a satisfactory coefficient was reported for these two markers (See Appendix

F for the details of all markers’ ratings). The researcher produced a mean score for each

student in each category derived from the scores of the two markers.

Inter-rater reliability

As mentioned in Chapter 3, in order to achieve reliability, the majority of the judges’ ratings

should vary proportionately according to the participants they are judging. For example,

judge A may give participant 1 a high score and participant 2 a low score and judge B should

give participants 1 and 2 similar scores to the first judge. Variations in the sample are

recommended, whereas any variation in the judges will make the rating less reliable (Larson-

Hall, 2010).

Cronbach’s alpha was used to calculate inter-rater reliability for the judges. This

measures intra-class correlation and is considered to be an indicator of internal consistency

(Howell, 2002; Cortina, 1994, cited in Larson-Hall, 2010). The following tables clarify the

reliability analysis of this study. For example, the first table, Table 4.1, shows Cronbach’s

alpha. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72, which is considered a fair and reliable result considering

the low number of participants. According to some researchers, an acceptable level of

Cronbach’s alpha is between 0.70 and 0.80, so the higher the number of participants, the

higher the alpha value can be (Larson-Hall, 2010).

Table 4.1 Cronbach’s alpha for the two judges

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items No. of Items

.724 .723 8

The second table, Table 4.2, which is concerned with the correlations of pairs of variables,

shows that the consistency of the judges’ ratings was between 0.50 and 0.90. As this is

130
considered quite a large correlation, Cronbach’s alpha can be considered to indicate

reliability of the results in this case.

Table 4.2 Correlations of pairs of variables

G1 G1 G1 G1 G2 G2 G2 G2

first second first second first second first second

marker marker marker marker marker marker marker marker

pretest pretest posttest posttest pretest pretest posttest posttest

G1 first marker pretest 1.000 .728 .579 .657 .311 .148 .077 .274

G1 second marker pretest .728 1.000 .517 .586 .275 .109 .163 .359

G1firstmarkerposttest .579 .517 1.000 .585 .095 .159 .313 .157

G1 second marker posttest .657 .586 .585 1.000 .156 .099 .034 .163

G2 first marker pretest .311 .275 .095 .156 1.000 .839 .772 .825

G2 second marker pretest .148 .109 .159 .099 .839 1.000 .578 .658

G2 first marker posttest .077 .163 .313 .034 .772 .578 1.000 .931

G2 second marker posttest .274 .359 .157 .163 .825 .658 .931 1.000

In addition, Table 4.3, which is concerned with consistency between the judges, indicates that

there were no great variations in mean, variance or Cronbach’s alpha. Larson-Hall (2010)

states that ‘if judges are consistent then there shouldn’t be too much variation in these

numbers’ (p. 173).

131
Table 4.3 Consistency between the judges
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation if Item Deleted

G1 first marker pretest 161.9130 1173.901 .255 .676 .724

G1 second marker pretest 164.3478 1178.328 .182 .640 .733

G1 first marker posttest 147.4348 905.530 .543 .547 .667

G1 second marker posttest 152.5652 1026.439 .243 .537 .743

G2 first marker pretest 161.3913 1006.249 .539 .865 .677

G2 second marker pretest 159.1304 902.482 .475 .767 .685

G2 first marker posttest 153.6957 920.221 .661 .926 .646

G2 second marker posttest 154.9565 946.771 .494 .937 .679

It is evident from Table 4.4 below that the variance between the two judges was very small,

which indicates that their results were consistent and that they agreed with each other.

Table 4.4 Intra-class Correlation Coefficient

Intraclass 95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0

Correlation Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig

Single Measures .247b .117 .447 3.628 22 154 .000

Average Measures .724 .514 .866 3.628 22 154 .000

It is obvious from the above tables that a satisfactory correlation co-efficient was found for

the first and second markers, since the first marker’s scores correlated closely with those of

the second marker. This result indicated that it would be unnecessary to employ a third

marker to adjudicate between any differences found in the ratings given by the first and

second markers, as originally planned.

132
4.3 Equivalence of the experimental CL and control TL groups

before receiving treatment

It was first necessary to show that the experimental CL and control TL groups were

equivalent before receiving any treatments: in other words, to ensure that the baseline from

which they started was essentially the same. This would allow comparisons to be made

between the two groups and help the researcher to understand the results for both groups.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the comparison of the pre-test essay scores

reported in this section is based on 23 students in the experimental CL group and 25 in the

control TL group, while only 21 students from the experimental CL and control TL groups

completed both the pre- and post-test questionnaires (for more details, see Chapter 3, p. 104).

4.3.1 Essay scores in the pre-test

The results presented in Table 4.5 below show that the mean of the total score obtained by

each student in the experimental CL group in the pre-test was 16.2, whereas the

corresponding mean for each student in the control TL group was 18.6. The mean difference

of 2.4 was not significant (independent t-test: t = 1.3, p. <.178).

Table 4.5 Comparing overall pre-test scores of essays written by students in the
experimental CL group and in the control TL group
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group 23 4.3 16.2

2.4 1.3 .178
Pre-test: Control TL Group 25 7.5 18.6

4.3.2 Attitudes and perceptions at the pre-test

Since the questionnaire was concerned with comparing the pre-test attitudes of students in

different groups, the independent t-test was utilized. Data from all questions from the

133
collaborative writing questionnaires (questions 1-20, as shown on page 97) were analysed

and the results showed that there was no significant difference between the attitudes and

perceptions of students in the experimental CL group and those of students in the control TL

group (t = .77, p. <.447). As shown in Table 4.6, the mean of the total score obtained by each

student in the experimental CL group in the pre-test was 45.4, whereas the mean of the total

score obtained by each student in the control TL group in the pre-test was 45.3, with a mean

difference of 0.1. Therefore, the results showed that there was no difference between the

perceptions of students in the experimental CL group and those of students in the control TL

group before eleven weeks’ involvement in the writing class.

Table 4.6 Comparing pre-test scores relating to attitudes of students in experimental CL

and control TL groups towards collaborative learning
N SD Mean Mean Difference T p

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group 21 8.1 45.4

0.1 .77 .447
Pre-test: Control TL Group 21 5.7 45.3

The results from the pre-test thus ensured that, at the beginning of the instruction period, the

two groups did not differ in essay scores or in attitudes and perceptions, and that any

differences between the groups at later stages could only be ascribed to the differential

treatments they received.

134
4.4 Pre- and post-test scores for the essays of students in the

experimental CL and control TL groups

The pre- and post-test essays of the students in both the experimental CL group before and

after involvement in collaborative learning settings and the control TL group before and after

involvement in a traditional learning method were rated and marked by two expert teachers

(see Appendixes F-1 and F-2). The raters were given a version of Paulus’s (1999) scale, as

shown in Appendix D. The rating of essays was based on six categories or aspects of writing:

organization, development, cohesion, vocabulary, structure and mechanics. Each category

included ten levels starting from one as the lowest and ending with ten as the highest, so the

essays were marked out of 60. After finishing marking the students’ essays, a satisfactory co-

efficient was reported for markers 1 and 2. If the scores of the two markers were correlated

with each other, the researcher would recalculate a mean score for each student derived from

their combined scores. The anonymity of the students was ensured by using numbers, as

shown in Tables 4.7 and 4.8.

135
Table 4.7 Pre- and post-test scores for the essays of students in the experimental CL group
before and after involvement in collaborative learning settings
Students Pre-test Post-test

1 23.5 36
2 21 47
3 19 29.5
4 14 29
5 15 30.5
6 23.5 47.5
7 12 28
8 10.5 27
9 6 11.5
10 16 25
11 17 22
12 16 33
13 19.5 35
14 12.5 21.5
15 15 26.5
16 19.5 28
17 16 24
18 13 23
19 22.5 29.5
20 16.5 42
21 15 26
22 18 27
23 12 28

136
Table 4.8 Pre- and post-test scores for the essays of students in the control TL group
before and after involvement in traditional learning settings
Students Pre-test Post-test

1 26 18
2 18.5 24.5
3 22.5 18.5
4 21.5 20
5 12 23.5
6 23.5 33
7 34.5 46
8 30 33
9 22 25.5
10 14 13.5
11 14 21
12 14 29
13 14 21.5
14 17.5 26
15 38 39.5
16 22.5 33
17 16 22
18 15.5 25
19 6 17.5
20 15 25.5
21 11 18.5
22 13 20
23 18 21.5
24 13.5 21.5
25 13 23.5

137
As shown in Tables 4.7 and 4.8 above, the students’ essays were marked out of 60.

The results showed that students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups obtained

higher scores in the post-test than in the pre-test. Their scores had increased after eleven

weeks’ involvement in both learning methods in comparison to their scores in the pre-test.

However, some students in the control TL group had lower scores in the post-test, as follows:

student (1) went from 26 in the pre-test to 18 in the post-test; student (3) obtained marks of

22.5 in the pre-test and 18.5 in the post-test; student (4) got 21.5 in the pre-test and 20 in the

post-test, and student (10) obtained marks of 14 in the pre-test and 13.5 in the post-test.

4.5 Research hypotheses analysis

Various hypotheses were developed in order to answer the research questions. Each separate

factor was organized under the relevant hypothesis for the purposes of the analysis, as

presented in the following research hypotheses:

1. There will be a significant difference in the experimental CL group

between the pre-test and the post-test as measured by the following sub-
hypotheses:
1.1 There will be significant differences in the essays of students in the experimental CL

group before and after involvement in the collaborative learning strategy.

The first hypothesis was examined and analysed using a paired t-test, as shown in Table 4.9,

since it involved looking at the same group twice. As mentioned above, 23 students from the

experimental CL group completed both pre- and post-test essays. The findings indicated a

highly significant difference between the pre- and post-test scores in this group (t = 10.6, p.

<.000). The mean of the total score obtained by each student in the experimental CL group in

the pre-test was 16.2, and the standard deviation was 4.3, whereas the post-test mean was

29.4 and the standard deviation was 8.1. The mean gain of 13.2 is therefore evidence that the

138
students obtained higher scores for their written essays after involvement in the collaborative

learning classes.

Table 4.9 Comparing overall pre- and post-test essay scores of students in the
experimental CL group
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group 23 4.3 16.2

13.2 10.6 .000
Post-test: Exp. CL Group 23 8.1 29.4

The results confirmed the hypothesis that there would be significant differences in students’

essays before and after involvement in the collaborative learning strategy.

The raters’ scores for the students’ writing were then analysed separately for the six

elements of organization, development, cohesion, structure, vocabulary and mechanics

covered in Paulus’ rubric (see Appendix G). The paired t-test was used since this involved

testing the same group twice. These aspects were classified under the following sub-

hypotheses:

1.1.1 The organization of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

Table 4.10 shows that the mean obtained for the organization aspect for students in the

experimental CL group was 2.7 in the pre-test and 4.8 in the post-test, giving a mean

difference of 2.1, a highly significant difference (t = 8.8, p. <.000). This means that the

students in the experimental CL group had improved their essay organization after

involvement in collaborative learning. As a result, hypothesis 1.1.1 was confirmed.

139
Table 4.10 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the experimental CL group in
terms of organization
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Organization (Pre-test: Exp. CL Group) 23 1.0 2.7
2.1 8.8 .000
Organization (Post-test: Exp. CL Group) 23 1.3 4.8

1.1.2 The development of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

As shown in Table 4.11, the mean obtained in the pre-test was 2.5, while in the post-test it

was 4.7, with a mean gain of 2.2, indicating a highly significant difference in the

development category between the pre-test and post-test essays of the experimental CL group

(t = 7.7, p. <.000), so hypothesis 1.1.2 was confirmed.

Table 4.11 Comparing pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental CL group in terms
of development
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Development (Pre-test: Exp. CL Group) 23 0.8 2.5
2.2 7.7 .000
Development (Post-test: Exp. CL Group) 23 1.5 4.7

1.1.3 The coherence of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

As indicated in Table 4.12, there was a highly significant difference between the pre-test and

post-test essays of the experimental CL group in terms of cohesion (t = 8.0, p. <.000). The

mean was 2.7 in the pre-test, whereas the post-test mean was 4.9, giving a mean difference of

2.2. Thus the cohesion of the students’ essays had improved after their involvement in

collaborative learning. As a result, hypothesis 1.1.3 was confirmed.

140
Table 4.12 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the experimental CL group in
terms of cohesion
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Cohesion (Pre-test: Exp. CL Group) 23 0.8 2.7
2.2 8.0 .000
Cohesion (Post-test: Exp. CL Group) 23 1.4 4.9

1.1.4 The vocabulary used in the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

As shown in Table 4.13, with regard to the vocabulary category, the mean obtained for the

experimental CL group was 2.7 in the pre-test and 4.8 in the post-test, with a mean difference

of 2.1, which was a highly significant difference (t = 9.1, p. <.000). Hypothesis 1.1.4 was

therefore confirmed.

Table 4.13 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of experimental CL group in
terms of vocabulary
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Vocabulary (Pre-test: Exp. CL group) 23 0.7 2.7
2.1 9.1 .000
Vocabulary (Post-test: Exp. CL group) 23 1.4 4.8

1.1.5 The structure of the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

The results shown in Table 4.14 below show that the pre-test mean obtained for the

experimental CL group in the structure category was 2.6, while the post-test mean was 4.9,

with a difference of 2.3, indicating a highly significant difference in terms of structure (t =

10.0, p. <.000). Hypothesis 1.1.5 was thus confirmed.

141
Table 4.14 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the experimental CL group in
terms of structure
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Structure (Pre-test: Exp. CL group) 23 0.7 2.6
2.3 10.0 .000
Structure (Post-test: Exp. CL group) 23 1.4 4.9

1.1.6 The mechanics of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in collaborative learning.

As shown in Table 4.15, the mean obtained for mechanics in the pre-test was 2.8, and in the

post-test was 4.4, with a mean difference of 1.8. This result indicates a highly significant

difference (t = 7.7, p. <.000), meaning that the mechanics of the students’ essay writing had

improved after their involvement in collaborative learning. Therefore, hypothesis 1.1.6 was

confirmed.

Table 4.15 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the experimental CL group in
terms of mechanics
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Mechanics (Pre-test Exp. CL group) 23 0.8 2.8
1.8 7.7 .000
Mechanics (Post-test Exp. CL group) 23 1.4 4.6

To sum up, the findings presented above indicated that the students in the experimental CL

group had improved in all six aspects of their writing after being involved in collaborative

learning. However, some aspects showed a much greater improvement than others. The

categories in which the students had improved the most were structure, followed by

development and cohesion, then vocabulary and organization, while the area in which they

had improved least was mechanics; however, t-tests showed all of these differences to be

statistically significant. It could thus be concluded that engaging in a collaborative writing

strategy resulted in a great improvement in the structure, development, cohesion, vocabulary

142
and organization of the students’ essays, but in less improvement in mechanics. This result

indicates that collaborative writing benefited the students a great deal in terms of the quality

of their writing (development, cohesion and organization). By contrast, their involvement in

collaborative learning did not help the students as much in terms of the accuracy of their

writing (mechanics), even though there was still significant improvement. The above results

are summarized in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16 Summary of the results of the students’ pre- and post-test essay scores in the
experimental CL group according to categories of the rubric
Aspects Accepted Significance by paired t-test

1 Organization Yes sig p> .000

2 Development Yes sig p> .000

3 Cohesion Yes sig p> .000

4 Vocabulary Yes sig p> .000

5 Structure Yes sig p> .000

6 Mechanics Yes sig p> .000

1.2 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire will be significantly different.

In order to test this hypothesis, all questions from the collaborative writing questionnaire

(1-20) were analysed using the paired t-test. A five-point Likert scale was used, according to

which a number between 1 and 5 was assigned to each response, as follows: ‘strongly agree’

= 1, ‘agree’ = 2, ‘undecided’ = 3, ‘disagree’ = 4, and finally ‘strongly disagree’ = 5. The

mean score for the questionnaire was thus calculated out of 5, as 1 always indicated the

143
highest and most positive improvement while 5 showed the least development. Questions 2,

4 and 5 were worded negatively, so the mean scores for pre- and post-tests were reversed to

show development in a positive direction, in order to facilitate comparison and readability.

As stated above, the number of students who completed pre- and post-test questionnaires

was only 21, compared with the 23 who completed the essays.

The results presented in Table 4.17 show that the mean of the total score obtained by

each student in the pre-test was 45.4, whereas the post-test mean was 34. The mean

difference was thus 11.4 (the pre- and post-test means for questions 2, 4 and 5 were reversed

for the purpose of analysis), which was highly significant (paired t-test, t = 3.4, p. <.002).

This is clear evidence that the students’ responses in the attitudes to CL questionnaires had

changed for the better after their involvement in collaborative learning settings. Hypothesis

1.2 was therefore confirmed.

Table 4.17 Comparing pre- and post-test attitudes towards CL questionnaire of students in
the experimental CL group
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group 21 8.1 45.4

11.4 3.4 .002
Post-test: Exp. CL Group 21 7.8 34

The results show that the students’ attitudes had changed for the better after they had been

involved in collaborative learning settings for eleven weeks. Therefore, the hypothesis that

‘the pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the attitude to

collaborative learning questionnaire will be significantly different’ was confirmed.

144
As described in the last chapter, the second section of the questionnaire (questions 1 -

20), presented in Table 3.5 (page 97), was organized into ten factors, as shown on pages 94-

96. These were concerned with the ESL students’ attitudes towards:

1- Collaboration during the pre-writing stage. This factor was divided into three sub-factors:

1.1 The importance of planning a topic with friends.

1.2 The benefits of making an outline and collecting ideas with classmates.

1.3 The importance of talking with friends to facilitate finding ideas for the topic.

2- Collaboration during the revision stage.

3- Collaboration during the editing stage.

4- The importance of collaborative learning for writing essays.

5- Benefits of CL in helping to get better scores.

6- Benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing.

7- Benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability.

8- Benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups.

9- Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary.

10- Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays.

Some of these factors involved up to 5 questions, some only one. These factors were then

analysed separately, also using the paired t-test, since this involved testing the same group

twice. They were classified under the following sub-hypotheses:

1.2.1 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the

pre-writing stage will be significantly different.

Questions 3, 4 and 17 were related to the first factor of the collaborative learning

questionnaire ‘Collaboration during the pre-writing stage’. This stage of writing includes

activities such as planning a topic, making an outline, and discussing and writing down ideas

145
in a collaborative learning setting rather than individually. Question 3 ‘Before starting

writing (pre-writing stage), planning a topic with friends is much better than individually’

was related to the first sub-factor ‘The importance of planning a topic with friends’. As

shown in Table 4.18, the mean for each student was 2.4 in the pre-test and 1.6 in the post-test,

with a mean difference of 0.8, which was highly significant (t = 2.9, p. <.008). This result is

evidence that the attitudes of students in the experimental CL group toward the importance of

planning a topic with friends had improved after their involvement in CL.

Question 4 ‘Before I start writing (pre-writing stage), making an outline and writing

down ideas with classmates are not good methods’ was related to the second sub-factor ‘The

benefits of making an outline and collecting ideas with classmates’. This question was

worded negatively, so the mean scores for pre- and post-tests were reversed to show a

positive development, in order to facilitate comparison and readability. The results showed

that the mean of the single score obtained by each student in the pre-test was 1.9, whereas

the post-test mean was 0.9, with a mean difference of 1.0, which was highly significant

(paired t-test, t = 3.5, p. <.002). The results indicated that the students thought that making

an outline and writing down ideas with classmates were good methods that should be used

before starting writing.

Question 17 ‘At the pre-writing stage, talking with my friends can facilitate finding

ideas for my topic’ was related to the third sub-factor ‘The importance of talking with friends

to facilitate collecting ideas for the topic’. The mean scores for the experimental CL group

were 1.9 in the pre-test and 1.4 in the post-test, giving a mean difference of 0.5. The paired t-

test showed that this difference was highly significant (t = 3.2, p. <.004). The result indicates

that students in the experimental CL group thought that talking with friends could facilitate

finding ideas for an essay topic.

146
All the results for the first factor in the collaborative learning questionnaire, as shown

in Table 4.18 below, indicated that students in the experimental CL group felt that

collaboration was beneficial for planning a topic, making an outline, and finding appropriate

ideas for the topic of the essay. Therefore, hypothesis 1.2.1 was confirmed.

Table 4.18 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning collaboration during pre-writing stage
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group(Q3) 21 1.2 2.4

0.8 2.9 .008
Post-test: Exp. CL Group(Q3) 21 0.6 1.6

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group(Q4) 21 1.1 1.9

1.0 3.5 .002
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q4) 21 0.8 0.9

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group(Q17) 21 0.8 1.9

0.5 3.2 .004
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q17) 21 0.5 1.4

1.2.2 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the

revision stage will be significantly different.

Questions 6 and 16 were related to the second factor ‘Collaboration during the revision

stage’. Question 6 asked for the students’ responses to the statement ‘Working and writing in

groups helps me to know how to revise my essay effectively’; the mean of the single score

obtained by each student was 2.6 in the pre-test and 1.8 in the post-test, with a mean

difference of 0.8, which was highly significant (paired t-test, t = 4.9, p. <.000). With regard

to question 16 ‘Revising my essay with classmates many times can improve it effectively’, the

pre-test mean of the experimental CL group was 2.1, whereas their post-test mean was 1.5,

with a mean difference of 0.6, which was again significant (paired t-test, t = 2.3, p. <.030), as

shown in Table 4.19.

147
Table 4.19 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group
concerning collaboration during revision stage
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q6) 21 0.8 2.6

0.8 4.9 .000
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q6) 21 0.6 1.8

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q16) 21 0.9 2.1

0.6 2.3 .030
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q16) 21 0.6 1.5

The findings revealed that the attitudes of students in the experimental CL group towards

collaborative learning had become more positive after their involvement in revising their

essays collaboratively. Therefore, hypothesis 1.2.2 was confirmed.

1.2.3 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the

editing stage will be significantly different.

Question 7 ‘I prefer editing and proofreading my activities and tasks in a group rather than

individually’ was related to the third factor ‘Collaboration during the editing stage’. As

shown in Table 4.20, the means of the single scores obtained by each student in the

experimental CL group were 2.1 in the pre-test and 1.8 in the post-test, with a mean

difference of 0.3, which was not significant (t = 1.3, p. <.208). Therefore, hypothesis 1.2.3

was not confirmed.

Table 4.20 Comparing pre- and post-test responses of experimental CL group concerning
collaboration during editing stage
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q7) 21 0.8 2.1

0.3 1.30 .208
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q7) 21 0.7 1.8

148
1.2.4. The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the importance of

collaborative learning will be significantly different.

Five questions (1, 2, 5, 8 and 18) from the questionnaire were related to the factor ‘The

importance of collaborative learning for writing essays’. For question 1 ‘Working together in

groups is a good strategy that helps me to write effectively’, the mean of the single score

obtained by each student was 2.6 in the pre-test and 1.9 in the post-test, with a mean

difference of 0.7, showing a significant difference (paired t-test, t = 2.8; p. <.010). The results

indicated that the students thought that working in groups was a good strategy that helped

them to write effectively.

Question 2 ‘Writing about something with my friends is not suitable for me’ was

worded negatively, so the mean scores for the pre-test and post-test were reversed to show a

positive developmental direction. Therefore, the means of the single scores obtained by each

student were 2.0 in the pre-test and 1.3 in the post-test, with a mean difference of 0.7. The

paired t-test found a significant difference between pre-test and post-test responses (t = 3.3; p.

<.032). The results for question 2 thus indicated that students in the experimental CL group

felt that writing with friends was a suitable method of working.

Question 5 was ‘Working by myself without help from others is very important for me’

and question 8 was ‘Working with other students is very important for me’. These questions

may at first sight seem to be asking for the same information. However, the aim of the first

question was to find out whether the students thought that working individually without

getting any help from others was important, whereas the second question aimed to investigate

whether they thought working in collaborative groups was important. Thus, the two questions

require different responses and are therefore different from each other

149
For question 5 ‘Working by myself without help from others is very important for me’,

the mean scores were again reversed because the statement was expressed negatively, so the

mean of the single score obtained by each student was 1.5 in the pre-test and 1.0 in the post-

test, with a mean difference of 0.5, indicating a significant difference between pre- and post-

test responses (paired t-test, t = 2.8; p. <.010). The finding thus indicated that students

thought that working individually is not very important.

With regard to question 8 ‘Working with other students is very important for me’, the

mean of the single score obtained by each student was 2.3 in the pre-test and 1.9 in the post-

test, with a mean difference of 0.4, which was not significant (t = 1.5; p. <.130).

Finally, for question 18 ‘Sharing my essay with my friends collaboratively is useful

and beneficial’, the mean of the single score obtained by each student was 2.4 in the pre-test

and 1.7 in the post-test, giving a mean difference 0.7, which was significant (t = 2.6, p.

<.016). The students therefore thought that the collaborative learning strategy was useful and

beneficial.

The results for questions 1, 2, 5 and 18, shown in Table 4.21 below, indicate that the

students’ attitudes towards the importance of CL for writing essays had become more

positive after completing the field study.

150
Table 4.21 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group
concerning the importance of collaborative learning for writing essays
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q1) 21 1.1 2.6

0.7 2.8 .010
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q1) 21 0.9 1.9

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q2) 21 1.2 2.0

0.7 2.3 .032
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q2) 21 1.2 1.3

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q5) 21 1.0 1.5

0.5 2.8 .010
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q5) 21 0.6 1.0

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q8) 21 1.0 2.3

0.4 1.5 .130
Post-test Exp. CL Group (Q8) 21 0.8 1.9

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q18) 21 1.0 2.4

0.7 2.6 .016
Post-test Exp. CL Group (Q18) 21 0.6 1.7

1.2.5 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in

helping them to get better scores will be significantly different.

Question 9 ‘Writing in a group can help me to get better scores in my writing exams’, was

related to the fifth factor ‘Benefits of CL in helping to get better scores’. As shown in Table

4.22, the mean of the single score obtained by each student in the pre-test was 2.5, whereas

the post-test mean was 2.0, with a mean difference of 0.5, which was not significant (paired

t-test, t = 1.9, p. <.066). Therefore, hypothesis 1.2.5 was not confirmed.

151
Table 4.22 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group
concerning benefits of CL in helping to get better scores
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q9) 21 0.9 2.5

0.5 1.9 .066
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q9) 21 1.0 2.0

1.2.6 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in

providing comments on students’ writing will be significantly different.

Questions 10 ‘Colleagues in my group are able to give comments on my writing’ and 11 ‘I

would like to get feedback from my friends on my compositions’ were related to the sixth

factor ‘Benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing’. The comparison

revealed no significant differences between the pre- and post-test responses of students in the

experimental CL group concerning this factor (Q10: t = 1.2; p. <.232, and Q 11: t = 1.9; p.

<.069), as shown in Table 4.23. The mean of the single score obtained by each student for

question 10 in the pre-test was 2.2, and the post-test mean was 1.9, with a mean difference of

0.3, while the mean in the pre-test for question 11 was 2.1 and the post-test mean was 1.7,

with a mean difference of 0.4. Hypothesis 1.2.6 was thus not confirmed.

Table 4.23 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q10) 21 0.7 2.2

0.3 1.2 .232
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q10) 21 0.9 1.9

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q11) 21 0.8 2.1

0.4 1.9 .069
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q11) 21 0.5 1.7

152
1.2.7 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in

increasing understanding of accountability will be significantly different.

Question 13 ‘My experience of CL has increased my understanding of my own

accountability’ was related to the seventh factor ‘Benefits of CL in increasing understanding

of accountability’. As shown in Table 4.24, the mean of the single score obtained by each

student was 2.6 in the pre-test and 1.7 in the post-test, giving a mean difference of 0.9, that

indicated a highly significant difference (paired t-test, t = 4.6, p. <.000). The result is

evidence that the students felt that collaborative learning was effective in helping them to

increase their understanding of accountability. Therefore, hypothesis 1.2.7 was confirmed.

Table 4.24 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q13) 21 0.8 2.6

0.9 4.6 .000
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q13) 21 0.7 1.7

1.2.8 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of reading and

listening to other students’ essays in groups will be significantly different.

‘Benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups’ is another factor that

was related to the effectiveness of collaborative learning. Questions 14 ‘I like reading the

essays of my classmates and I understand what they write’ and 15 ‘I understand and learn

from listening to students when they read their essays in front of others’ addressed this

factor. The paired t-test revealed no significant difference for either question 14 (t= .085, p.

<.933) or question 15 (t =1.6, p. <.110). The mean for each student in both the pre-test and

the post-test for question 14 was 2.3, while for question 15 the mean for each student was 2.3

153
in the pre-test and 2.0 in the post-test, with a mean difference of 0.3, as shown in Table 4.25.

Hypothesis 1.2.8 was thus not confirmed.

Table 4.25 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q14) 21 0.9 2.3

0.0 .085 .933
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q14) 21 2.0 2.3

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q15) 21 0.8 2.3

0.3 1.6 .110
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q15) 21 0.8 2.0

1.2.9 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the factor that

collaborative learning helps in acquiring and using new vocabulary correctly will be

significantly different.

Question 19 ‘Collaborative writing helps me to acquire and use new vocabulary correctly’

addressed the ninth factor ‘Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary’. The

mean pre-test score for the experimental CL group was 2.0, while in the post-test it was 1.7,

with a mean difference of 0.3, as shown in Table 4.26. The result indicated no significant

difference (paired t-test, t = 1.9, p. <.069). Hypothesis 1.2.9 was therefore not confirmed.

Table 4.26 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group in terms
of benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q19) 21 0.7 2.0

0.3 1.9 .069
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q19) 21 0.9 1.7

154
1.2.10 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the factor that students

feel more satisfied after writing their essays in collaborative groups will be significantly

different.

Questions 12 ‘I would like to see students involved in more collaborative writing’ and 20 ‘I

feel more satisfied with my writing when I work in small groups than when I work

individually’ addressed the factor ‘Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in

writing essays’. The results of the paired t-test were highly significant for both questions

(Q12: t = 3.1, p. <.006; Q20: t = 4.1, p. <.000). The mean of the single score obtained by each

student for question 12 was 2.7 in the pre-test and 2.1 in the post-test, with a mean difference

of 0.6. For question 20, the mean in the pre-test was 2.6, whereas the post-test mean was 1.9,

with a mean difference of 0.7, as shown in Table 4.27. The findings indicated that students

felt more satisfied when writing their essays in collaborative groups than when writing

individually. Therefore, hypothesis 1.2.10 was confirmed.

Table 4.27 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of experimental CL group

concerning benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q12) 21 0.9 2.7

0.6 3.1 .006
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q12) 21 0.9 2.1

Pre-test: Exp. CL Group (Q20) 21 1.1 2.6

0.7 4.1 .000
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q20) 21 1.0 1.9

To sum up, questions 1-20 in the collaborative learning questionnaire were divided

according to different factors in order to investigate the attitudes and perceptions of students

155
in the experimental CL group concerning collaborative learning. The results for all questions

are summarized in Table 4.28 to clarify the organization by factors.

Table 4.28 Summary of the pre- and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL
group in the attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire
Factors: Significance by
ESL students’ attitudes towards Questions Accepted paired t-test
Collaboration during the pre-writing stage:
1.1 The importance of planning a topic with 3 Yes sig p> .008
friends.

1 1.2 The benefits of making an outline and

collecting ideas with classmates. 4 Yes sig p> .002

1.3 The importance of talking with friends to

facilitate finding ideas for the topic. 17 Yes sig p> .004

2 Collaboration during the revision stage. 6 Yes sig p> .000

16 Yes sig p>.030
3 Collaboration during the editing stage. 7 No sig p> .208
1 Yes sig p>.010
2 Yes sig p>.032
4 The importance of collaborative learning
5 Yes sig p>.010
for writing essays.
8 No sig p>.130
18 Yes sig p>.016
5 Benefits of CL in helping to get better
9 No sig p>.066
scores.
6 Benefits of CL in providing comments on 10 No sig p>.232
students’ writing. 11 No sig p>.069
Benefits of CL in increasing understanding
7 13 Yes sig p>.000
of accountability.
Benefits of reading and listening to other 14 No sig p>.933
8 students’ essays in groups.
15 No sig p>.110

9 Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new

19 No sig p>.069
vocabulary.
Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction 12 Yes sig p>.006
10 of students in writing essays.
20 Yes sig p>.000

156
Thus, the hypotheses relating to factors 1, 2, 7 and 10 were fully confirmed, the hypothesis

relating to factor 4 was partially confirmed and those relating to factors 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were

not confirmed.

2. There will be a significant difference in the control TL group between the

pre-test and the post-test as measured by the following sub-hypotheses:

2.1 There will be significant differences in students’ essays before and after involvement

in the traditional learning method.

The hypothesis was also examined using the paired t-test. As mentioned previously, 25

students from the control TL group completed both the pre- and post-test essays. As shown in

Table 4.29, a highly significant difference was found between the pre- and post-test essay

scores of the control TL group (t = 5.7, p. <.000). The mean and Std. Deviation of the total

scores for each student in the control TL group in the pre-test were 18.6 and 7.5 respectively,

compared with a mean of 24.8 and Std. Deviation of 7.3 in the post-test. The mean difference

was therefore 6.2, indicating that the writing skills of students in the control TL group had

improved after their involvement in the traditional learning method for three months.

Table 4.29 Comparing overall pre- and post-test essay scores of students in the control TL
group
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL group 25 7.5 18.6

6.2 5.7 .000
Post-test: Control TL group 25 7.3 24.8

The results confirmed the hypothesis that there would be significant differences in the essays

of students in the control TL group before and after involvement in the traditional learning

method.

157
The raters’ scores for the six aspects of the students’ writing analysed in the rubric

were then analysed separately, also using the paired t-test. These factors were classified

under the following sub-hypotheses:

2.1.1 The organization of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional learning method.

Table 4.30 shows that the mean obtained for the organization aspect for students in the

control TL group was 3.2 in the pre-test and 4.0 in the post-test, giving a mean difference of

0.8, a highly significant difference (t = 4.5, p. <.000). This means that the essay organization

of students in the control TL group had improved after involvement in the traditional learning

method. As a result hypothesis 2.1.1 was confirmed.

Table 4.30 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the control TL group in terms
of organization
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Organization (Pre-test: Control TL group) 25 1.4 3.2
0.8 4.5 .000
Organization (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.4 4.0

2.1.2 The development of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional leaning method.

As shown in Table 4.31, the mean obtained in the pre-test was 3.1, while in the post-test it

was 3.9, with a mean difference of 0.8, indicating a highly significant difference in the

development category for the control TL group (paired t-test, t = 4.0, p. <.000). Therefore,

hypothesis 2.1.2 was confirmed.

158
Table 4.31 Comparing pre-test and post-test scores of the control TL group in terms of
development
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Development (Pre-test: Control TL group) 25 1.3 3.1
0.8 4.0 .000
Development (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.3 3.9

2.1.3 The coherence of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional leaning method.

As indicated in Table 4.32, there was a highly significant difference between the pre-test and

post-test essays of the control TL group in terms of cohesion (t = 4.6, p. <.000). The mean

was 3.1 in the pre-test, whereas the post-test mean was 4.1, giving a mean difference of 1.0.

The cohesion of the students’ essays had therefore improved after their involvement in the

traditional learning method. As a result, hypothesis 2.1.3 was confirmed.

Table 4.32 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the control TL group in terms
of cohesion
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Cohesion (Pre-test: Control TL group) 25 1.2 3.1
1.0 4.6 .000
Cohesion (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.2 4.1

2.1.4 The vocabulary used in the students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional leaning method.

With regard to the vocabulary category, the mean obtained for the control TL group was 3.0

in the pre-test and 4.2 in the post-test, with a mean difference of 1.2, which was a highly

significant difference (t = 5.7, p. <.000), as shown in Table 4.33. This result showed that

hypothesis 2.1.4 could be confirmed.

159
Table 4.33 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the control TL group in terms
of vocabulary
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Vocabulary (Pre-test: Control group) 25 1.3 3.0
1.2 5.7 .000
Vocabulary (Post-test: Control group) 25 1.2 4.2

2.1.5 The structure of students’ essays will be significantly different after their involvement

in the traditional leaning method.

The results presented in Table 4.34 show that the pre-test mean obtained for the control TL

group in the structure category was 3.1, while the post-test mean was 4.2, with a difference of

1.1, which was highly significant (paired t-test, t = 4.5, p. <.000). The result indicated that

hypothesis 2.1.5 could be confirmed.

Table 4.34 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of control TL group in terms of
structure
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Structure (Pre-test: Control TL group) 25 1.2 3.1
1.1 4.5 .000
Structure (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.1 4.2

2.1.6 The mechanics of students’ essays will be significantly different after their

involvement in the traditional learning method.

This hypothesis was also tested using a paired t-test. As shown in Table 4.35, the mean

obtained for mechanics in the pre-test was 3.1, and in the post-test was 4.2, with a mean

difference of 1.1, which was a highly significant difference (t = 4.8, p. <.000). This means

that the mechanics of the students’ essay writing had improved after their involvement in the

traditional learning method. Therefore, hypothesis 2.1.6 was confirmed.

160
Table 4.35 Comparing pre-test and post-test essay scores of the control TL group in terms
of mechanics
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Mechanics (Pre-test: Control TL group) 25 1.1 3.1
1.1 4.8 .000
Mechanics (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.4 4.2

The findings presented above indicate that the students in the control TL group had improved

in all six measured aspects of their writing after being involved in the traditional learning

method. However, they showed a much greater improvement in some aspects than in others.

The categories in which the students had improved the most were vocabulary, followed by

structure, mechanics and cohesion, while those areas in which they had improved least were

development and organization. It could thus be concluded that engaging in traditional

learning resulted in a greater improvement in the vocabulary, structure, mechanics and

cohesion of the students’ essays than in development and organization, although there was

still significant improvement in these areas. The results are summarized in Table 4.36.

Table 4.36 Summary of the pre- and post-test essay scores of students in the control TL
group in terms of categories of the rubric
Factors Accepted Significance by paired t-test

1 Organization Yes sig p> .000

2 Development Yes sig p> .000

3 Cohesion Yes sig p> .000

4 Vocabulary Yes sig p> .000

5 Structure Yes sig p> .000

6 Mechanics Yes sig p> .000

161
2.2 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the attitudes

to collaborative learning questionnaire will be significantly different.

In order to test this hypothesis, all questions from the collaborative writing questionnaires

(1-20) were analysed using the paired t-test, as described for the experimental CL group in

section 1.2. The number of students of the control TL group who completed pre- and post-test

questionnaires was 21, rather than the 25 who completed the essays. The results presented in

Table 4.37 indicate that the pre-test mean for each student in the control TL group was 45.3,

while the post-test mean was 45.4, with a mean difference of 0.1, which was not significant (t

= .56, p. <.577). Hypothesis 2.2 was thus not confirmed.

Table 4.37 Comparing pre- and post-test attitudes of students in the control TL group in
the collaborative learning questionnaire
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL group 21 5.7 45.3

0.1 .56 .577
Post-test: Control TL group 21 9.1 45.4

As mentioned above, the collaborative learning questionnaire was divided into ten factors

(see pages 94-96) that were also analysed using the paired t-test since this involved testing

the same control TL group twice. All the factors were classified under the following sub-

hypotheses:

2.2.1 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the

pre-writing stage will be significantly different.

Questions 3, 4 and 17 were related to the first factor ‘Collaboration during the pre-writing

stage’ that was divided into three sub-factors. As shown in Table 4.38 below, for the first

sub-factor ‘The importance of planning a topic with friends’, the mean for each student for

question 3 ‘Before starting writing (pre-writing stage), planning a topic with friends is much

162
better than individually’ was 2.2 in the pre-test and 2.1 in the post-test. The mean difference

was only 0.1, which was not significant (paired t-test, t = .491, p. <.629).

Question 4 ‘Before I start writing (pre-writing stage), making an outline and writing

down ideas with classmates are not good methods’ was related to the second sub-factor ‘The

benefits of making an outline and collecting ideas with classmates’. The statement was

worded negatively, so the mean scores for the tests were reversed to facilitate comparison and

readability. As a result, the mean of the single score obtained by each student in the pre-test

was 1.5, while in the post-test it was 1.7, with a mean difference of 0.2, indicating no

significant difference (paired t-test, t = .797, p. <.452).

Question 17 addressed the third sub-factor ‘The importance of talking with friends to

facilitate finding ideas for the topic’. The mean in the pre-test was 2.1 for each student,

whereas in the post-test it was 1.9, with a small mean difference of 0.2. A paired t-test

indicated no significant difference (t = .548, p. <.590). Hypothesis 2.2.1 was thus not

confirmed. All the results for the first factor for the control TL group are shown in Table

4.38.

Table 4.38 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
collaboration during pre-writing stage
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q3) 21 1.0 2.2
0.1 .491 .629
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q3) 21 0.8 2.1

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q4) 21 0.9 1.5

0.2 .767 .452
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q4) 21 1.1 1.7

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q17) 21 1.1 2.1

0.2 .548 .590
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q17) 21 0.6 1.9

163
2.2.2 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the

revision stage will be significantly different.

With regard to the comparison of pre-test and post-test responses of the control TL group for

questions 6 and 16, which were related to the second factor ‘Collaboration during the revision

stage’, the mean of the single score obtained by each student obtained for question 6 was 2.6

in both pre- and post-tests, and the difference was not significant (paired t-test, t = .161, p.

<.874). Similarly, the mean in both pre- and post-tests for question 16 was 2.1, so the

difference was not significant here either (paired t-test, t = .000, p. <1.00). Therefore,

hypothesis 2.2.2 was not confirmed. These results are presented in Table 4.39 below.

Table 4.39 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
collaboration during revision stage
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL Group (6) 21 0.9 2.6

0.0 .161 .874
Post-test: Control TL Group (6) 21 1.1 2.6

Pre-test: Control TL Group (16) 21 0.7 2.1

0.0 .000 1.00
Post-test: Control TL Group (16) 21 0.7 2.1

2.2.3 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning collaboration during the

editing stage will be significantly different.

Question 7 ‘I prefer editing and proofreading my activities and tasks in a group rather than

individually’ was related to the factor ‘Collaboration during the editing stage’. The mean of

the single score for each student was 2.2 in the pre-test and 2.3 in the post-test, with a mean

difference of 0.1, as shown in Table 4.40. There was no significant difference between the

164
responses for the pre-test and post-test (paired t-test, t = .767, p. <. 452). Hypothesis 2.2.3

could therefore not be confirmed.

Table 4.40 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
collaborating during editing stage
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q7) 21 0.8 2.2

0.1 .767 .452
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q7) 21 1.0 2.3

2.2.4 The pre- and post-test of responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the importance of

collaborative learning will be significantly different.

As mentioned in hypothesis 1.2.4, five questions (1, 2, 5, 8 and 18) in the collaborative

learning questionnaire were related to the fourth factor ‘The importance of collaborative

learning for writing essays’. For question 1 ‘Working together in groups is a good strategy

that helps me to write effectively’, there was no significant difference between the responses

for the pre- and post-tests of the control TL group (paired t-test, t = .815, p. <.424). The mean

pre-test score for each student was 2.6 and in the post-test it was 2.8.

The mean scores for question 2, which was worded negatively, were reversed, so the

mean single score for each student in the pre-test was 2.0 and in the post-test it was 2.5. This

difference was also not significant (paired t-test, t= 1.6, p. <.116).

Question 5 was worded to support the idea that working individually without help

from others was important. This question was expressed negatively, so the mean scores were

reversed to indicate a positive development; thus the mean in the pre-test was 2.3 and in the

post-test it was 1.9, giving a mean difference of 0.4, which was not significant (paired t-test, t

= 1.4, p. <.162).

165
With regard to question 8 ‘Working with other students is very important for me’, the

mean pre-test score for each student was 2.0 and the post-test score was 2.5, with a mean

difference of 0.5, which was not significant (paired t-test, t = 1.9; p. <.061).

For question 18 ‘Sharing my essay with my friends collaboratively is useful and

beneficial’, the mean pre-test score was 2.1 and the post-test score 2.5, with a mean

difference of 0.4. The paired t-test found no significant difference between the responses for

pre-test and post-test (t = 1.8, p. <.072), as shown in Table 4.41. Therefore, hypothesis 2.2.4

was not confirmed.

Table 4.41 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning the
importance of collaborative learning for writing essays
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q1) 21 1.2 2.6

0.2 .815 .424
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q1) 21 1.2 2.8

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q2) 21 1.2 2.0

0.5 1.6 .116
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q2) 21 1.3 2.5

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q5) 21 1.1 2.3

0.4 1.4 .162
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q5) 21 1.1 1.9

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q8) 21 0.7 2.0

0.5 1.9 .061
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q8) 21 1.0 2.5

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q18) 21 0.7 2.1

0.4 1.8 .072
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q18) 21 1.1 2.5

166
2.2.5 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in

helping them to get better scores will be significantly different.

With regard to the fifth factor ‘Benefits of CL in helping to get better scores’, the mean of the

single score obtained by each student for question 9 ‘Writing in a group can help me to get

better scores in my writing exams’ in the pre-test was 2.4 and in post-test was 2.3, showing

no significant difference (paired t-test, t = 0.25, p. <.803), as indicated in Table 4.42. As a

result, hypothesis 2.2.5 was not confirmed.

Table 4.42 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of CL in helping to get better scores
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q9) 21 0.8 2.4

0.1 0.25 .803
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q9) 21 0.9 2.3

2.2.6 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in

providing comments on students’ writing will be significantly different.

The sixth factor covered in the collaborative learning questionnaire was ‘Benefits of CL in

providing comments on students’ writing’. The results for both questions 10 ‘Colleagues in

my group are able to give comments on my writing’ and 11 ‘I would like to get feedback from

my friends on my compositions’ indicated no significant difference between the responses for

the pre-test and the post-test (question 10: t = .491; p. <.629; question 11: t = .188; p. <.853).

The mean difference for both questions was only 0.1, as shown in Table 4.43. Hypothesis

2.2.6 was therefore not confirmed.

167
Table 4.43 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL group (Q10) 21 0.9 2.4

0.1 .491 .629
Post-test: Control TL group (Q10) 21 0.7 2.3

Pre-test: Control TL group (Q11) 21 0.9 2.3

0.1 .188 .853
Post-test: Control TL group (Q11) 21 0.9 2.2

2.2.7 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of CL in

increasing understanding of accountability will be significantly different.

The seventh factor ‘Benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability’ was

represented by question 13; the paired t-test found no significant difference between pre-test

and post-test responses for the control TL group (t = .271, p. <.789). The mean of the single

score for each student in both the pre- and post-test was 2.2, as shown in Table 4.44.

Therefore, hypothesis 2.2.7 was not confirmed.

Table 4.44 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q13) 21 0.7 2.2

0.0 .271 .789
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q13) 21 0.6 2.2

2.2.8 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the benefits of reading and

listening to other students’ essays in groups will be significantly different.

Questions 14 and 15 addressed the eighth factor in the collaborative learning questionnaire

‘Benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups’. For question 14 ‘I like
168
reading the essays of my classmates and I understand what they write’, the mean of the single

score for each student in the control TL group in the pre-test was 2.1 and in the post-test it

was 2.2, which indicated no significant difference (t = .181, p. <.858).

For question 15 ‘I understand and learn from listening to students when they read

their essays in front of others’, the mean of the single score for each student was 2.9 in the

pre-test and 2.5 in the post-test, giving a mean difference of 0.4. The paired t-test showed no

significant difference between the pre-test and post-test responses of the control TL group (t

= 1.6, p. <.107), as shown in Table 4.45. Hypothesis 2.2.8 could not therefore be confirmed.

Table 4.45 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q14) 21 0.8 2.1
0.1 .181 .858
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q14) 21 0.7 2.2

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q15) 21 1.0 2.9

0.4 1.6 .107
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q15) 21 0.8 2.5

2.2.9 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the factor that

collaborative learning helps in acquiring and using new vocabulary correctly will be

significantly different.

Question 19 ‘Collaborative writing helps me to acquire and use new vocabulary correctly’

was related to the factor ‘Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary’. It was

analysed through the paired t-test and a significant difference was found between the scores

for pre-test and post-test (t= 2.6, p. <.016). The mean of the single score obtained by each

student in the pre-test was 1.7, whereas the post-test mean was 2.0, as shown in Table 4.46.

The mean difference for students in the control TL group indicated that after the course they

169
were more inclined to disagree with the statement that collaborative writing helps them to

acquire and use new vocabulary correctly. Therefore, hypothesis 2.2.9 was confirmed.

Table 4.46 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of the control TL group in terms of
benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q19) 21 0.5 1.7

0.3 2.6 .016
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q19) 21 0.7 2.0

2.2.10 The pre- and post-test responses of students in the control TL group in the

attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire concerning the factor that students

feel more satisfied after writing their essays in collaborative groups will be significantly

different.

Questions 12 and 20 represented the last factor ‘Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction

of students in writing essays’. In the results obtained for question 12 ‘I would like to see

students involved in more collaborative writing’, no significant difference was found between

the responses for pre- and post-test (paired t-test, t = .384, p. <.705). The mean score was 2.3

for the pre-test and 2.4 for the post-test, with a mean difference of 0.1. For question 20 ‘I feel

more satisfied with my writing when I work in small groups than when I work individually’,

the findings showed no significant difference (paired t-test, t = 1.7, p. <.104). The mean of

the single score for each student in the pre-test was 2.2 and in the post-test it was 2.6, with a

mean difference 0.4, as shown in Table 4.47. Hypothesis 2.2.10 could thus not be confirmed.

170
Table 4.47 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of control TL group concerning
benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q12) 21 0.8 2.3

0.1 .384 .705
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q12) 21 1.1 2.4

Pre-test: Control TL Group (Q20) 21 0.9 2.2

0.4 1.7 .104
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q20) 21 1.2 2.6

In summary, questions 1-20 in the collaborative learning questionnaire were classified into

factors to investigate the attitudes and perceptions of students in the control TL group

concerning collaborative learning. All the results discussed above are summarized in Table

4.48 to clarify the organization by factors.

171
Table 4.48 Summary of the analysis of the pre- and post-test responses of students in the
control TL group in the attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire
Factors: Significance by
ESL students’ attitudes towards: Questions Accepted paired t-test
Collaboration during the pre-writing stage:
1.1 The importance of planning a topic with 3 No sig p> .629
friends.

1 1.2 The benefits of making an outline and

collecting ideas with classmates. 4 No sig p> .452

1.3 The importance of talking with friends

to facilitate finding ideas for the topic. 17 No sig p> .590

Collaboration during the revision stage. 6 No sig p> .874

2
16 No sig p> .1.00
Collaboration during the editing stage.
3 7 No sig p> .452
1 No sig p> .424
2 No sig p> .116
The importance of collaborative learning 5 No sig p> .162
4
for writing essays.
8 No sig p> .061
18 No sig p> .072
Benefits of CL in helping to get better
5 scores. 9 No sig p>.803

Benefits of CL in providing comments on 10 No sig p> .629

6 students’ writing.
11 No sig p> .853
Benefits of CL in increasing understanding
7 13 No sig p> .789
of accountability.
Benefits of reading and listening to other 14 No sig p> .858
8 students’ essays in groups.
15 No sig p> .107

Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new 19

9 Yes sig p> .016
vocabulary.
Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction
12 No sig p>.705
of students in writing essays.
10
20 No sig p>.104

172
Thus, only the hypothesis relating to factor 9 was confirmed; the hypotheses relating to all

other factors were not confirmed.

3. There will be a significant difference between the experimental CL group

and the control TL group at time 2 as measured by the following sub-
hypotheses:
3.1 There will be significant differences between the post-test essays written by students

in the experimental CL group and those written by students in the control TL group.

The comparison of the essay scores was based on 23 students in the experimental CL group

and 25 in the control TL group. The post-test results for the experimental CL group were as

follows: mean = 29.4, Std. Deviation = 8.1, while the post-test results for the control TL

group were: mean = 24.8, Std. Deviation = 7.3, t =18.2. The mean difference between the two

groups was 4.6: this shows that the experimental CL group obtained higher scores in their

written essays in the post-test than the control TL group, the difference being significant

(independent t-test, t = 2.1 and p. <.045). The results are presented in Table 4.49 below.

Table 4.49 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and
in the control TL group
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group 23 8.1 29.4

4.6 2.1 .045
Post-test: Control TL group 25 7.3 24.8

The results indicated that the hypothesis that there would be significant differences between

the post-test essays written by students in the experimental CL group and those written by

students in the control TL group should be confirmed.

The raters’ scores for the six aspects of the students’ writing covered in Paulus’ rubric

were then analysed separately, also using the independent t-test, since this involved testing

two different groups. These aspects were classified under the following sub-hypotheses:

173
3.1.1 The organization of the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group will

be significantly different from that of the post-test essays written by students in the control

TL group.

The results presented in Table 4.50 show that the mean post-test score for organization

obtained by the experimental CL group was 4.8, whereas in the control TL group it was 4.0,

with a mean difference of 0.8, which was not significant (independent t-test, t = 1.9, p.

<.057). Thus, hypothesis 3.1.1 concerning organization was not confirmed, although the

improvement in the experimental CL group scores was near-significant.

Table 4.50 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and
in the control TL group in terms of organization
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Organization (Post-test: Exp. CL group) 23 1.3 4.8
0.8 1.9 .057
Organization (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.4 4.0

3.1.2 The development of the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group will

be significantly different from that of the post-test essays written by students in the control

TL group.

The results shown in Table 4.51 indicate that the mean post-test score for development

obtained by the experimental CL group was 4.7, whereas in the control TL group it was 3.9,

giving a mean difference of 0.8. The independent t-test indicated a significant difference in

the development category (t = 2.0, p. <.044). This means that development in the essay

writing of students in the experimental CL group improved more than that of students in the

control CL group. Therefore, hypothesis 3.1.2 was confirmed.

174
Table 4.51 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and
in the control TL group in terms of development
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Development (Post-test: Exp. CL group) 23 1.5 4.7
0.8 2.0 .044
Development (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.3 3.9

3.1.3 Cohesion in the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group will be

significantly different from that in the post-test essays written by students in the control TL

group.

As shown in Table 4.52, the mean obtained for cohesion in the post-test essays of the

experimental CL group was 4.9 and in the control TL group was 4.1, with a mean difference

of 0.8, which was significant (independent t-test, t = 2.1, p. <.040). This means that the

cohesion of the essay writing of students in the experimental CL group had improved more

than that of students in the control TL group. Hypothesis 3.1.3 was therefore confirmed.

Table 4.52 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and
in the control TL group in terms of cohesion
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Cohesion (Post-test: Exp. CL group) 23 1.4 4.9
0.8 2.1 .040
Cohesion (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.2 4.1

3.1.4 The vocabulary used in the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group

will be significantly different from that used in the post-test essays written by students in

the control TL group.

As shown in Table 4.53, the analysis of the vocabulary aspect gave the post-test mean for the

experimental CL group as 4.8, while in the control TL group it was 4.2, with a mean

difference of 0.6, which was not significant (independent t-test, t = 1.7, p. <.090). Therefore,

hypothesis 3.1.4 was not confirmed.

175
Table 4.53 Difference between post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL
group and those of students in the control TL group in terms of vocabulary
N SD Mean Mean
Difference T P
Vocabulary (Post-test: Exp. CL group) 23 1.4 4.8
0.6 1.7 .090
Vocabulary (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.2 4.2

3.1.5 The structure of the post-test essays of students in the experimental CL group will be

significantly different from that of the post-test essays written by students in the control TL

group.

The analysis of the structure aspect, as shown in Table 4.54, gave a post-test mean of 4.9 for

the experimental CL group and 4.2 for the control TL group, the difference being 0.7, which

was significant (independent t-test, t = 2.0, p. <.043). This means that the structure of the

essays written by students in the experimental CL group had improved more than that of

students in the control TL group. Hypothesis 3.1.5 was therefore confirmed.

Table 4.54 Difference between post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL
group and those of students in the control TL group in terms of structure
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Structure (Post-test: Exp. CL group) 23 1.4 4.9
0.7 2.0 .043
Structure (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.1 4.2

3.1.6 The mechanics of the post-test essays written by students in the experimental CL

group will be significantly different from that of the post-test essays written by students in

the control TL group.

As shown in Table 4.55, the mean obtained for the mechanics of the post-test essays of

students in the experimental CL group was 4.6, while that obtained for students in the control

TL group was 4.2, with a mean difference of 0.4, showing no significant difference

(independent t-test, t = 1.0, p. <.292). Hypothesis 3.1.6 was thus not confirmed.

176
Table 4.55 Comparing post-test essay scores of students in the experimental CL group and
in the control TL group in terms of mechanics
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Mechanics (Post-test: Exp. CL group) 23 1.4 4.6
0.4 1.0 .292
Mechanics (Post-test: Control TL group) 25 1.4 4.2

The results presented above reveal that there were significant differences between the post-

test essays of students in the experimental CL group and those of students in the control TL

group in terms of development (p. <.044), cohesion (p. <.040) and structure (p. <.043).

However, there were no significant differences in terms of organization (p. <.057),

vocabulary (p. <.090) or mechanics (p. <.292). Nevertheless, the students who were involved

in collaborative learning did better in all aspects of their writing than those in the control TL

group, even though the differences were significant for only three of the measures in the

rubric. All the results discussed above are summarized in Table 4.56 below.

Table 4.56 Summary of the analysis of the post-test essay scores of students in the
experimental CL and control TL groups in terms of categories of the rubric
Significance by

Aspect Accepted independent t-test

1 Organization No sig p> .057

2 Development Yes sig p> .044

3 Cohesion Yes sig p> .040

4 Vocabulary No sig p> .090

5 Structure Yes sig p> .043

6 Mechanics No sig p> .292

177
Thus, we see that the aspects of development, cohesion and structure differed significantly,

whereas the other aspects of organization, vocabulary, and mechanics did not. It may thus be

said that collaborative learning was more effective than the traditional learning method in

three categories namely development, cohesion and structure, but not in organization,

vocabulary, and mechanics.

3.2 There will be significant differences between the attitudes and perceptions of the

students in the experimental CL group and those in the control TL group as tested by

the collaborative learning questionnaire at the post-test.

In order to test this hypothesis, all questions from the collaborative learning questionnaire (1-

20) were analysed using the independent t-test. The number of students who completed the

post-test questionnaire in both the experimental CL and control TL groups was 21, compared

to the 23/25 involved in the essay scoring.

When comparing the attitudes and perceptions of the students in the experimental CL

group with those of students in the control TL group as tested by the collaborative learning

questionnaire, it was found that the mean of the total score obtained by each student in the

post-test of the experimental CL group was 34, whereas in the control TL group it was 45.4,

giving a mean difference of 11.4, that indicated a significant difference between the attitudes

and perceptions of students in the experimental CL group and those in the control TL group

(independent t-test, t = 2.1, p. <.036), as shown in Table 4.57.

Table 4.57 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups in the
collaborative learning questionnaire
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL group 21 7.8 34

11.4 2.1 .036
Post-test: Control TL group 21 9.1 45.4

178
The hypothesis that there would be a significant difference between the attitudes and

perceptions of students in the experimental CL group and those of students in the control TL

group at the post-test should therefore be confirmed.

As mentioned before, the collaborative learning questionnaire was divided into ten

factors (listed on pages 94-96). These were also analysed using the independent t-test, since

this involved testing the experimental CL group against the control TL group at the post-test.

These factors were classified under the following sub-hypotheses:

3.2.1 There will be significant differences in the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning collaboration

during the pre-writing stage at the post-test.

Questions 3, 4 and 17 were concerned with the first factor ‘Collaboration during the pre-

writing stage’, which was divided into three sub-factors. With regard to question 3, that was

related to the first sub-factor ‘The importance of planning a topic with friends’, as shown in

Table 4.58, the mean in the post-test for each student in the experimental CL group was 1.6;

whereas in the control TL group it was 2.1, with a mean difference of 0.5, which was a

significant difference (independent t-test, t = 2.2, p. <.031). The results indicated that there

was a higher degree of agreement among students who were involved in the collaborative

learning classroom with the statement that ‘Before starting writing (pre-writing stage),

planning a topic with friends is much better than individually’ than among students in the

control TL group.

The second sub-factor was ‘The benefits of making an outline and collecting ideas

with classmates’. For question 4 ‘Before I start writing (pre-writing stage), making an outline

and writing down ideas with classmates are not good methods’, the mean scores were

reversed; thus, the lower the value obtained for the mean, the greater was the improvement.

The mean of the single score obtained by each student in the experimental CL group was 0.9

179
in the post-test, whereas in the control TL group it was 1.7, giving a mean difference of 0.8,

which was significant (independent t-test, t = 2.5, p. <.016). The results for question 4 thus

showed that by the post-test, the attitude of students in the experimental CL group towards

making an outline and writing down ideas with classmates had improved more than that of

students in the control TL group.

Question 17 was related to the third sub-factor ‘The importance of talking with friends

to facilitate finding ideas for the topic’. As shown in Table 4.58, the mean in the post-test for

the experimental CL group was 1.4, while for the control TL group it was 1.9, with a mean

difference of 0.5, which was highly significant (independent t-test, t = 2.8, p. <.007). The

findings showed that by the post-test students who were involved in the CL group were more

inclined to agree with the statement ‘At the pre-writing stage, talking with my friends can

facilitate finding ideas for my topic’ than those in the control TL group.

To summarize the results for the first factor covered in the collaborative learning

questionnaire, students in the experimental CL group were more positive about the

importance of collaborative learning when planning a topic, collecting and outlining ideas,

and finding ideas for the essay topic than those in the control TL group. Therefore,

hypothesis 3.2.1 was confirmed.

180
Table 4.58 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups
concerning collaboration during pre-writing stage
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q3) 21 0.6 1.6
0.5 2.2 .031
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q3) 21 0.8 2.1

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q4) 21 0.8 0.9

0.8 2.5 .016
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q4) 21 1.1 1.7

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q17) 21 0.5 1.4

0.5 2.8 .007
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q17) 21 0.6 1.9

3.2.2 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning collaboration

during the revision stage at the post-test.

Table 4.59 indicates the difference between the post-test responses of the experimental CL

group and those of the control TL group regarding the second factor ‘Collaboration during

the revision stage’. For question 6, the post-test mean for the experimental CL group was 1.8,

whereas in the control TL group it was 2.6, with a mean difference of 0.8, which showed a

significant difference (independent t-test, t = 2.6, p. <.012). The extent of agreement with the

statement ‘Working and writing in groups helps me to know how to revise my essay

effectively’ had increased more among those students involved in collaborative learning than

among those who engaged in traditional learning. Similarly, the post-test mean of the single

score for each student in the experimental CL group for question 16 was 1.5, whereas in the

control TL group it was 2.1, which was a significant difference (independent t-test, t = 2.6, p.

<.011). This result indicated that the agreement of students in the experimental CL group

181
with the statement ‘Revising my essay with classmates many times can improve it effectively’

had increased after their involvement in collaborative learning.

The results for both question 6 and 16 revealed that the attitudes of the experimental

CL group towards collaboration during the revision stage had improved more than those of

the control TL group. Therefore, hypothesis 3.2.2 was confirmed.

Table 4.59 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning collaboration during revision stage
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q6) 21 0.6 1.8

0.8 2.6 .012
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q6) 21 1.1 2.6

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q16) 21 0.6 1.5

0.6 2.6 .011
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q16) 21 0.7 2.1

3.2.3 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning collaboration

during the editing stage at the post-test.

Question 7 was concerned with the third factor ‘Collaboration during the editing stage’. As

shown in Table 4.60, the mean post-test score for the experimental CL group was 1.8 and that

for the control TL group was 2.3, giving a mean difference of 0.5, which was not significant

(independent t-test, t = 1.9; p. <.058). Hypothesis 3.2.3 was therefore not confirmed, although

there was a near-significant improvement in the experimental CL group scores.

Table 4.60 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning collaborating during editing stage
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q7) 21 0.7 1.8

0.5 1.9 .058
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q7) 21 1.0 2.3

182
3.2.4 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the importance of

collaborative learning at the post-test.

Five questions (1, 2, 5, 8 and 18) were related to the fourth factor ‘The importance of

collaborative learning for writing essays’. For question 1 ‘Working together in groups is a

good strategy that helps me to write effectively’, the results presented in Table 4.61 showed

that the mean post-test score for the experimental CL group was 1.9, whereas for the control

TL group it was 2.8, with a mean difference of 0.9, which was a highly significant difference

(t = 2.8, p. <.007). Students in the experimental CL group were thus more inclined to agree

that working in groups was a good strategy that helped them to write effectively than those in

the control TL group.

For question 2 ‘Writing about something with my friends is not suitable for me’, the

mean scores were reversed. As a result, the post-test mean of the single score for each

student in the experimental CL group was 1.3 and in the control TL group it was 2.5, with a

mean difference of 1.2, which was highly significant (independent t-test, t = 2.8, p. <.006).

The mean difference found for question 2 thus showed that students in the experimental CL

group believed more strongly that writing with friends was a suitable method than students

in the control TL group.

For question 5 ‘Working by myself without help from others is very important for

me’, the mean scores were also reversed, so the mean of the single score obtained by each

student in the experimental CL group was 1.0, whereas in the control TL group it was 1.9,

with a mean difference of 0.9, which was highly significant (independent t-test, t = 3.3, p.

<.002). It was clear from the mean difference between post-test responses that the

experimental CL group thought that the strategy of working with others was more important

than the control TL group.

183
With regard to question 8 ‘Working with other students is very important for me’, the

mean of the single score for each student in the experimental CL group was 1.9, whereas in

the control TL group it was 2.5, giving a mean difference of 0.6. The difference was not

significant (independent t-test, t = 1.8, p. <.065).

Finally, as shown in Table 4.61, for question 18 ‘Sharing my essay with my friends

collaboratively is useful and beneficial’ the post-test mean in the experimental CL group was

1.7, whereas in the control TL group it was 2.5, with a mean difference of 0.8. This

difference was highly significant (independent t-test, t = 2.8, p. <.007). This indicates that

the experimental CL group thought that sharing essays with friends collaboratively was a

more useful and beneficial strategy than the control TL group.

Table 4.61 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning the importance of collaborative learning for writing essays
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q1) 21 0.9 1.9

0.9 2.8 .007
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q1) 21 1.2 2.8

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q2) 21 1.2 1.3

1.2 2.8 .006
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q2) 21 1.3 2.5

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q5) 21 0.6 1.0

0.9 3.3 .002
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q5) 21 1.1 1.9

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q8) 21 0.8 1.9

0.6 1.8 .065
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q8) 21 1.0 2.5

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q18) 21 0.6 1.7

0.8 2.8 .007
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q18) 21 1.1 2.5

184
The results for the fourth factor showed that the attitudes of students in the experimental CL

group towards the importance of CL for writing essays had become more positive after

completing the field study than the attitudes of those in the control TL group. Therefore,

hypothesis 3.2.4 was confirmed.

3.2.5 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in helping to get better scores at the post-test.

Question 9 ‘Writing in a group can help me to get better scores in my writing exams’ was the

only question related to the fifth factor ‘Benefits of CL in helping to get better scores’. The

mean for the post-test in the experimental CL group was 2.0 and for the control TL group it

was 2.3, with a mean difference of 0.3, as shown in Table 4.62. No significant difference was

found (independent t-test, t =1.2, p. <.230). Therefore, hypothesis 3.2.5 was not confirmed.

Table 4.62 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning benefits of CL in helping to get better scores in writing exams
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q9) 21 1.0 2.0

0.3 1.2 .230
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q9) 21 0.9 2.3

3.2.6 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in providing comments on students’ writing at the post-test.

When comparing the post-test responses of students in the experimental CL group with those

of control TL group concerning the sixth factor ‘Benefits of CL in providing comments on

students’ writing’, the result for question 10 showed that the mean for the experimental CL

group was 1.9, and for the control TL group 2.3, a non-significant difference (independent t-

test, t = 1.5, p. <.119). For question 11, ‘I would like to get feedback from my friends on my

185
compositions’, the mean in the experimental CL group was 1.7, whereas in the control TL

group it was 2.2, indicating no significant difference between the groups (t =1.9, p. <.061), as

shown in Table 4.63. Therefore, hypothesis 3.2.6 was not confirmed.

Table 4.63 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing
N SD Mean Mean T P
Difference
Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q10) 21 0.9 1.9
0.4 1.5 .119
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q10) 21 0.7 2.3

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q11) 21 0.5 1.7

0.5 1.9 .061
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q11) 21 0.9 2.2

3.2.7 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in increasing understanding of accountability at the post-test.

Question 13 ‘My experience of CL has increased my understanding of my own

accountability’ was related to the factor ‘Benefits of CL in increasing understanding of

accountability’. The mean for the experimental CL group was 1.7, whereas in the control TL

group it was 2.2, giving a mean difference of 0.5. The independent t-test found no significant

difference between the scores for the two groups (t = 1.9, p. < .063), as shown in Table 4.64.

As a result, hypothesis 3.2.7 was not confirmed.

Table 4.64 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q13) 21 0.7 1.7

0.5 1.9 .063
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q13) 21 0.6 2.2

186
3.2.8 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups at the post-test.

Both questions 14 and 15 were related to the eighth factor ‘Benefits of reading and listening

to other students’ essays in groups’. The mean for the experimental CL group for question 14

was 2.3, while for the control TL group it was 2.2. For question 15, the mean of the single

score was 2.0 for the experimental CL group and 2.5 for the control TL group, as shown in

Table 4.65. There were thus no significant differences found for either question between the

post-test responses of the experimental CL group and those of the control TL group

(independent t-test: Q14: t= .182, p. <.857; Q15: t = 1.8, p. <.069). Therefore, hypothesis

3.2.8 was not confirmed.

Table 4.65 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups

concerning benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q14) 21 2.0 2.3

0.1 .182 .857
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q14) 21 0.7 2.2

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q15) 21 0.8 2.0

0.5 1.8 .069
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q15) 21 0.8 2.5

3.2.9 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in acquiring and using new vocabulary at the post-test.

The ninth factor in the collaborative learning questionnaire was ‘Benefits of CL in acquiring

and using new vocabulary’, which was covered by question 19 ‘Collaborative writing helps

me to acquire and use new vocabulary correctly’. In the post-test the mean for the

experimental CL group was 1.7, while that for the control TL group was 2.0, as shown in

187
Table 4.66. No significant difference was found between the experimental CL group and the

control TL group (independent t-test, t = 1.3, p. <.198). As a result, hypothesis 3.2.9 was not

confirmed.

Table 4.66 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups in

terms of benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q19) 21 0.9 1.7

0.3 1.3 .198
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q19) 21 0.7 2.0

3.2.10 There will be significant differences between the perceptions of the students in the

experimental CL group and those in the control TL group concerning the benefits of

collaborative learning in increasing the satisfaction of students with their writing at the

post-test.

Questions 12 and 20 were related to the tenth factor, namely ‘Benefits of CL in increasing the

satisfaction of students in writing essays’. As shown in Table 4.67, the mean for question 12

in the experimental CL group was 2.1, whereas in the control TL group it was 2.4, with a

mean difference of 0.3. For question 20, the mean was 1.9 in the experimental CL group and

2.6 in the control TL group, with a mean difference of 0.7. The independent t-test found no

significant post-test difference between the experimental CL and control TL groups for either

question (Q12: t = 1.0, p. <.304; Q20: t = 1.8, p. <.065). Therefore, hypothesis 3.2.10 was not

confirmed.

188
Table 4.67 Comparing post-test responses of experimental CL and control TL groups in
terms of benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays
N SD Mean Mean Difference T P

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q12) 21 0.9 2.1

0.3 1.0 .304
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q12) 21 1.1 2.4

Post-test: Exp. CL Group (Q20) 21 1.0 1.9

0.7 1.8 .065
Post-test: Control TL Group (Q20) 21 1.2 2.6

In summary, in order to compare the post-test attitudes and perceptions of the experimental

CL and control TL groups concerning collaborative learning, the responses to questions 1-20

in the collaborative learning questionnaire were analysed. These questions were divided

according to ten factors. All the results discussed above are summarized in Table 4.68 below,

to make the organization by factors clearer.

189
Table 4.68 Summary of results showing the post-test attitudes towards collaborative
learning of students in the experimental CL and control TL groups
Significance by
Factors: independent t-
ESL students’ attitudes towards: Question Accepted test
Collaboration during the pre-writing stage:
1.1 The importance of planning a topic with 3 Yes sig p> .031
friends.

1 1.2 The benefits of making an outline and

collecting ideas with classmates. 4 Yes sig p> .016

1.3 The importance of talking with friends to

facilitate finding ideas for the topic. 17 Yes sig p> .007

Collaboration during the revision stage. 6 Yes sig p> .012

2
16 Yes sig p> .011
3 Collaboration during the editing stage. 7 No sig p> .058
1 Yes sig p> .007
2 Yes sig p> .006
The importance of collaborative learning for
4 5 Yes sig p> .002
writing essays.
8 No sig p> .065
18 Yes sig p> .007

5 Benefits of CL in helping to get better scores. 9 No sig p> .230

Benefits of CL in providing comments on 10 No sig p> .119
6
students’ writing. 11 No sig p> .061

7 Benefits of CL in increasing understanding of

13 No sig p> .063
accountability.
Benefits of reading and listening to other 14 No sig p> .857
8
students’ essays in groups. 15 No sig p> .069

9 Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new

19 No sig p> .198
vocabulary.
Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction 12 No sig p> .304
10
of students in writing essays. 20 No sig p> .065

190
Therefore, the hypotheses relating to factors 1 and 2 were fully confirmed, the hypothesis

concerning factor 4 was partially confirmed and the hypotheses regarding factors 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9 and 10 were not confirmed.

4.6 The analysis of the general writing questionnaire

We now turn to the results of the other part of the questionnaire given to the students,

which was concerned with student’s attitudes towards writing skills in general. This section

included 23 questions (see Chapter 3, p. 93). The students in both the experimental CL and

control TL groups had been writing essays for three months, so it was appropriate to assess

any changes in their attitudes and perceptions regarding writing skills. These questions were

related to the second research question regarding whether or not the use of CL would affect

students’ attitudes towards learning writing skills.

Since the main section of the questionnaire investigated whether using collaborative

learning was beneficial for learning writing skills, it was logical to begin the analysis with this

section (as presented above) and to leave the general writing questionnaire to the end, since

the aim of this part was to collect general information about the students’ attitudes towards

studying and learning writing skills (for details see Appendix B-1). A five-point Likert scale

was used, according to which a number between 1 and 5 was assigned to each response, as

follows: ‘strongly agree’ = 1, ‘agree’ = 2, ‘undecided’ = 3, ‘disagree’ = 4, and finally

‘strongly disagree’ = 5. The questions were written in English and were distributed to all

students in both the experimental CL and the control TL groups, once before starting the

course, and once after they had completed it.

For the purpose of calculating the mean scores, the questionnaire scores were out of 5,

with 1 indicating the greatest or most positive improvement. For questions that were

191
expressed negatively (e.g. Q1 ‘difficult’), the mean score was changed to a positive value (i.e.

‘not difficult’= ‘easy’) in order to allow a consistent presentation of scores, as was done with

the other parts of the questionnaire. After collecting the students’ responses, the results were

analysed using the paired t-test to find the difference between pre- and post-tests for both the

experimental CL and the control TL groups.

The general writing questionnaire was divided into four factors and sub-factors, as

described on pages 90-92:

1. Attitudes of students towards writing skills

1.1 Ease and interest of writing skills.

1.2 The importance of writing skills.

1.3 The importance of the process approach to writing.

1.4 The priority of correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes.

1.5 Motivation for practising writing skills.

1.6 Opportunity for practising writing skills.

2. Attitudes of students towards the pre-writing stage

2.1 Taking enough time to understand the essay topic.

2.2 The difficulty of understanding the essay topic.

2.3 Planning for the topic mentally and physically.

2.4 Collecting and organizing ideas.

3. Attitudes of students towards the drafting and revising stages

3.1 Following the essay plan when starting writing.

3.2 Difficulty in starting to write the essay.

3.3 Making revisions before finishing the first draft of the essay.

3.4 Using the vocabulary supplied by the teacher.

192
4. Attitudes of students towards the editing stage

4.1 Finding appropriate vocabulary during editing stage.

4.2 Revising essays several times before submitting during editing stage.

4.3 Correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes during editing stage.

Factor (1) Attitudes of students towards writing skills

The first factor included ten questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 18) and aimed to collect

general information on certain aspects related to learning writing skills. This factor was

divided into six sub-factors, as follows:

1.1 Ease and interest of writing skills

The first sub-factor included three questions (1, 5 and 8). As question 1 ‘Writing an essay is

very difficult for me’ was expressed negatively, the mean scores were reversed (i.e., 2.8

became 2.2). The pre-test mean for the experimental CL group was 2.2 and the post-test mean

was 1.6, with a mean difference of 0.6. For the control TL group, the pre-test mean was 2.4

and the post-test 2.0, with a mean difference of 0.4. The differences between the scores for

pre- and post-tests were significant for both groups (paired t-tests, two: experimental CL

group t = 3.5, p. <.002; control TL group t = 2.6, p. <.017). To summarize the results for

question 1, both the experimental CL and control TL groups felt that essay writing had

become less difficult over the 11 weeks of the course.

For question 5, ‘I find it interesting to practise and learn writing skills’, the mean for

the experimental CL group in the pre-test was 2.2 and in the post-test 2.5. With regard to the

control TL group, the pre-test mean was 2.5 and in the post-test it was 2.3, with a mean

difference of 0.2. The paired t-test indicated a significant difference between the scores for

the pre-test and the post-test for both groups (experimental CL group: t = 2.8, p. <.010;

control TL group: t = 2.1, p. <.042). Thus, even though the students in the experimental CL

group had spent eleven weeks practising writing in a collaborative learning environment,

193
they still tended to think that learning writing skills was not interesting. On the other hand,

by the end of the course, students in the control TL group were more inclined to feel that

practising writing skills was interesting, as shown in the mean difference, which was

significant.

For question 8 ‘I think learning writing skills is boring’, the pre-test mean for the

experimental CL group was 3.0, compared with a post-test mean of 3.6, giving a mean

difference of 0.6, which indicated that the students tended to agree less with the statement

after their involvement in the collaborative learning settings. On the other hand, the pre-test

mean for the control TL group was 3.2, compared with 2.8 in the post-test, with a mean

difference of 0.4. The paired t-test found highly significant differences between the scores for

the pre-test and the post-test for both groups (experimental CL group: t = 5.7, p. <.000;

control TL group: t = 3.8, p. <.001). Summarizing the students’ attitudes toward the statement

‘I think learning writing skills is boring’, the mean difference in the experimental CL group

indicated that after their involvement in the collaborative learning sessions the students had

come to feel that learning writing skills was less boring, and the difference was highly

significant. On the other hand, the difference in the mean scores in the control TL group was

highly significant; indicating that the students felt that learning writing skills is boring.

1.2 The importance of writing skills

Question 2, ‘I think that writing is an important skill’, was the only one related to the second

sub-factor of ‘The importance of writing skills’. The pre-test and post-test means for the

experimental CL group were 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. The pre-test mean for the control TL

group was 1.4 and 1.5 for the post-test. The paired t-test indicated no significant difference

between the scores for the pre-test and the post-test for either group (experimental CL group:

t = 1.4, p. <.162; control TL group: t = .810, p. <.428).

194
1.3 The importance of the process approach to writing

Question 3 was related to the third sub-factor ‘The importance of the process approach to

writing’. The pre-test mean for question 3, ‘Writing isn't just completing a composition, but

brainstorming, planning, drafting, revising and editing’, for the experimental CL group was

2.0, but after spending eleven weeks studying writing in collaborative learning classrooms,

the mean was 1.7, with a mean difference of 0.3, which was a highly significant difference

(paired t-test, t = 3.1, p. <.005). Clearly, the students in the experimental CL group thought

that writing was not only a question of finishing an essay, but that it included activities and

stages such as brainstorming, planning, drafting, revising and editing. On the other hand, the

mean in the pre-test and the post-test for the control TL group was 2.2, which indicated no

difference at all (t = .00, p. <.1.00).

1.4 The priority of correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes

Questions 4, 16 and 18 addressed the fourth sub-factor ‘The priority of correcting

grammatical and spelling mistakes’. With regard to question 4, ‘I think that the most

important aspect of the writing skill is grammar’, the mean for the experimental CL group

was 1.4 for the pre-test and 1.8 for the post-test, with a mean difference of 0.4. For the

control TL group, the mean in the pre-test was 1.7 and in the post-test was 2.0, with a mean

difference of 0.3. The paired t-test indicated a significant difference between the pre-test and

post-test scores for both groups (experimental CL group: t = 3.1, p. <.005; control TL group:

t = 2.6, p. <.016). The mean differences showed that students in both the experimental CL

and control TL groups thought that grammar was not the most important aspect of writing.

The students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups gave similar

responses when answering question 16 ‘When I start writing, my priority is to concentrate on

grammatical and spelling errors’; the mean in the pre-test was 2.1 for the experimental CL

group and 2.2 for the control TL group, and the post-test mean for both groups was 3.0. The

195
paired t-test indicated a highly significant difference between the scores for the pre-test and

the post-test for both groups (experimental CL group: t = 3.7, p. <.001; control TL group: t =

5.3, p. <.000). Therefore, the results indicated that the students in both experimental CL and

control TL groups thought that attention should not be paid to grammatical and spelling

errors when starting to write an essay, as shown in the mean differences, which were highly

significant.

For question 18 ‘When writing the first draft, no attention is paid to grammatical and

spelling mistakes’, the mean scores for the tests were reversed in order to give a positive

direction; thus, the pre-test mean for the experimental CL group was 1.5 and the post-test

mean was 2.0, with a mean difference of 0.5. Similarly, the means for the control TL group

were 1.3 in the pre-test and 1.8 in the post-test, with a mean difference of 0.5. The paired t-

test found highly significant differences between the responses for pre-test and post-test in

both groups (experimental CL group: t = 3.5, p. <.002; control TL group: t = 2.9, p. <.009).

The results showed that the students in both groups did not think that they should pay

attention to mistakes in grammar and spelling when writing the first draft, as shown in the

mean differences, that were highly significant.

1.5 Motivation for practising writing skills

Question 6, ‘I do not have the motivation to learn writing skills’ was worded negatively, so

the mean scores were reversed to show a positive direction. This question addressed the fifth

sub-factor, so the mean in the pre-test for the experimental CL group was 1.6 and in the post-

test was 1.4, with a mean difference of 0.2, which the paired t-test found to be significant (t

= 2.1, p. <.042). With regard to the control TL group, the pre-test mean was 1.8 and the post-

test mean was 1.3, with a mean difference of 0.5, which was highly significant (t = 3.5, p.

<.002). To summarize the results for question 6, by the end of the course, the students in

both groups felt more motivated to learn writing skills.

196
1.6 Opportunity for practising writing skills

To test the sixth sub-factor ‘Opportunity for practising writing skills’, question 7 ‘I get a lot

of opportunities to practise writing in class’ was used; the pre-test mean for the experimental

CL group was 2.9, compared with 2.1 in the post-test, with a mean difference of 0.8. The

paired t-test found this difference to be highly significant (t = 5.8, p. <.000). On the other

hand, the pre-test mean for the control TL group was 2.2, compared with 2.3 in the post-test,

with a mean difference of 0.1, which was not significant (t = 0.43, p. <.666). Thus, students

in the experimental CL group felt that they got a lot of opportunities to practise writing skills

in class.

The results obtained for the first factor ‘Attitudes of students towards writing skills’

with its six sub-factors are summarized in Table 4.69 below.

197
Table 4.69 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses of students in the experimental CL
and control TL groups concerning the first factor ‘Attitudes of students towards writing
skills’
Mean paired t-test
N Sub-factors Question Group Pre- Post- Accepted T P
test test
1.1 Ease and CL 2.2 1.6 Yes 3.5 .002
1
interest of writing TL 2.4 2.0 Yes 2.7 .017
skills CL 2.2 2.5 Yes 2.8 .010
5
TL 2.5 2.3 Yes 2.1 .042
CL 3.0 3.6 Yes 5.7 .000
8
TL 3.2 2.8 Yes 3.8 .001
1.2 The importance CL 1.3 1.4 No 2.7 .162
2
of writing skills TL 1.4 1.5 No 1.4 .428
1.3 The importance
of the process CL 2.0 1.7 Yes 3.1 .005
3
approach to
writing TL 2.2 2.2 No .00 1.00

1.4 The priority of CL 1.4 1.8 Yes 3.1 .005

4
correcting TL 1.7 2.0 Yes 2.6 .016
grammatical and CL 2.1 3.0 Yes 3.7 .001
16
spelling mistakes TL 2.2 3.0 Yes 5.3 .000
CL 1.5 2.0 Yes 3.5 .002
18
TL 1.3 1.8 Yes 2.9 .009
1.5 Motivation for CL 1.6 1.4 Yes 2.1 .042
practising writing 6
TL 1.8 1.3 Yes 3.5 .002
skills
1.6 Opportunity for
CL 2.9 2.1 Yes 5.8 .000
practising writing 7
skills TL 2.2 2.3 No 0.43 .666

Therefore, sub-factors 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 were fully confirmed; sub-factors 1.3, and 1.6 were

partially confirmed; whereas sub-factor 1.2 was not fully confirmed.

198
Factor (2) Attitudes of students towards the pre-writing stage

The second factor covered in the general writing questionnaire included four sub-factors

(questions 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) and concerned students’ attitudes towards the pre-writing

activities of the process approach to writing: namely, planning a topic for the essay,

collecting ideas and vocabulary, making an outline, organizing ideas, and understanding the

topic of the essays. The results are presented in Table 4.70. This factor was divided into four

sub-factors as follows:

2.1 Taking enough time to understand the essay topic

Question 9 ‘Before starting writing, I spend a lot of time trying to understand and familiarize

myself with the topic’ was related to the first sub-factor ‘Taking enough time to understand

the essay topic’. The pre-test mean for the experimental CL group was 2.3 and in the post-

test was 2.0, indicating a significant difference (paired t-test, t = 2.5, p. <.021). By contrast,

the control TL group had a pre-test mean of 1.9 and a post-test mean of 2.0, which showed

no significant difference (paired t-test, t = 1.8, p. <.083). To summarize the results for the

first sub-factor, by the end of the course, students in the experimental CL group felt that they

has started to spend a long time understanding the essay topic before becoming involved in

writing.

2.2 The difficulty of understanding the essay topic

Question 14 ‘Before I start writing, I have difficulty understanding the topic of the essay’

was expressed negatively (i.e., difficult should be easy), so the mean scores were reversed.

This question addressed the second sub-factor ‘The difficulty of understanding the essay

topic’. The pre-test mean for the experimental CL group was 2.3 and the post-test mean was

2.2, which was not a significant difference (paired t-test, t = .69, p. <.493). On the other

hand, the control TL group had a mean of 2.0 in the pre-test and 2.3 in the post-test, which

was significant (paired t-test, t = 2.5, p. <.021).

199
By the end of the course, students in the control TL group felt that understanding the

essay topic before starting to write was difficult for them, as shown in the mean difference,

which was significant.

2.3 Planning for the topic mentally and physically

Questions 10 and 11 addressed the third sub-factor ‘Planning for the topic mentally and

physically’. The results obtained for statement 10, ‘Before I start writing (pre-writing stage),

I plan the topic mentally’, gave a pre-test mean for the experimental CL group of 2.2 and a

post-test mean of 1.9, with a mean difference of 0.3. The control TL group, by contrast, had

a mean of 1.8 in the pre-test and 2.3 in the post-test with a mean difference of 0.5. The

paired t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the scores for the pre-

test and the post-test for both groups (experimental CL group: t = 2.3, p. <.031; control TL

group: t = 2.6, p. <.014).

In summary, the analysis of the responses to question 10 showed that students in the

experimental CL group thought that they planned their topic mentally before starting to write

the essay, as shown in the mean difference, that was significant. Students in the control TL

group, on the other hand, were more inclined to disagree with the statement that they plan

their topic mentally as indicated in the mean difference, which was also significant.

The pre-test mean for question 11 ‘Before I start writing (pre-writing stage), I plan

my topic by making an outline and writing down my ideas’ for the experimental CL group

was 2.4, and the post-test mean was 1.9, with a mean difference of 0.5. For the control TL

group the mean in the pre-test was 2.7 and in the post-test 2.3, with a mean difference of 0.4.

The paired t-test indicated significant differences between the pre-test and post-test attitudes

of both groups (experimental CL group: t = 3.8, p. <.001; control TL group: t = 2.3, p.

<.031).

200
To summarize the results for question 11, by the end of the course students in both

groups thought that they preferred planning their essay topics by making an outline and

writing down ideas before starting to write. The attitudes of students in both groups had thus

changed for the better after involvement in both collaborative and traditional learning

methods.

2.4 Collecting and organizing ideas

The scores for question 12 ‘It is difficult for me to get new ideas for my writing topic’ were

reversed (thus difficult became easy). The results indicated a pre-rest mean of 3.1 for the

experimental CL group and a post-test mean of 2.6, with a mean difference of 0.5, which was

highly significant (paired t-test, t = 5.1, p. <.000). By contrast, the control TL group had a

mean of 2.7 in both the pre-test and post-test, which was not significant (paired t-test, t = .56,

p. <.576).

To summarize the results for question 12, by the end of the course students in the

experimental CL group felt that collecting and getting ideas for their essays was not difficult,

as shown in the mean difference, which was highly significant.

Question 13 ‘Organizing ideas is the most difficult part for me’ was expressed

negatively (i.e., difficult should be easy), so the mean scores were reversed. The results

obtained for the experimental CL group gave a pre-test mean of 2.9 and a post-test mean of

1.9, with a mean difference of 1.0, indicating a highly significant difference (t = 6.4, p.

<.000). By contrast, the control TL group had a mean of 2.4 in the pre-test and 2.3 in the

post-test, with a mean difference of 0.1, which was not significant (t =1.00, p. <.329).

In summary, the results for question 13 indicated that students in the experimental CL

group thought that organizing ideas was an easy part of writing essays, as shown in the mean

difference, which was highly significant.

201
The results obtained for the second factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the pre-

writing stage’ with its four sub-factors are summarized in Table 4.70 below.

Table 4.70 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses in experimental CL and control TL
groups concerning the second factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the pre-writing stage’
Mean Paired t-test
Sub-factors Questions Group Accepted
Pre- Post- T P
test test
2.1 Taking enough time to CL 2.3 2.0 Yes 2.5 .021
understand the essay
9
topic
TL 1.9 2.0 No 1.8 .083

2.2 The difficulty of CL 2.3 2.2 No .69 .493

understanding the essay 14
topic
TL 2.0 2.3 Yes 2.5 .021

2.3 Planning for the topic CL 2.2 1.9 Yes 2.3 .031
mentally and physically
10 2.6
TL 1.8 2.3 Yes .014

CL 2.4 1.9 Yes 3.8 .001

11
TL 2.7 2.3 Yes 2.3 .031

2.4 Collecting and organizing CL 3.1 2.6 Yes 5.1 .000

ideas
12
TL 2.7 2.7 No 0.56 .576

CL 2.9 1.9 Yes 6.4 .000

13 TL 2.4 2.3 No 1.00 .329

Therefore, sub-factor 2.3 was fully confirmed, sub-factors 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 were partially

confirmed.

202
Factor (3) Attitudes of students towards the drafting and revising stages

Four questions (15, 17, 19 and 20) were related to the third factor in the general writing

questionnaire ‘Attitudes of students toward the drafting and revising stages’; this factor was

divided into the following four sub-factors: following the plan that has been written before

writing, doing revisions before finishing writing completely, and paying attention only to

writing and postponing correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes to the end. The results

are shown in Table 4.71 below.

3.1 Following the essay plan when starting writing

Question 15 ‘During the writing stage, I usually follow the plan that I have written before

starting to write’ addressed the first sub-factor ‘Following the essay plan when starting

writing’. The mean in the pre-test for the experimental CL group was 2.6 and in the post-test

was 2.0, with a mean difference of 0.6, indicating a highly significant difference (paired t-

test, t = 3.5, p. <.007). On the other hand, the mean in both the pre-test and post-test for the

control TL group was 2.2, which was obviously not significant (paired t-test, t = .00, p.

<1.00).

In summary, the attitudes of students in the experimental CL group towards the first

sub-factor ‘Following the essay plan when starting writing’ had become positive by the post-

test.

3.2 Difficulty in starting to write the essay

Question 17 ‘During the writing and drafting stage, I usually don't know how to start writing’

was expressed negatively, so the mean scores were reversed to show development. It

addressed the second sub-factor ‘Difficulty in starting to write the essay’. The experimental

CL group had a mean of 2.4 in the pre-test and 2.3 in the post-test, whereas the mean in the

control TL group was 2.4 in the pre-test and 2.2 in the post-test. The means for both groups

therefore showed non-significant differences between pre and post-test responses after

203
involvement in writing essays for eleven weeks (experimental CL group: t = 1.3, p. <.186;

control TL group: t = 1.1, p. <.267).

3.3 Making revisions before finishing the first draft of the essay

The responses to question 19 ‘During writing, I normally do revisions before finishing my

writing completely’ of students in both experimental CL and control TL groups were

analysed. The means for the experimental CL group were 2.2 in the pre-test and 2.4 in the

post-test, with a mean difference of 0.2, which was significant (paired t-test, t = 2.5, p.

<.021). Similarly, the mean in the pre-test for the control TL group was 2.2 and 2.7 in the

post-test, with a mean difference of 0.5 that indicated a highly significant difference (paired

t-test, t = 3.9, p. <.001).

In summary, the mean differences found for the third sub-factor ‘Making revisions

before finishing the first draft of the essay’ were significant for both the experimental CL and

control TL groups, which showed that the students did not prefer to carry out revisions before

finishing writing completely.

3.4 Using the vocabulary supplied by the teacher

With regard to question 20, ‘During writing, I concentrate on using the vocabulary supplied

by my teacher’, that addressed the fourth sub-factor ‘Using the vocabulary supplied by the

teacher’, the pre-test mean for the experimental CL group was 3.0, while in the post-test it

was 2.5, giving a mean difference of 0.5, which indicated a highly significant difference

(paired t-test, t = 3.8, p. <.001). On the other hand, the mean for the control TL group was

2.9 in the pre-test and 2.6 in the post-test, with a mean difference of 0.3, which was not

significant (paired t-test, t = 2.0, p. <.056).

To summarize the results for the sub-factor ‘Using the vocabulary supplied by the

teacher’, the experimental CL students felt that by the end of the course they had become

204
more focused on using vocabulary supplied by their teacher during class, as shown in the

mean difference, which was highly significant.

The results relating to the third factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the drafting

revising stages’ are summarized in Table 4.71.

Table 4.71 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses in experimental CL and control TL
groups concerning the third factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the drafting and revising
stages’

Mean Paired t-test

N Sub-factors Questions Group Accepted

Pre- Post-
T P
test test
3.1 Following the essay 2.6 2.0 Yes 3.0 .007
CL
plan when starting
15
writing 2.2 2.2 No .00 1.00
TL

3.2 Difficulty in starting to 2.4 2.3 No 1.3 .186

CL
write the essay
17
TL 2.4 2.2 No 1.1 .267

3.3 Making revisions 2.2 2.4 Yes 2.5 .021

CL
before finishing the 19
first draft of the essay 2.2 2.7 Yes 3.9 .001
TL

3.4 Using the vocabulary CL 3.0 2.5 Yes 3.8 .001

supplied by the 20
teacher TL 2.9 2.6 No 2.0 .056

Therefore, sub-factor 3.3 was fully confirmed, sub-factors 3.1 and 3.4 were partially

confirmed, while only sub-factor 3.2 was not confirmed.

Factor (4) Attitudes of students towards the editing stage

Three questions (21, 22 and 23) addressed the fourth factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the

editing stage’, which included the activities of concentrating on finding appropriate words

205
and vocabulary and correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes. The results are presented

in Table 4.72 below. This factor was divided into three sub-factors as follows:

4.1 Finding appropriate vocabulary during the editing stage

Question 21 ‘During the editing stage, I concentrate on finding appropriate words and

vocabulary’ addressed the first sub-factor ‘Finding appropriate vocabulary during the editing

stage’. For this statement, the pre-test mean for the experimental CL group was 1.9 and the

post-test mean was 2.0. Similarly, the pre-test mean of the control TL group was 2.3 and the

post-test mean was 2.4. The paired t-test indicated that there was no significant difference

between the responses of the two groups (experimental CL group: t = 1.4, p. <.162; control

TL group: t = 1.00, p. <.329).

4.2 Revising essays several times before submitting during the editing stage

With regard to the second sub-factor ‘Revising essays several times before submitting during

the editing stage’, the pre-test mean for the experimental CL group for question 22, ‘During

the editing stage, I make several revisions before submitting my final draft’, was 2.0 and the

post-test mean was 2.1, giving a mean difference of 0.1, which was not significant (paired t-

test, t = 1.8, p. <.083). On the other hand, the pre-test mean of the control TL group was 2.2

and the post-test mean was 2.6, giving a mean difference of 0.4, indicating a highly

significant difference (paired t-test, t = 3.2, p. <.004).

The significant difference found in the post-test for the control TL group indicates

that, according to the students, they did not revise their essays several times during the

editing stage before submitting their final drafts.

4.3 Correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes during the editing stage

The third sub-factor was ‘Correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes during the editing

stage’. The responses of the students in the experimental CL group to question 23, ‘During

my editing stage, I must correct grammatical and spelling mistakes’, gave a pre-test mean of

206
1.7 and a post-test mean of 1.8. On the other hand, the mean in the pre-test for the control TL

group was 2.1 and in the post-test was 2.2. The paired t-test found no significant difference

between the pre-test and post-test attitudes of the two groups (experimental CL group: t = .43,

P. <.666; control TL group: t = 1.00, p. <.329).

The results obtained for the fourth factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the editing

stage’ are summarized in Table 4.72 below.

Table 4.72 Comparing pre-test and post-test responses in the experimental CL and control
TL groups concerning the fourth factor ‘Attitudes of students towards the editing stage’
Mean Paired t-test
N Sub-factors Questions Group Accepted
Pre- Post-
T P
test test
4.1 Finding appropriate CL 1.9 2.0 No 1.4 .162
vocabulary during 21
TL 2.3 2.4 No 1.00 .329
editing stage

4.2 Revising essays No

CL 2.0 2.1 1.8 .083
several times during 22

editing stage before No

TL 2.2 2.6 3.2 .004
submitting

4.3 Correcting Yes

CL 1.7 1.8 .43 .666
grammatical and
spelling mistakes 23
Yes
during the editing TL 2.1 2.2 1.00 .329

stage

Therefore, sub-factor 4.2 was partially confirmed, while sub-factors 4.1 and 4.3 were not

confirmed.

207
4.7 Interview Analysis and Findings
As indicated in the methodology chapter, the tests and the questionnaire instruments were

considered central to the design of the study. Interviews were conducted in order to obtain

either supportive or supplementary information about the students’ attitudes towards and

perceptions of collaborative learning. The interview was directed only at students in the

experimental CL group because of their experience of using CL for eleven weeks. The

rationale behind the random selection of four students from the experimental CL group after

their involvement in the collaborative learning strategy is given on page 100. The students

were carefully chosen on the basis of their scores in the previous term’s writing course to

represent all students in the class: i.e., student A was chosen from among those who scored

50-60, student B out of those who scored 60-70, student C from those who scored 70-80, and

student D from those who scored 80-100. According to the university rules, scores between

50 to 70 were considered low scores, so students A and B represented low advanced students,

whereas C and D represented high advanced students. Student D was selected as an expert

who was the monitor for one of the collaborative learning groups. All questions in the

interviews were used to explore students’ attitudes towards particular points related to CL.

The interviews were recorded and conducted in Arabic to enable the students to participate

freely (for more details concerning the procedure, see Chapter 3, pages 98-103). The

students’ responses were then rationalized and translated into English. The interviews were

based around the following questions:

1- When do you think you learn better?

This general question was designed to obtain background information about the students’

attitudes towards the best ways of learning. For example, student A said, ‘I learn better with a

few students in small groups’; student B stated, ‘Taking my time is the best way to learn

better’; student C felt that he learned better when he studied alone, and student D thought that

208
learning in the early morning was much more productive than learning at the end of the day.

The question was thus a general and exploratory question that was answered differently by

each student. Student B thought that having enough time to learn was the best way of

learning. Student A, who was considered the least advanced, preferred learning with others in

small groups. However, student C, who was considered more proficient at writing than

students A and B, but less proficient than student D, preferred learning individually. It is

therefore evident that low advanced students preferred learning collaboratively, whereas high

advanced students preferred learning individually.

2- If you get stuck or face a problem while practising any English skill, what do you

prefer to do?

The issue of what the students did when they got stuck or were confronted with a problem

when practising English language skills had not been researched in the quantitative section,

so this question supplemented the other quantitative approaches. This was also a general and

exploratory question that was concerned with appropriate methods to use when facing any

difficulty or problems while learning English. Student A gave a general response, saying,

‘ask someone’; student B said ‘I prefer to ask people who are better than me, such as friends,

classmates, or sometimes teachers and tutors’. Student C believed that checking resources

such as books and asking friends could help to solve any problems he might have when

practising his English. Student D stated, ‘I try to solve it by myself, or I ask someone else for

help’. Their answers to this question therefore showed a certain similarity.

All the interviewees thus answered this question similarly. Students A and B, who

were low advanced students, preferred asking classmates who were better than them in terms

of proficiency. Students C and D, who were high advanced, thought that asking others might

help to solve their learning problems.

209
3- Do you like learning English individually? Why?

This was an exploratory question that aimed to determine whether or not the students liked

individual learning. Students A and B said they sometimes liked learning English

individually. Student C said, ‘it is better to learn some skills individually such as reading,

whereas some writing skills should be learned in groups, such as brainstorming’. By contrast,

student D said, ‘learning individually is much better for me than CL because it saves time’.

He added, ‘It takes up a lot of time listening to the other students in CL’.

To summarize the students’ responses, student D, who was an expert, gave a different

answer from the low advanced students A and B. He preferred individual learning to learning

collaboratively. He thought that CL required a longer time as a result of discussing and

listening to each other. On the other hand, the lower proficiency students (A and B) said that

they liked individual learning only sometimes. It was thus evident that expert students might

prefer individual learning more than low advanced students, which was a useful additional

insight, supplementing the questionnaire results.

4- Do you like learning English in a group? Why?

Student A said, ‘I used to think that collaborative learning was not useful but after

involvement in CL, I found it a helpful and useful technique’. He added that CL is especially

useful in getting new ideas and vocabulary. Student B answered the question in the

affirmative without giving any reasons. In addition, student C said, ‘It is important to discuss

ideas with others, so collaborative learning could help a great deal with certain English skills

such as writing’. He added, ‘Before being involved in collaborative learning, I did not think

that writing collaboratively could help me to improve my writing. I feel now that my writing

has improved after involvement in collaborative learning. For example, collaborative writing

helped me very much in getting ideas from others and changing some of my mistaken ideas’.

210
Student D did not give much detail, and said simply, ‘Learning collaboratively, for instance

in sharing ideas, depends on the type of group’.

Students A, B and C therefore liked collaborative learning because they thought that it

helped them to collect ideas and vocabulary. This supported the questionnaire results

regarding the second sub-factor ‘The benefits of making an outline and collecting ideas with

classmates’. However, the expert student D answered this question differently. He thought

that sharing ideas with others collaboratively could be helpful or not depending on the

members of the group.

5- Did you enjoy learning writing skills before you were involved in the collaborative

learning method?

Students A and B mentioned that they had not enjoyed learning writing skills before, but that

writing had become much easier after involvement in CL. Student C said, ‘I neither enjoyed

nor did not enjoy writing before, but after practising the collaborative learning method I felt

that I liked writing very much’. Student D said, ‘I like writing, but I feel that writing in a

group takes longer, whereas writing individually is more proficient and faster than in groups’.

In summary, students A, B and C felt happier about writing after their involvement in

collaborative learning. This also supported the results for the tenth factor covered in the CL

questionnaire ‘Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays’.

However, the new information that supplemented the data obtained from the quantitative

methods was the response of the expert student D, which was different from those of the

other interviewees. He preferred writing individually to writing collaboratively because he

thought that it took a long time to finish writing essays using CL. He thought also that writing

individually could help him to complete an essay quickly.

211
6- What kind of difficulties do you normally encounter when you start writing?

Although this question was to some extent similar to question 17 in the general writing

questionnaire ‘During the writing and drafting stage, I usually don't know how to start

writing’, it aimed to explore the specific difficulties students encountered when starting to

write an essay. Students A and B gave similar answers, saying, ‘Getting new ideas and

putting them in the essay are the most difficult when starting to write’. Student C stated, ‘My

difficulty when I start writing is how I’m going to complete my writing successfully’. Student

D said, ‘We are used to writing a lot in my first language, which is completely different from

English, so I always try to translate from L1 to L2, and this sometimes forces me to think in

L1 while writing in L2’.

Thus, both the low advanced students, A and B, agreed that collecting new ideas and

using them in the essay were the most difficult aspects of writing. However, students C and D

seemed to feel that other aspects were the most difficult: namely, finishing the whole essay

without any mistakes and using L1 while writing in L2.

7- Do you experience difficulties in finding the right vocabulary when you start

writing?

This question aimed to find out whether finding appropriate vocabulary was difficult for ESL

students. The information might supplement that obtained for the factor ‘ESL students’

attitudes towards the benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary’ in the

collaborative learning questionnaire. The low advanced students A and B showed some

agreement with this question. For example, student A answered, ‘If I have difficulty finding

the right vocabulary when I start writing, then I use a dictionary’, whereas student B said he

had difficulties ‘only sometimes’. By contrast, both the high advanced students, C and D,

claimed they had no difficulty finding vocabulary when they started writing.

212
8- During pre-writing activities such as brainstorming and planning, do you think that

you learn from working together with classmates to structure and plan your ideas?

Can you explain in some detail?

The responses to this question supplemented the results presented in Table 4.28 above. Both

low and high advanced students gave similar answers. According to students A and B, they

had learned a great deal from working with their classmates during the pre-writing stage.

They said it helped them to get ideas, share their ideas with others and to acquire new

vocabulary. Student C said, ‘Doing pre-writing activities collaboratively helps me to

exchange ideas with others and select the appropriate ideas for the essays’. Student D

believed that pre-writing stage activities such as brainstorming, and collecting ideas and

vocabulary are techniques that can best be practised collaboratively, rather than individually.

9- During drafting activities, do you feel that you write better collaboratively than

individually without any help from others?

The quantitative results obtained from the questionnaire did not indicate whether the students

thought that completing the drafting stage collaboratively would be better than individually,

so this was considered a supplementary question that might give new information. Student A

mentioned, ‘When ideas and vocabulary are available, writing individually is much better

than collaboratively’. Student B made no comment regarding this question, while student C

said he thought he did not need to work collaboratively because all the ideas and vocabulary

are gathered during the previous stage and the only thing to do is put them into the first draft.

Student D said, ‘Cooperation is not useful in the drafting stage because it takes a lot of time.

Everyone has a different style of writing, so it is better for this stage to be done individually’.

In summary, most students thought that the drafting stage should be completed

individually, since all ideas and vocabulary were collected during the previous stages and

there was no need to write the essay collaboratively. The expert student D added an

213
additional justification, which was that each writer has his own style, so collaboration during

this stage could not be of any possible benefit.

10- During the revising and editing stages, do you feel that working together can help

you to overcome difficulties such as correcting mistakes, restructuring ideas, finding

the right vocabulary and so on?

The answers to this question supplemented the results shown in Table 4.28. All the

interviewees thought that collaboration during the revising and editing stages was helpful to

solve difficulties like correcting mistakes, rewriting inappropriate sentences and finding the

right vocabulary. For example, student A mentioned, ‘My uncompleted sentences could be

completed through sharing with others during the revising stage and an expert student helped

a lot to show me my mistakes’. Student B said, ‘Collaborating during the revising stage

helped me to re-write some inappropriate sentences, vocabulary and ideas. The same as

during the editing stage - grammatical mistakes and spelling were corrected better

collaboratively’. Student C believed that collaborating in the revision stage is useful because

it helps to ensure that the ideas that were gathered during the pre-writing stage are used

effectively. Student D stated, ‘The revising and editing stages are much better done in groups

than individually. I may be better at writing than my classmate but he may be better than me

in grammar or spelling, so writing collaboratively is useful and beneficial’.

In summary, the students believed that collaboration during the revising and editing stages

was beneficial for writing essays.

11- When you read your essay in front of your classmates in the same group, do you feel

that your writing can be better?

The responses to this question supplemented the results presented in Table 4.28 for the factor

‘ESL students’ attitude toward benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in

groups’. According to student B, ‘My classmates could help to correct some mistakes’, while

214
student D mentioned, ‘After reading my essays in front of others, I may ask them if there are

any mistakes in the essays so I can get some comments from them’. On the other hand,

student C believed that exchanging essays with group members is much better than reading

them aloud in front of the other members.

Most students thought that reading in front of others could help to improve their

writing. However, student C suggested exchanging and swapping drafts with other members

of the group.

To sum up the results of the interviews, the researcher found the following:

1- All students interviewed agreed that the best method to use when they got stuck or faced a

problem when practising English language skills was to ask friends or classmates. The

findings were very useful because they showed the importance of using an expert in

collaborative learning to support less advanced students.

2- The collaborative learning strategy was a useful technique when collecting new ideas and

vocabulary for writing. This supported the questionnaire data that showed the benefits of

CL in gathering ideas and new vocabulary.

3- Students enjoyed learning writing skills after involvement in collaborative learning. This

result was similar to the questionnaire data that showed the increased satisfaction of

students after involvement in CL. However, the expert student D preferred individual

learning to collaborative learning when writing an essay because with CL it took a long

time to complete the essay.

4- Students A and B, who were considered low advanced, thought that gathering new ideas

and writing about them in the essay was one of the main difficulties they faced when

starting to write. Student D, who was considered an expert, said that thinking in L1 while

writing in L2 was one of the difficulties he encountered when starting to write an essay.

215
5- The lower proficiency students, A and B, thought finding the right vocabulary when

starting to write might be difficult. This result was different from the results obtained

from the questionnaire, which showed no significant difference between the pre- and

post-test responses of the experimental CL group concerning this item. However, the

high advanced students did not notice any difficulty.

6- All the students, including the expert (D), believed that the pre-writing activities of

collecting and choosing appropriate ideas, acquiring new vocabulary, and planning should

be practised in collaborative groups rather than individually. This supported the results

obtained from the questionnaire.

7- All the interviewees agreed that writing drafts should be completed individually rather

than collaboratively. They thought that practising collaborative learning during the pre-

writing stage helped them a great deal in collecting ideas and vocabulary, discussing with

each other, planning and making an outline. Since this issue had not been covered in the

questionnaire, this finding was useful and beneficial.

8- Collaborative learning was beneficial for students when practising both revising and

editing stages. All the students interviewed thought that CL helped them to reorganize

and re-write inappropriate sentences and to correct mistakes. This supplements the results

presented in Table 4.28 that showed that collaboration during the revising stage was

helpful. However, it differs from the finding concerning the editing stage obtained from

the third factor of the questionnaire ‘Collaboration during the editing stage’, in which

there was a non-significant difference between the pre- and post-test responses of the

students.

9- Some interviewees thought that reading essays in front of the groups could help to

produce better essays. This result contradicted the students’ attitudes as shown in the

questionnaire, however, where no significant difference was found between pre- and post-

216
test responses. However, one of the students thought that exchanging and swapping

essays with each other could be better than reading aloud in front of the group.

4.8 Summing Up

The results presented in this chapter were based mainly on the analyses of quantitative data,

which consisted of the students’ scores for their written essays and their responses to the

statements contained in the questionnaires. These data were supplemented by qualitative data

obtained from the interview responses. The major findings indicated that those students who

had been involved in collaborative learning had improved in all aspects of writing:

organization, development, coherence, structure, vocabulary and mechanics. However, they

had improved more in some aspects and categories than in others. The attitudes and

perceptions of the students had also improved after their involvement in CL. The students in

the control TL group had also improved in all six measured aspects of their writing; however,

their attitudes had not changed for the better after being involved in the traditional learning

method. In the next chapter, the findings of the study are discussed in some detail;

implications and suggestions for ESL teachers and learners are highlighted, and

recommendations for future research are put forward.

217
Chapter 5

Discussions, Implications, Recommendations for

Future Research and Conclusions

In this chapter, the conclusions to the study are presented. The chapter is divided into the

following sections: discussion of the results of the study, implications and suggestions for

both ESL teachers and learners, recommendations for future research and conclusion.

5.1 Discussion of the study findings

The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not putting into practice the various

stages of the process approach to writing (the pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing

stages) through a collaborative learning strategy would be more effective for ESL learners in

the English language department at Al Qassim University than practising them individually.

Thus, the main research question for this study was ‘Does collaborative writing benefit

students?’ In other words, will the writing ability of students improve if teachers encourage

them to use a collaborative learning strategy? Two sub-questions were used to answer the

main research questions, as follows: (1) Would students who are involved in collaborative

writing settings produce better written and better organized essays than students working

individually? (2) Are students’ attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement

in collaborative learning settings? The two sub-questions were answered through the

following questions:

Is there a difference between the experimental CL group and the control TL group

at pre-test?

Does the experimental CL group change from pre-test to post-test?

218
Does the control TL group change from pre-test to post-test?

Is the experimental CL group different from the control TL group at post-test?

The study results were obtained from the students’ scores for their written essays, and from

their responses in questionnaires and interviews.

In the previous chapter the analysis of the findings with reference to both the above

questions was presented. Various hypotheses were developed to answer the two sub-research

questions, as shown in the tables in the preceding chapter (see Tables 4.9; 4.16; 4.17; 4.28;

4.29; 4.36; 4.48; 4.49; 4.56; 4.57; 4.68). The first research question included six factors:

organization, development, cohesion, structure, vocabulary and mechanics, whereas the

second research question included ten factors (see Chapter 3, pages 81 and 94). Each factor

was organized under the relevant hypothesis for the purposes of the analysis and

interpretations and conclusions derived from the results are presented in the following

paragraphs.

5.1.1 Research Question One

‘Would students who are involved in collaborative writing settings produce better written

and better organized essays than students working individually?’ (See p.6)

Students in both the experimental (CL) and control (TL) groups wrote essays on a specific

topic in the first week of the study as a pre-test and wrote about it again as a post-test, so the

students’ essay scores represented their performance. The findings presented in the previous

chapter may be summarized and interpreted as follows:

Pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental CL group

The difference between the pre- and post-test scores concerning hypothesis 1.1 ‘There will be

significant differences in the essays of students in the experimental CL group before and after

involvement in the collaborative learning strategy’ (p.73) was highly significant (see Chapter

4, Table 4.9); thus hypothesis 1.1 was confirmed. The participants in the experimental CL
219
group had become able to organize and develop their essays effectively. The collaborative

activities had helped the students to learn how to produce coherent essays and avoid

grammatical or spelling mistakes. They had also made it easier for the students to learn how

to write and had resulted in changes in the participants’ written products. The six factors of

their writing measured in the rubric had been improved after involvement in the collaborative

learning method and the differences between pre- and post-test scores were highly significant

(see Chapter 4, Table 4.16 for more details). A comparison between the pre- and post-test

essays of students in the experimental CL group in terms of the mean difference found that

the most positive effect of involvement in the collaborative learning strategy was on essay

structure, followed by development, cohesion, then organization and vocabulary, with

mechanics being the category in which there was the least improvement. These findings

suggest that there was less improvement in the editing stage of writing (checking mechanics)

after involvement in the collaborative learning strategy than in the other stages. It could thus

be suggested that students who engaged in collaborative writing need to focus more on

mechanical mistakes. This result found that CL benefited the students a great deal in terms of

the quality of their writing (development, cohesion and organization). By contrast, their

involvement in CL did not help the students much in terms of the accuracy of their writing

(mechanics). These findings are similar to those of other studies that have investigated the

effect of CL in improving students’ writing skills, such as that of Gooden-Jones (1996), who

found that after students had been taught using the collaborative learning strategy for six

weeks, 80% of them passed the written achievement test (WAT) administered by the college.

An analysis of the students’ essays indicated that the collaborative learning strategy had

helped the students to improve their writing skills effectively.

220
Pre-test and post-test scores of the control TL group

The findings showed that the difference between pre- and post-test scores was highly

significant (see Chapter 4, Table 4.29); thus hypothesis 2.1 ‘There will be significant

differences in the students’ essays before and after involvement in the traditional learning

method’ (page 75) was confirmed. The students in the control TL group had improved in all

six aspects of their writing measured in the rubric after being involved in the traditional

learning method (see Chapter 4, Table 4.36 for more details). The mean difference between

the pre- and post-test essays of students in the control TL group in terms of writing factors

revealed that the most positive effect of involvement in the traditional learning method was

on essay vocabulary, followed by structure and mechanics, then cohesion, whereas

development and organization were the least improved. The interpretation of this result could

lead to the conclusion that individual learning was beneficial for students in improving their

writing accuracy (vocabulary, structure, and mechanics). By contrast, their involvement in

individual learning had not helped the students much in terms of writing quality, specifically

development and organization.

Post-test scores of the experimental CL and control TL groups

The differences between the post-test scores of the experimental CL and control TL groups

were significant (see Chapter 4, Table 4.49); thus, hypothesis 3.1‘There will be significant

differences between the post-test essays written by students in the experimental CL group and

those written by students in the control TL group’ (page 77) was confirmed. Generally,

students in the experimental CL group had improved more than students in the control TL

group. Three out of six factors of their writing measured in the rubric: namely, development,

cohesion, and structure, were improved and the differences between the scores for the two

groups were significant (See Chapter 4, Table 4.56 for more details). The results suggested

that collaborative learning helped students a great deal to improve their writing skills, but

221
more in the areas of development, cohesion and structure than in mechanics, vocabulary and

organization.

In summary, with regard to the findings for the first research question, this study has

provided additional insights to those of other studies that have investigated the effectiveness

of collaborative learning in improving students’ writing skills (for a detailed account, please

see the literature review in Chapter 2). For example, Suzuki (2008) assessed differences

between self-revisions and peer revisions of written compositions among adult ESL learners

and found that students using peer revisions paid more frequent attention to content and

ideas, whereas those using self-revisions paid more attention to choosing words, correcting

grammar and improving language form (see page 54 for more details). In addition, Shull’s

study (2001) showed that the writing skills of students involved in collaborative learning had

improved more than those of students in the control TL group (see page 57 for more details).

After comparing the post-test essays of the experimental CL group with those of

students in the control TL group, it was clear that the collaborative learning strategy had an

influence on some stages of the process approach to writing: namely, pre-writing and

revising, but that it had little effect on the editing stage. As mentioned in the literature review,

the process approach to writing deals with writing skills such as planning, revising and

drafting rather than with linguistic knowledge such as grammar, vocabulary, punctuation and

spelling (Badger & White, 2000; Belinda, 2006). It could therefore be concluded that

teaching the process approach to writing through a collaborative learning strategy does not

help a great deal in improving some activities of the editing stage of writing, specifically, the

mechanics factor. The basic mechanics were not improved, namely errors in spelling,

capitalization and punctuation. These findings are in line with those of other researchers, such

as Storch (2007), who investigated whether completing editing tasks in pairs would produce

better results in terms of accuracy than completing them individually. Storch’s results showed

222
that students who worked in pairs took longer to complete the editing tasks than students who

worked individually. She found also that the difference between the two groups was not

statistically significant. However, the findings of the current study differ from those of

Storch’s earlier study (1999), which examined the effectiveness of discussing grammar

collaboratively in producing accurate written texts. In that study she found that the students’

scores for overall grammatical accuracy increased after involvement in collaborative learning

(see Chapter 2, page 51 for more details).

5.1.2 Research Question Two

Are students’ attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement in collaborative

learning settings? (page 6)

The attitudes and perceptions of the students in both the experimental CL and the control TL

groups were investigated through a collaborative learning questionnaire (1-20), general

writing questionnaire (1-23), and interviews.

5.1.2.1 Collaborative learning questionnaire (Questions 1-20)

The results obtained from the collaborative learning questionnaire (1-20) may be summarized

and interpreted as follows:

Pre-test and post-test responses of the experimental CL group

The results supported hypothesis 1.2 ‘The pre- and post-test responses of students in the

experimental CL group in the attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire will be

significantly different’ (page 73). The results indicated a highly significant difference

between the pre- and post-test responses of the experimental CL group to all statements in the

collaborative learning questionnaire (see Chapter 4, Table 4.17 for more details). This shows

that the attitudes of students in the experimental CL group towards collaborative learning

were more positive in the post-test than in the pre-test. This finding of the current study

223
supports those of previous studies, such as that of Mulryan (1994), who interviewed 48 fifth-

and sixth-grade students in the USA to measure their attitudes toward working together

cooperatively, and compared them to their teachers’ perceptions. The results of Mulryan’s

study indicated that students’ perceptions of CL were positive. They believed that CL helped

them to minimize their mistakes by exchanging information and giving them complete

freedom to solve their problems in a supportive atmosphere. In another study, Kask and

Higgins (2001) found that CL affected learning positively (see p.58 for more details).

Pre-test and post-test responses of the control TL group

The findings did not support hypothesis 2.2 ‘The pre- and post-test responses of students in

the control TL group in the attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire will be

significantly different’ (page 76). The post-test attitudes of students in this group towards

collaborative learning had not changed after involvement in the traditional learning method,

as shown in the mean difference, which was not significant (see Chapter 4, Table 4.37 for

more details).

Post-test responses of the experimental CL and control TL groups

The results supported hypothesis 3.2 ‘There will be significant differences between the

attitudes and perceptions of the students in the experimental CL group and those in the

control TL group as tested by the collaborative learning questionnaire at the post-test’ (page

78). The mean difference, which was significant, indicated that the attitudes of students in the

experimental CL group towards collaborative learning were better than those of students in

the control TL group (see Chapter 4, Table 4.57 for more details). This may be interpreted as

indicating that the opinions of students in the experimental CL group regarding the use of CL

in writing classrooms had improved more than those of students in the control TL group.

224
As described on page 94, the collaborative learning questionnaire was divided into ten

factors for the purposes of analysis, and the findings were summarized and interpreted as

follows:

Factor 1: Collaboration during the pre-writing stage (statements 3, 4 and 17)

The attitudes of the students in the experimental CL group towards practising the pre-writing

stage collaboratively had changed for the better. The analysis showed that the students

thought that it was better to plan a topic, write down ideas, and draw up an outline in a

collaborative setting than individually. A comparison between the pre-test and post-test

responses of students in the experimental CL group, together with a comparison between the

post-test responses of the experimental CL group and those of the control TL group revealed

significant differences for all three statements concerning this factor (see Chapter 4, Tables

4.28 & 4.68 for more details). The students in the experimental CL group said they found

collaboration during the pre-writing stage beneficial and helpful in planning a topic with

friends, collecting ideas and making an outline with classmates, and talking with friends to

facilitate finding ideas for the topic. The results are in line with those of other studies, such as

those of Gebhardt (1980) and Storch (2002), who concluded that the effectiveness of

collaborative writing was not limited to the final stages of writing but also applied to the

beginning stages. Gebhardt stated, ‘It seems to me that collaborative writing strategies should

be applied to finding a promising topic, generating details on the topic, and locating the

intended audience for a paper’ (page 73). This result also confirmed that of Storch’s study

(2005), who interviewed some students after their involvement in a collaborative writing

classroom and found that CW helped learners to find new ideas and use them effectively in

different situations (see Chapter 2, page 52 for more details). Shi’s study (1998), moreover,

noticed that peer discussion was effective in helping students to discover various words and

ideas for their essays (see Chapter 2, page 50 for more details).

225
Factor 2: Collaboration during the revision stage (statements 6 and 16)
Similarly, the majority of students in the experimental CL group adopted different attitudes

and had changed their opinions for the better after revising their essays collaboratively. The

results obtained for the two statements 6 and 16 that were concerned with the second factor

‘Collaboration during the revision stage’ indicated that the students in the experimental CL

group found revising their essays with friends a helpful and effective strategy for improving

their writing. Significant differences were found for both statements not only between the

pre-test and post-test responses of the experimental CL group but also between the post-test

responses of the experimental CL and the control TL groups (see Chapter 4, Tables 4.28 &

4.68 for more details). This is in line with the findings of other researchers (e.g.,

Mangelsdorf, 1992; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Hansen, 2005; Baker, 2009), who found

that peer revisions encourage students to collaborate by making suggestions to each other in

order to produce their final essay draft successfully. In another study, Suzuki (2008) indicated

that students involved in peer revisions changed their written texts less than other students

who used self-revisions. Students who engaged in peer revisions focused on meta-talk, essay

content and ideas, whereas those who engaged in self-revisions concentrated on linguistic

knowledge such as correcting grammatical mistakes (see Chapter 2, page 54 for more

details).

Factor 3: Collaboration during the editing stage (Statement 7)

As shown in Tables 4.28, 4.48 and 4.68 in the previous chapter, the attitudes of students in

both the experimental CL and the control TL groups towards the third factor ‘Collaboration

during the editing stage’ had not changed for the better. It could thus be inferred that

collaboration during the editing stage did not help students in the experimental CL group to

correct mechanical and grammatical mistakes to the same extent as it helped them in the

activities of other stages such as pre-writing and revising.

226
Factor 4: The importance of collaborative learning for writing essays (statements 1, 2, 5,
8 and 18)

A comparison between the pre- and post-test perceptions of students in the experimental CL

group showed significant differences for four statements (1, 2, 5 and 18) relating to the fourth

factor ‘The importance of collaborative learning for writing essays’. Similarly, significant

differences were found between the post-test responses of the experimental CL and control

TL groups (see Chapter 4, Tables 4.28 & 4.68 for more details). This suggests that

collaborative learning was a useful, important and beneficial strategy that helped students to

write effectively. This result is in line with Phipps, Kask and Higgins (2001), who found that

students thought that collaborative learning was a useful and effective strategy that positively

motivated them to learn effectively (see Chapter 2, page 58 for more details).

Factor 5: Benefits of CL in helping to get better scores (statement 9)

The responses of students in the experimental CL group concerning the fifth factor ‘Benefits

of CL in helping to get better scores’ had not changed much even though they had spent a

long time writing essays collaboratively. Thus, no significant differences were found between

the pre-test and post-test responses of students in either the experimental CL or the control

TL groups, nor in a comparison between the post-test responses of both groups.

Factor 6: Benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing (statements 10 and

11)

With regard to the sixth factor ‘Benefits of CL in providing comments on students’ writing’,

based on statements 10 and 11, no significant differences were found between the pre- and

post-test responses of either the experimental CL or the control TL group. Similarly, a

comparison between the post-test responses of the experimental CL group and the control TL

group showed no significant difference.

227
Factor 7: Benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability (statement 13)

The difference between the pre-test and post-test responses of the experimental CL group to

seventh factor ‘Benefits of CL in increasing understanding of accountability’ was highly

significant (see Chapter 4, Table 4.28). This result suggests that the collaborative learning

strategy can help students to increase their understanding of accountability. Individual

accountability is considered one of the elements of successful cooperative learning that helps

students to improve (Smith, 1998; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Graham, 2005; Wang, 2009).

This finding is in line with those of other researchers, namely Higgins (2001), Storch (2002)

and Wang (2009), who found that collaborative learning had a positive effect on students’

sense of individual accountability.

Factor 8: Benefits of reading and listening to other students’ essays in groups

(statements 14 and 15)

A comparison between the pre- and post-test responses of both the experimental CL and the

control TL groups and also the comparison between the post-test responses of both groups

revealed no significant differences for either of the statements.

Factor 9: Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary (statement 19)

As shown in Chapter 4, Table 4.46, the responses of students in the control TL group

concerning the ninth factor ‘Benefits of CL in acquiring and using new vocabulary’

conflicted with their responses to question 19 ‘Collaborative writing helps me to acquire and

use new vocabulary correctly’, the mean difference between pre-test and post-test being

significant indicated that the individual learning method helped students to acquire and use

new vocabulary better than the collaborative learning method. This result suggests that

collaborative learning might not help students to acquire new vocabulary. This is consistent

with Suzuki’s (2008) finding that self-revision was beneficial for choosing words and

correcting grammar (see Chapter 2, page 54 for more details).

228
Factor 10: Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays

(statements 12 and 20)

With regard to the final factor ‘Benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in

writing essays’, it was clear that students in the experimental CL group were more satisfied

and happier about writing their essays in groups than writing them individually. A

comparison between the pre-test and post-test revealed a highly significant difference for

both questions 12 and 20. According to Min (2006), students who were trained to be peer

reviewers appreciated this training and their attitudes were changed for the better.

The findings obtained from the collaborative learning questionnaire (questions 1-20)

may be summarized as follows:

First: Experimental CL group

Collaboration during the pre-writing stage, that is, in planning a topic with friends,

collecting ideas and making an outline with classmates, and talking with friends to

facilitate finding ideas for the topic, was found to be beneficial. This finding is in

agreement with Shi (1998), Gebhardt (1980) and Storch (2002).

Collaboration during the revising stage helped students to write effectively. This confirms

the findings of Mangelsdorf (1992), Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992), Hansen (2005),

Suzuki (2008) and Baker (2009).

The students’ responses concerning the fourth factor ‘The importance of collaborative

learning for writing essays’ suggest that collaborative learning is a useful, important and

beneficial strategy that helps students to write effectively. This is in line with Phipps,

Kask and Higgins (2001).

Collaborative learning was found to be effective in increasing understanding of

accountability. This result is supported by the findings of other researchers such as

Higgins (2001), Storch (2002) and Wang (2009).

229
Collaborative learning was found to be beneficial in increasing the satisfaction of students

in writing essays. This finding is in agreement with Min (2005).

Second: Control TL group

The students in this group did not agree with the statement concerning the ‘Benefits of CL in

acquiring and using new vocabulary’, and the difference between pre- and post-tests was

significant, meaning that their level of disagreement had increased by the post-test. This

suggests that individual learning might be better for acquiring new vocabulary than

collaborative learning. This echoes Suzuki (2008).

5.1.2.2 General writing questionnaire (Questions 1-23)

The general writing questionnaire (questions 1-23) was divided into four factors including

sub-factors for the purposes of analysis, as described on pages 90-92; the results may be

summarized and interpreted as follows:

Factor 1: Attitudes of students towards writing skills

1.1 Ease and interest of writing skills (statements 1, 5 and 8)

By the end of the course, learning writing skills was perceived to be less difficult and had

become more interesting for all students in both the experimental CL and the control TL

groups. As shown in Table 4.69 in the previous chapter, significant differences were found

for all the three statements related to this factor (1, 5 and 8). Because the students in both the

experimental CL and control TL groups had been taught the process approach to writing for

three months, writing essays had become easier and more interesting.

1.2 The importance of writing skills

The attitudes of students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups towards the

importance of writing skills had not changed for the better by the end of the course, as shown

230
in the mean differences, which were not significant (see Chapter 4, Table 4.69 for more

details).

1.3 The importance of the process approach to writing

All the students were trained to practise stages and activities of the process approach to

writing: namely, pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing. However, only the attitudes of

students in the experimental CL group had changed positively after involvement in CL. They

thought that writing essays should include activities and stages such as brainstorming,

planning, collecting and organizing ideas, drafting, revising and editing. A significant

difference was found between the pre-test and post-test of the experimental CL group (see

Chapter 4, Table 4.69 for more details). According to Kroll (2003) and Williams (2003), the

activities and stages of the process approach (pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing) are

important. This result was in line with Wasson (1993), who showed that students’ writing

quality had improved and their perceptions had changed for the better after practising the

stages and activities of writing collaboratively.

1.4 The priority of correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes

After the course, checking grammatical and spelling mistakes when writing the first draft of

the essay were seen as unimportant and unnecessary for students in both the experimental CL

group and the control TL group. The differences between pre-test and post-test scores were

significant for both groups (see Chapter 4, Table 4.69 for more details). The students had

been taught that correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes should be done in the final

draft. According to Elbow (1973) and King and Chapman (2003), writers should keep writing

their essay without stopping and postpone correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes to

the editing stage.

231
1.5 Motivation for practising writing skills

The motivation of students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups had improved

after involvement in practising writing essays in both collaborative and individual learning

settings. It was clear that the students’ motivation towards learning writing had increased

after they had been taught the writing process approach for three months and had completed

writing all essays both collaboratively and individually.

This result appears to confirm Gillies and Ashman’s (2003) finding that using the

cooperative learning strategy had a useful effect on a great number of dependent variables

such as achievement, productivity, motivation, good relationships with participants, and

higher self-esteem.

1.6 Opportunity for practising writing skills

The highly significant difference that was found between the pre- and post-test responses of

the experimental CL group for the sub-factor ‘Opportunity for practising writing skills’

suggests that collaborative learning was beneficial in giving the students the opportunity to

practise writing skills in the classroom. Since there was no difference between the pre-test

and post-test responses of the control TL group to this question, it appears that CL gives

students greater opportunities to practise writing in class than traditional learning methods.

Factor 2: Attitudes of students towards the pre-writing stage

2.1 Taking enough time to understand the essay topic

The attitudes of students in the experimental CL group towards the sub-factor ‘Taking

enough time to understand the essay topic’ were significantly different after their

involvement in the course (see Chapter 4, Table 4.70). However, the opinions of students in

the control TL group had not changed after their involvement in individual learning. This

suggests that collaborative learning was more effective than learning individually in

encouraging students to take time to understand the topic of the essay before starting to write.

232
2.2 The difficulty of understanding the essay topic

The responses of students in the control TL group regarding this factor indicated that they

still thought that it was difficult to understand the essay topic by the end of the course, as

shown in the mean difference, which was significant.

2.3 Planning for the topic mentally and physically

The responses of students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups concerning the

third sub-factor ‘Planning for the topic mentally and physically’ indicated a much greater

awareness of the importance of planning after they had been involved in the writing course.

All the students’ attitudes and perceptions regarding the necessity for planning and outlining

essay ideas either mentally or physically before starting writing had improved. This suggests

that the process approach to writing helped the students to plan, outline and write down ideas

before writing the first draft of the essay. According to Peacock (1986), planning before

involvement in writing essays is helpful for organization and for writing successfully.

2.4 Collecting and organizing ideas

The responses of students in the experimental CL group after they had been involved in the

collaborative learning setting to the sub-factor ‘Collecting and organizing ideas’ indicated a

much greater improvement than those of students in the control TL group. As shown in Table

4.70 in the previous chapter, highly significant differences were found for the two statements

related to this factor (12 and 13). It was apparent that CL was a useful strategy in facilitating

the collection of ideas for a writing topic. This confirms the findings of other studies, such as

that of Storch (2005), who found that CL was an effective strategy for discovering ideas.

3) Attitudes of students towards the drafting and revising stages

3.1 Following the essay plan when starting writing

The students in both the experimental CL and control TL groups were taught to follow the

plan they had written during the pre-writing stage when starting to write their essays.

233
However, the only significant difference was found in the pre-test and post-test responses of

students in the experimental CL group. This suggests that collaborative learning helps

students to follow the plan and outline they have devised effectively. According to Williams

(2003), King and Chapman, (2003) and Tribble (1996; 2003), writing the first draft should

come after finishing pre-writing activities such as gathering ideas, planning, making an

outline etc.

3.2 Difficulty in starting to write the essay

Although both the experimental CL and the control TL groups had been taught and had

practised the process approach to writing for eleven weeks, there were no significant

differences between their pre- and post-test responses regarding the second sub-factor

‘Difficulty in starting to write the essay’.

3.3 Making revisions before finishing the first draft of the essay

The students’ responses showed that they did not think that they should do revisions before

finishing writing the first draft of the essay. This result was based on the mean differences

found between pre-test and post-test responses in the experimental CL and control TL groups,

which were significant (see Chapter 4, Table 4.71 for more details). The students had been

taught when writing the first draft to focus only on writing and to postpone revising and

editing to the end. According to Gebhard (2000), during the drafting stage, it is important to

keep writing from beginning to end without stopping.

3.4 Using the vocabulary supplied by the teacher

Concentrating on using the vocabulary supplied by the teacher was seen as important for

students in the experimental CL group. As shown in Table 4.71, a significant difference was

found between the pre- and post-test responses of this group for the sub-factor ‘Using the

vocabulary supplied by the teacher’. This suggests that those students who had been involved

234
in collaborative learning felt that they had become more focused on using vocabulary

supplied by their teacher during class.

4) Attitudes of students towards the editing stage

4.1 Finding appropriate vocabulary during the editing stage

The pre- and post-test responses of students in both the experimental CL and control TL

groups regarding the sub-factor ‘Finding appropriate vocabulary during the editing stage’

were not significantly different.

4.2 Revising essays several times before submitting during the editing stage

The pre- and post-test mean scores in the control TL group for the sub-factor ‘Revising

essays several times before submitting during the editing stage’ showed a highly significant

difference. The mean difference revealed that by the end of the course students in the control

TL group were even more convinced that they did not need to make several revisions before

submitting their final drafts (see Chapter 4, Table 4.72 for more details). This suggests that

students in the control TL group preferred to submit their final drafts without doing any

revisions. The reason could be that students normally produce the first draft after finishing

the pre-writing stage, the second draft after completing the revision stage and the third after

the editing stage, so there may be no need for any further revisions at the end. Therefore,

producing several drafts could help students to write accurately and effectively. Storch (1999)

found in her study that the reconstruction of texts resulted in an increase in accuracy from

63% in the first draft to 86% in the second. The number of errors had decreased to 7.75% in

the second version of the essay compared to 13.65% in the first draft (see Chapter 2, page 51

for more details).

4.3 Correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes during the editing stage

Although both the experimental CL and the control TL groups had been taught and trained to

correct grammatical and spelling mistakes during the editing stage, there were no significant

235
differences between the pre- and post-test responses for either group regarding the sub-factor

‘Correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes during the editing stage’.

5.1.2.3 Interview

The collaborative learning questionnaire, discussed in the previous section, was considered

the central instrument employed in this study to answer the second research question: ‘Are

students’ attitudes and perceptions positively affected by involvement in collaborative

learning settings?’ As stated earlier, interviews were used in this research to provide either

supportive or supplementary information regarding students’ attitudes and perceptions

concerning collaborative learning in the form of collaborative writing.

The eleven questions devised for the interview (see p.101) aimed to investigate

whether the use of the collaborative learning strategy had improved the ESL students’ writing

proficiency. This would provide valuable additional insights into the main quantitative results

discussed so far. The results may be summarized and interpreted as follows:

Question 2 was used to investigate the students’ views on the best ways to solve learning

problems. All the interviewees thought that asking people who may be better than they were,

such as classmates or their tutor, could be an appropriate way of solving learning problems.

For example, student B said ‘I prefer to ask people who are better than me, such as friends,

classmates, or sometimes teachers and tutors’. This suggests that the presence of an expert

may be vital to help students in solving problems when they are practising English language

skills. It means that learners should conduct activities under the supervision of expert people

such as advanced classmates or their teacher. This supports Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD

(see Chapter 2, pages 22-26) that concerns the collaboration of less advanced students with

experts such as classmates or teachers. Villamil and Guerrro (2000) found that using

scaffolding and the theory of the ZPD helped students to manage their conversation,

236
understand grammatical rules, and write critical and analytical texts (see Chapter 2, page 56

for more details). According to Gabriele (2007) and Schmitz and Winskel (2008), the effect

of using more advanced peers to improve less advanced students was better than having

students collaborate with each other.

Question 4 concerned whether the students liked collaborative learning or not; most of the

four interviewees found CL a beneficial strategy that helped them to collect new ideas and

vocabulary more than doing so individually. For example, student A, who scored between 50

and 60, said ‘CL is especially useful in getting new ideas and vocabulary’. This confirms the

findings of a few other studies, such as those of Storch (2005) and Shi (1998), who found that

the use of a collaborative learning strategy enabled students to discover ideas and words (see

Chapter 2, pages 50 and 52 for more details). In addition, the expert student thought that

sharing ideas with others would be beneficial when the group members were active and

helpful.

Question 5 was concerned with the benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in

writing essays. Most of the interviewees stated that engaging in the collaborative learning

strategy had made practising writing skills more enjoyable and satisfying. For instance,

student C mentioned that ‘I neither enjoyed nor did not enjoy writing before, but after

practising the collaborative learning method I felt that I liked writing very much’. This

supported the results obtained from the questionnaire that lead us to say that involving

students in collaborative learning classrooms might help them feel more satisfied and more

enjoyment about learning writing skills. According to Min (2006), the students in his study

appreciated peer reviewing, and their opinions had changed for the better after involvement in

this training.

Student D, who was selected as an expert, thought writing collaboratively meant it took

longer to finish writing essays than writing individually. He said, ‘I like writing, but I feel

237
that writing in a group takes longer, whereas writing individually is more proficient and

faster than in groups’. He gave a similar response when answering question 3. For example,

he said, ‘learning individually is much better for me than CL because it saves time’. He

added, ‘It takes up a lot of time listening to the other students in CL’. This might be because

collaborative learning includes interaction and some talking during the pre-writing, revising

and editing stages. According to Storch (1999; 2005), pairs take longer to write essays

because they spend time talking. Moreover, it is possible that the expert did not prefer CL

because he was able to write essays by himself without any problems or difficulties and he

might not need any help from his classmates because they were considered less proficient

than he was.

According to Harris (1993) and Hedge (2000), getting started on writing an essay is difficult

because it requires a great deal of attention, application and concentration. Question 6 aimed

to supplement the other quantitative approaches used in this study by obtaining further

information about the difficulties encountered by students when starting to write their essays.

The low advanced students thought that collecting ideas and putting them in the context was

the most difficult part of writing the essay. The use of teaching methods such as collaborative

learning might help to solve this problem (Shi, 1998; Storch, 2005). On the other hand, the

high advanced students did not feel that collecting ideas and using them in the context was

difficult. It seemed that their difficulties were associated with how to finish the whole essay

successfully and how to avoid thinking in L1 while writing in L2.

Only the low advanced students thought they might have difficulty finding appropriate

vocabulary when starting to write the essay. For instance, student A mentioned, ‘If I have

difficulty finding the right vocabulary when I start writing, then I use a dictionary’, and

student B said ‘only sometimes’. However, the high advanced students did not feel that

finding vocabulary when starting to write an essay was difficult.

238
With regard to collaboration during the pre-writing stage, question 8 showed that all

interviewees thought that this had helped them to acquire new vocabulary and share ideas

with each other effectively. Student C said, ‘Doing pre-writing activities collaboratively

helps me to exchange ideas with others and select the appropriate ideas for the essays’.

Student D, who was considered an expert, believed that pre-writing activities such as

brainstorming, collecting ideas and finding appropriate vocabulary are techniques that can be

practised collaboratively, rather than individually. This confirmed the finding discussed

above that CL was more helpful for collecting ideas and vocabulary than doing so

individually. This finding is in agreement with Shi (1998), Gebhardt (1980) and Storch

(2002).

With regard to collaboration during the drafting stage, the interviewees believed that this

stage should be completed individually rather than collaboratively, because they thought that

all the tools of writing, such as collecting ideas, getting vocabulary and planning for the topic,

had already been assembled collaboratively. For example, student A said, ‘When ideas and

vocabulary are available, writing individually is much better than collaboratively’. The

students thus might not need any further help from classmates and would be able to write the

first draft individually. Moreover, everyone has his or her own writing style, so drafting

collaboratively could deprive students of the opportunity to express themselves in their own

styles. For instance, student D mentioned, ‘Everyone has a different style of writing, so it is

better for this stage to be done individually’.

All the interviewees agreed that collaboration during the revising and editing stages was

much better than working individually. For example, student B said, ‘Collaborating during

the revising stage helped me to re-write some inappropriate sentences, vocabulary and ideas.

The same as during the editing stage - grammatical mistakes and spelling were corrected

better collaboratively’. As student D mentioned, ‘The revising and editing stages are much

239
better done in groups than individually. I may be better at writing than my classmate but he

may be better than me in grammar or spelling, so writing collaboratively is useful and

beneficial’. Thus, being good at writing organization or development does not necessarily

mean being good at structure or mechanics, and vice versa, so working in groups may make it

possible to get help from members who are strong in the accuracy of their writing, while

others could be more helpful in terms of quality of writing.

To summarize these conclusions in terms of their relevance to the rest of the research,

the qualitative results from the interviews not only supported the quantitative data obtained

from essay scores and the attitudes to collaborative learning questionnaire, but also produced

additional findings, as follows:

The interview data confirmed that pre-writing, which is considered a stage in the process

approach to writing, included activities such as collecting and choosing appropriate ideas,

acquiring new vocabulary, and planning, as shown in question 8. Those activities were

more helpful and beneficial when carried out collaboratively than when conducted

individually.

The qualitative data supported the finding from the quantitative data that collaboration

during the revising stage was helpful and beneficial: namely, in re-writing inappropriate

sentences, vocabulary and ideas, as shown in question 10.

Although the quantitative data obtained from the students’ essay scores and the attitudes

to CL questionnaire indicated that the editing stage was not beneficial when completed

collaboratively, the qualitative data showed that using CL in the editing stage could be

helpful in overcoming certain difficulties, for instance, in correcting grammatical and

spelling mistakes, as shown also in question 10.

240
The interview results were similar to the questionnaire data in shedding light on the

benefits of CL in increasing the satisfaction of students in writing essays, as shown in

question 5.

The interview data suggested that reading essays in front of groups might be helpful in

producing better essays. Additional information obtained from the interviews revealed

that some students thought that exchanging and swapping essays with each other was

better than reading them aloud in front of each other. However, the questionnaire results

indicated no significant differences between pre- and post-test responses.

The qualitative data confirmed the students’ view that the drafting stage should be

completed individually rather than collaboratively. The responses to question 9 clarified

their opinion that collaboration during the drafting stage takes longer than working

individually.

5.2 Implications and suggestions for ESL teachers and learners

According to Vygotsky’s theory, students can only perform tasks individually if they first

collaborate with more capable people who can scaffold them. This formed the theoretical

background for this study (see pages 22-26). The underlying assumption is the existence of

the zone of proximal development (ZPD): ‘the distance between the actual development level

as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as

determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more

capable peers’ (1978, p.86). According to the ZPD, advanced individuals can scaffold,

develop and create an inner voice in other individuals who are not so advanced (Vanderburg,

2006). This idea was developed in the discussion on pages 22-26. The instantiation of the

ZPD in the research questions and hypotheses was then through the Vygotsky-based

definition of collaborative learning as involving an expert and non-experts rather than equal

241
peers. The ZPD thus forms the theoretical basis for this research because of the existence of

the expert. The procedure for the activities and tasks used in the research involved

distributing the sample into small groups of four or five members or in pairs and selecting

students who had obtained high scores in their writing exams in the previous term to be

experts, guides and monitors for these groups. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the ZPD

establishes two levels of development: the actual level, which is determined through the

ability of the learner to do something individually, and the possible level, which is

determined by the ability of the learner to do it with the help of an adult or a more advanced

and capable classmate, so one of the study procedures was to have students working

collaboratively, which was the possible level, then working individually at the end of the

study, which was the actual level.

The results of the current study showed that the use of a collaborative learning

strategy benefited ESL learners in enabling them to solve their writing problems effectively.

Eleven weeks’ collaboration with more able classmates had helped the students to write more

successfully. The findings of this research were obtained from written essays, questionnaires

and interviews. For instance, the written essays proved that after involvement in collaborative

learning, the ESL learners had become able to write better than students who had been taught

using a traditional learning method. It was therefore concluded that collaborative learning had

helped ESL students to improve and develop their writing skills.

However, the pre-test and post-test analyses and discussion of the results suggested

that collaborative learning might not be useful and beneficial in all stages of the process

approach to writing. For example, the pre-writing and revising stages were carried out

effectively when students worked collaboratively. This was not, however, the case with the

editing stage.

242
The following suggestions for students and teachers are made on the basis of the

findings from this study and from certain aspects of the review of the relevant literature:

Collaborative learning in the experimental CL group was based on placing an expert

student in each group. Through comparisons between their pre- and post-test results and

between their results and those of students in the control TL group, the research findings

showed improvements in the students’ work and attitudes after involvement in CL. The

researcher found that the expert students played essential roles during the writing process:

the presence of an expert resulted in improvements for less able students. One of the

suggestions for ESL teachers is therefore that they make a similar use of experts in their

classrooms. This interesting idea goes back to the ZPD concept that is based on two levels

of development, as outlined on page 23: one level is called ‘the inter-mental plane’, on

which the learning process is distributed between a student and an expert person, and the

second level is called ‘the intra-mental plane’, on which the learning process is

accomplished by the individual (Lantolf, 2006).

The method of marking the students’ essays in this study was to use a version of Paulus’s

rubric (1999). This rubric was found to be an interesting and useful tool that could be

recommended to ESL teachers to rate and mark essays. It gives not only an overall

assessment of the essay but also a full description of the different aspects of writing:

organization, development, cohesion, structure, vocabulary and mechanics.

The analysis of the students’ attitudes and perceptions in the experimental CL group

showed the importance of using collaborative learning in the pre-writing and revising

stages and to a lesser extent in the editing stage of writing, while it appeared to have made

no difference at all in the drafting stage. One of the implications and suggestions for ESL

teachers is thus that they train their students to focus on collaborating only during the pre-

243
writing and revising stages, and to a lesser extent in the editing stage. According to Storch

(2002), collaborative learning is beneficial to improve pre-writing activities: namely,

collecting new ideas and using them appropriately. Gebhardt (1980) thought that finding

new topics and generating details on them could be done through using collaborative

learning strategies. Moreover, collaborative revisions help students to make suggestions

to each other and produce final drafts of essays effectively (Hansen, 2005; Baker, 2009;

Mangelsdorf, 1992). The study found that CL does not help students to improve their

editing activities: namely, correcting grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes, as

much as it helps them in other stages such as pre-writing and revising. This result

supports those of previous studies (Suzuki, 2008; Storch, 2007), which found that peer

revisions concentrate on content and ideas rather than on correcting grammatical mistakes

(see Chapter 2, pages 53-54 for more details).

The analysis of the essay scores of students in the control TL group in terms of writing

factors indicated the effectiveness of the traditional method in learning vocabulary,

structure and mechanics, that are considered editing stage activities, whereas development

and organization, which are activities of the pre-writing and revising stages, received the

least improvement. One implication of this is that teachers using the traditional learning

method to teach writing skills should concentrate on the editing stage more than on the

pre-writing and revising stages.

Students need to be trained how to work collaboratively in groups. Without training,

collaborative learning will not be beneficial. Students would not be able to share with

each other in groups if their teachers did not give them practical training in how to work

collaboratively. Teachers should therefore train their students to work in groups and also

explain to them the importance and benefits of the collaborative learning strategy.

Students should understand that collaborative learning means encouraging each other,
244
sharing responsibility with each other, and communicating with and trusting each other.

This suggestion supports Min’s study (2006), which investigated the effect of training

students to become better peer reviewers. The results showed that training helped students

to improve their performance in peer review, build their confidence, and increase their

ability to comment on global issues such as the development and organization of ideas,

and to help them acquire and use vocabulary correctly. All trainees were more satisfied

and happier about this training because it helped them to develop their linguistic,

cognitive, psychological and methodological skills effectively. As stated in Min (2008,

p.301) 'Novice ESL/EFL writers usually encounter difficulty in providing concrete and

useful feedback without appropriate training and need teachers’ intervention' (Leki, 1990;

Tsui & Ng, 2000).

Some EFL teachers may be unwilling to correct and give feedback on students’ essays

because of the large numbers in their classes and the length of time it may take to correct

and discuss their mistakes. Integrating the process approach to writing with collaborative

learning could train the students themselves to correct and give feedback to each other.

Peer feedback helps students to become more self-aware, to engage in self-reflection,

self-expression and to contribute to decision making (Storch, 2004; Ferris, 2003).

5.3 Implications for further research

The findings of this study provide a basis for other researchers to investigate and research

further the effectiveness of using a collaborative learning strategy to improve ESL writing

skills. The results also give rise to several points that other researchers should take into

consideration when planning to study the effects of CL on learning writing skills:

245
The duration of this study was only eleven weeks, so it would be beneficial if similar

studies were carried out for longer periods: say, an entire academic year, in order to

obtain more conclusive results regarding the use of CL.

The only people available for this study were male ESL students. Other researchers could

therefore conduct similar studies on the effectiveness of CL with either female ESL

students or younger learners, to see whether using more heterogeneous groups could give

different results from homogenous ones.

This study used a quantitative method as the main data collection instrument. Findings

would be more accurate and convincing if a combination of qualitative and quantitative

methods were employed. For example, qualitative research methods such as observation

and diary writing might be helpful to obtain deeper insights into the perceptions and

attitudes of ESL students regarding using CL to improve their writing skills. Moreover,

longitudinal studies that could be conducted over a long time period may obtain more

reliable and generalizable results. Conducting a study over a longer period of time might

also help students to become more used to practising and adopting the process approach

to writing through collaboration.

The aim of this study was to determine whether CL could improve L2 writing skills.

Further research could study the effectiveness of CL in improving L1 writing skills.

Alternatively, other studies could compare the effects of CL on improving both L1 and

L2 writing skills and see which was the most positively affected in terms of accuracy,

communication, organization and so on. For example, ‘Does CL improve L2 writing

learners better than L1 writing learners?

246
5.4 General contribution of the study

Previous studies on CL have concentrated on the impact of CL in developing certain aspects

and categories of writing skills, as we saw in Chapter 2. For example, Shi (1998) investigated

whether peer-talk could develop writing skills better than teacher-led discussions; Berg

(1999) and Shull (2001) investigated the influence of peer response on revision and quality of

writing; Storch (1999, 2007) wanted to find out whether studying grammar collaboratively

helps students to be more accurate in their writing than working individually; Storch (2002;

2005) also investigated the nature of the writing processes evident in pair talk; Storch and

Wigglesworth (2007; 2009) compared essays written collaboratively with others written

individually in order to examine specific aspects of writing: namely, accuracy, fluency and

complexity; Suzuki (2008) compared self-revisions with peer revisions in written essays (see

pages 54-55 for more details).

The importance of this study, however, lies in its contribution to the teaching and

learning of writing skills, through investigating the effectiveness of using collaborative

learning to improve the writing skills of students of English as a second language on the

specific elements in the rubric, namely organization, development, coherence, structure,

vocabulary and mechanics, comparing the results of students using this method with those of

other students writing individually. In addition, the aim was also to see whether engaging in

collaborative learning had a positive effect on the attitudes and perceptions of learners. The

selection of the study sample and context (Saudi male students) was also considered to be

another contribution to research in the field of writing skills, since no previous studies have

examined the writing skills of Saudi students of English, who represent a significant

proportion of the learners of English worldwide.

247
5.6 Conclusion

This research is one of the first studies to have investigated the impact of using collaborative

learning as a strategy to improve the English writing skills of ESL students. This study

adopted as a theoretical basis Vygotsky’s theory of the ZPD, which emphasizes the role of

experts in developing the skills of less advanced individuals through collaboration. This

model was found useful and effective in teaching and learning writing skills. The results

showed that CL was beneficial for the pre-writing and revising stages of writing and less

effective in the editing stage, which is concerned mainly with structure and mechanics. The

attitudes and perceptions of students had also developed after their involvement in CL.

248
REFERNCES

Ahlgren, A & Johnson, D (1979) Sex Differences in Cooperative and Competitive

Attitudes from the 2nd through the 12th Grades, Developmental Psychology, 15 (1),
45-49.

Al-Ahmad, S. (2003) The Impact of Collaborative Learning on L1 and L2 College

Students’ apprehension about and Attitudes toward Writing, Unpublished PhD thesis,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Al-Haysony, M. H. (2008) Saudi Female English Major Students’ Writing Strategies

in L1 (Arabic) and L2 (English), Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex.

Al-Hazmi, S. H. & Scholfield, P. (2007) Enforced Revision with Checklist and Peer
Feedback in EFL Writing: The Example of Saudi University Students’, Scientific
Journal of King Faisal University, 8 (2), 223-261.

Aljamhoor, A. A. (1986) The English writing process of two Saudi graduate students
before and after ESL instruction, Unpublished PhD thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI.

Alnofal, A. (2003) Arabic first language writing and English second language writing
processes: a comparative study, Unpublished PhD thesis, the University of Kansas.

Artz, A. F. & Newman, C. M. (1990) Cooperative learning, Mathematics Teacher, 83,

448-449.

Ashwell, T. (2000) Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a Multiple-

Draft Composition Classroom: Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the
Best Method? In Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (3), 227-257

Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G. & Seibert, D. (2004) Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate
students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 29 (3), 344-370.

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996) Language Testing in Practice: Designing and

Developing Useful Language Tests, Oxford University Press.

Badger, R. & White, G. (2000) A process genre approach to teaching writing, ELT
Journal, 54 (2), 153-160.

Ballard, B. & Clanchy, J. (1992) Assessment by conception: cultural influence and

intellectual traditions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (ed.), Assessing second language writing in
academic contexts. Norwood, HJ: Ablex, 19-35.

249
Belinda, H. (2006) Effectiveness of using the process approach to teach writing in six
Hong Kong primary classrooms. Perspectives: Working Papers in English and
Communication, 17(1), 1-52

Berg, E. C. (1999) The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision
types and writing quality, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 215-241.

Brown, H. D. (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 4th. Ed,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bruffee, K. (1986) Social construction, language, and authority of knowledge,
College English, 48 (8), 773-790

Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press.

Campbell, D. J. & Stanley, J. C. (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental design

for research on teaching, North-western University: the Carnegie Corporation,
available at: http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/PS671/CS_part1.pdf

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing, Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981) Effects on second language learning of variations in
written feedback on homework assignments, TESOL Quarterly, 15 (3), 251–261.

Chang, K., Sung, Y. & Zheng, J. (2007) Hypermedia authoring with writing process
guidance, British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (5), 851-860.

Clanchy, J. & Ballard, B. (1992) How to write essays: a practical guide for students,
Longman Cheshire.
Cohen, E. G. (1994) Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small
groups, Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), 1-35.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research methods in education (5th
Ed.), London: Routledge Falmer.

Damon, W. (1984) Peer education: the untapped potential, Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 5 (4), 331-343.

De Guerrero, M. & Villamil, O. (2000) Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2

Peer Revision, The Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 51-68.

DiCamilla, F. J. & Anton, M. (1997) Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2

learners: A Vygotskian perspective, The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53
(4), 609-633.

250
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. & O’Malley, C. (1996) The evaluation of
research on collaborative learning, in E. Spada and P. Reiman (eds.) Learning in
humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning Science, Oxford:
Elsevier.

Dillenbourg P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In P.

Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches.
(pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.

Dornyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics, Oxford University Press.

El-Aswad, A. (2002). A study of the L1 and L2 writing processes and strategies of
Arab learners with special refrences to third-year Libyan university students.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Newcastle, Newcastle University library, UK

Elbow, P. (1975) Writing without teachers, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

El-Koumy, A. (2004) Effect of self-assessment of writing process versus products on

EFL students’ writing, Online Submission, Paper presented at the Tenth EFL Skills
Conference, the American University in Cairo, Center for Adult and Continuing
Education (Jan 12-14, 2004).

Ellis, R. Sheen, Y. Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008) The Effects of Focused

and Unfocused Corrective Feedback in an English as a Foreign Language Context,
System, 36 (3), 353–371.

El Mortaji. (2001) Writing ability and strategies in two discourse types: A cognitive
study of multilingual Moroccan university students writing in Arabic (L1) and English
(L3). Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex, UK

Emig, J. (1983) The web of meaning, Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Ferris, D. (1995) Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft

Composition Classrooms, In TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 34-54.

Ferris, D. (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to
be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (3), 161-184
Ferris, D. (2002) Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, The
University of Michigan Press.

Fawcett, L. M. & Garton, A. F. (2005) The effect of peer collaboration on children’s

problem-solving ability, British Journal of Education Psychology, 75 (2), 157-169.

Felder, M. & Brent, R. (1996) Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered

instruction, College Teaching, 44 (2), 43-47.

251
Felder, R. & Brent, R. (2007) Cooperative Learning, Active learning: Models from the
analytical sciences, Chapter 4, Washington DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 34-
53.

Ferguson-Patrick, K. (2007) Writers develop skills through collaboration: an action

research approach, Educational Action Research, 15(2), 159–180.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981) Cognitive process theory of writing, College

Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-387.
Foley, K. & O'Donnell, A. (2002) Cooperative learning and visual organizers: effects
on solving mole problems in high school chemistry, Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 22 (1), 38-50.
Freedman, S. W. (1987) Response to student writing (Research Report No. 23),
National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Gebhard, J. (2000) Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language, The

University of Michigan Press.

Gabriele, A. J. (2007) The influence of achievement goals on the constructive activity

of low achievers during collaborative problem solving, British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77 (1), 121-141.

Gabriele, A. J. & Montecinos, C. (2001) Collaborating with a skilled peer: The

influence of achievement goals and perceptions of partners’ competence on the
participation and learning of low achieving students, Journal of Experimental
Education, 69 (2), 152-178.
Cardelle, M. & Corno, L. (1981) Effects on Second Language Learning of Variations
in Written Feedback on Homework Assignments,TESOL Quarterly,15 (3), 251-261.
Garibaldi, A. M (1979) Affective contributions of cooperative and group goal
structures, Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6), 788-794.
Gebhardt, R. (1980) Teamwork and feedback: broadening the base of collaborative
writing, College English, 42(1), 69-74.
Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. (2003) Co-operative learning: the social and intellectual
outcomes of learning in groups, Routledge, London and New York.

Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. F. (1998) Behavior and interactions of children in

cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90 (4), 746-57.

Gokhale, A. (1995) Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking, Journal of

Technology Education, 7 (1), 22-30.

Gooden-Jones, E. (1996) Developing writing proficiency through cooperative

learning strategies in limited English proficient college students, ETD Collection
paper for Forham University, available at:

252
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI9631038//

Graham, D. (2005) Cooperative learning methods and middle school students,

Unpublished PhD thesis, Capella University.

Grami, A. (2010) The Effects of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-Level ESL
Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in a Saudi Context, Doctoral dissertation,
Newcastle University.

Gunderson, B & Johnson, D (1980) Building positive attitudes by using cooperative

learning groups, Foreign Language Annals, 13 (1), 39-46.
Harmer, J. (2004) How to teach writing, Harlow, UK.

Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1992) Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign

language writing instruction, Journal of Second Language Writing , 1 (3), 255-276

Hedge, T. (1988) Writing, Oxford University Press.

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and learning in the language classroom, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Hewings, A. & Curry, M. (2003) Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher
education, Routledge, London and New York.

Hill, S. & Hill, T. (1990) The collaborative classroom: a guide to cooperative learning,
South Yarra, Eleanor Curtain.

Huot, B. (1990) Reliability, validity, and holistic scoring: What we know and what we
need to know, College Composition and Communication, 41 (2), 201-213.

Hyland, F. and Hyland, K. (2001) Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written
Feedback, Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (3), 185-212.
Hyland, K. (2001) Teaching and researching writing, Pearson: London.

Hyland, K. (2003) Second language writing, Cambridge University Press.

Lowry, P. B. (2004) Building taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to

improve interdisciplinary research and practice, Journal of Business Communication,
41 (1), 66-99.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1987) Learning together and alone: Cooperative,

competitive, and individualistic learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989) Cooperation and competition: theory and

research, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1998) An overview of cooperative learning, in J.

Thousand, R. Villa & A. Nevin (eds.) Creativity and collaborative learning: a practical
guide to empowering students and teachers, Baltimore: P.H. Brookes Publishing Co.

253
Jones, S. (1982) Attention to rhetorical information while composing in a second
language, Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, (4th
edition), 130-134.

Kagan, S. (1994) Cooperative learning, San Clemente, CA.

Kay, H. & Dudley-Evans, T. (1998) Genre: what teachers think, ELT Journal, 52 (4),
308-314.

Kelly, A. & Graham, J. (1998) Writing under control, teaching writing in the primary
school, David Fulton Publishers, London.

Kessler, J. B. (2003) A survey of faculty experience using cooperative learning in

teacher education, Unpublished PhD thesis, Temple University.

King, R. & Chapman, C. (2003) Differentiated instructional strategies for writing in

the content areas, Corwin Press, INC.

Kohonen (1992) Experiential language learning: second language learning as

cooperative learner education, in Nunan, D. (1992) Collaborative language learning
and teaching, Cambridge University Press, 14-39

Kroll, B. (2003) Exploring the dynamics of second language writing, Cambridge

University Press.

Leki, I. (1991) Teaching second language writing: where we seem to be, English
Teacher Forum, April: 8-11.

Lantolf, J. P. & Appel, G. (1994) Vygotskian approaches to second language

research, Westport, Conn: Ablex Pub.Corp.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000) Socio cultural theory and second language learning, Language
teaching.

Lantolf, J. P. (2006) Socio-cultural theory and second language learning, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and principles in language teaching, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Larson-Hall, J. (2010) Doing statistics in second language research using SPSS,

Routledge.

Lee, J. F. & VanPatten, B. (1995) Making communicative language teaching happen,

McGraw-Hill.

Lee, D, T. F.; Woo, J. & Mackenzie, A, E. (2002) The cultural context of adjusting to
nursing home life: Chinese elders' perspectives, The Gerontologist, 42 (5), 667-675.

254
Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction,
Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. (1984) Communicative approach to language teaching, Cambridge

University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2007) Communicative and task-based language teaching in East

Asian classrooms, Language Teaching, 40 (3), 243-249.

Lochtman, K. (2002) Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom:

How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching, International Journal
of Educational Research, 37 (3-4), 271-283.

Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Pihlajamäki, H. (2003) Can a collaborative network

environment enhance essay-writing processes? British Journal of Educational
Technology, 34 (1), 17-30.

Lundstrom, K. & Baker, W. (2009) To give is better than to receive: The benefits of
peer review to the reviewer’s own writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 18
(1), 30-43.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1),
37-66.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992) Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the
students think? ELT, 46 (3), 274-284.

Martin, J.R. (1992) English text: system and structure, Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Pub. Co.

Matsuda, P. K. (2003) Process and post-process: A discursive history, Journal of

Second Language Writing, 12 (1), 65-83.

McDonough, J. & McDonough, S. (1997) Research methods for language teachers,

London: Arnold.

McWham, K., Schnackenberg, H., Sclater, J. & Abrami, P. C. (2003) From co-
operation to collaboration: helping students become collaborative learners, in R. M.
Gillies and A. F. Ashman (eds.) Cooperative Learning, London: Routledge Falmer.
69-86.

Min, H. T. (2005) Training students to become successful peer reviewers, System,

33 (2), 293-308.

Min, H. (2006) The Effects of Trained Peer Review on EFL Students’ Revision Types
and Writing Quality, In Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 (2), 118-141.

255
Min, H. (2008) Reviewers Stances and Writer Perceptions in EFL Peer Review
Training, In English for Specific Purposes, 27 (3), 285-305.

Mooko, T. (1996) An Investigation into the Impact of Guided Peer Feedback and
Guided Self Assessment on the Quality of Composition Written by Secondary School
Students in Botswana, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Essex, UK.

Mulryan, C. (1994) Perceptions of intermediate students’ cooperative small-group

work in mathematics, Journal of Educational Research, 87 (5), 280-291.

Murau, A. A. M. (1993) Shared writing: Students’ perceptions and attitudes of peer

review, Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 9 (2), 71-79.

Murray, D. (1978) Internal version: a process of discovery, in C. Cooper and L. Odell

(eds.) Research on composing, Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of
English.

Nelson, G. & Carson, J. (1998) ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer

response groups, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.

New, E. (1999) Computer-aided writing in French as a foreign language: A

qualitative and quantitative look at the process of revision, The Modern Language
Journal, 83 (1), 80-97.

Noël, S. & Robert J. (2003) How the web is used to support collaborative writing,
Behaviour and Information Journal, 22 (4), 245-265.

Nunan, D. (1989) Designing tasks for the communicative classroom, Cambridge

University Press.

Nunan, D. (1992) Collaborative language learning and teaching, Cambridge

University Press.

Nunan, D. (1992) Research methods in language learning, Cambridge University

Press.

Nunan, D. (1995) Closing the gap between learning and instruction, TESOL
Quarterly, 29 (1), 133-158.

Panova, I & Lyster, R (2002) Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an

Adult ESL Classroom, TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 573-595.

Parks, S., Huot, D., Hamers, J. & Lemonnier, F. (2005) History of theatre web sites:
a brief history of the writing process in a high school ESL language arts class,
Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (4), 233-258.

Paulus, T. M. (1999) The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing,
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 265-289.

256
Peacock, C. (1986) Teaching writing, Library of Congress Cataloguing.

Perl, S. (1978). Five writers writing: case studies of the composing processes of
unskilled college writers. Unpublished PhD thesis. New York University.

Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S. & Higgins, S. (2001) University students'
perceptions of cooperative learning: implications for administrators and instructors,
Journal of Experiential Education, 24 (1), 14-21.

Pica, T., Young, R., Doughty, C. (1987) The impact of interaction on comprehension,
TESOL quarterly, 21 (4), 737-758.

Pilotti, M. & Chodorow, M. (2009) Error detection/correction in collaborative writing,

Reading and Writing, 22 (3), 245-260.

Pincas, A. (1882) Teaching English writing, London: MacMillan.

Rice, R. P. & Huguley, J. T., Jr. (1994) Describing collaborative forms: a profile of the
team-writing process, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 37 (3),
163-170.

Raimes, A. (1984) Anguish as a second language, remedies for composition

teachers, in S. McKay (ed.), pp. 81-96, Composing in a Second Language,
Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publisher.

Raimes, A. (1985) What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study
of Composing, TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 229-258.

Raimes, A. (1991) Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the teaching of writing,
TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 407-430.

Reid, J. (1993) Teaching ESL writing, Regents/Prentice Hall.

Reid, J., Forrestal, P. & Cook, J. (1989) Small group learning in the classroom, Chalk
face Press, Oxford University Press.

Reigel, D. (2008) Positive Feedback in Pair work and Its Association with ESL
Course Level Promotion, TESOL Quarterly, 42 (1), 79-98.

Revell, J. (1979) Teaching Techniques for communicative English, London and

Basingstoke, the Macmillan Press Limited.

Rojas-Drummon, S. & Mercer, N. (2003) Scaffolding the development of effective

collaboration and learning, International Journal of Educational Research, 39 (1-2),
99-111.

Rollinson, P. (2005) Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class, ELT Journal, 59
(1), 23-30.

257
Rose, M. (1980) Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of the language: a
cognitive analysis of writer’s block, College Compositions and Communications, 31
(4), 389-401.

Ross, J. (1995) Effects of feedback on student behavior in cooperative learning

groups in a grade 7 math class, The Elementary School Journal, 96 (2), 125-143.
Salkind, N. (2000) Exploring research, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey, (4th Ed.).

Savignon, S, J. (1983) Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom

Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Schmitz, M. J. & Winskel, H. (2008) Towards effective partnerships in a collaborative

problem-solving task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 (4), 581-596.

Seliger, H. W. & Shohamy, E. (1989) Second language research methods, Oxford

University Press.
Shachar, H. & Sharan, S. (1994) Talking, relating, and achieving: effects of
cooperative learning and whole-class instruction, Cognition and instruction, 12 (4),
313-353.

Shaofeng, L (2010) The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-

Analysis, Language Learning, 60 (2), 309-365.

Shi, L. (1998) Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students’ compositions.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (3), 319-345.

Shull, J. T. (2001) Teaching the writing process to high school juniors through
cooperative learning strategies, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Walden University.

Silver, T. & Leki, I. (2004) Family matters: the influence of applied linguistics and
composition studies on second language writing studies - past, present and future,
The Modern Language Journal, 88 (1), 1-13.

Slavin, R. E. (1983) When does cooperative learning increase students’

achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94 (3), 429-445.

Slavin, R. E. (1987) Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools:

A best-evidence synthesis, Review of Educational Research. 57(3), 293-336.

Slavin, R, E. & Madden, N. (1999) Effects of bilingual and English as second

language adaptations of success for all on the reading achievement of students
acquiring English, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 4 (4),
393-416.

258
Somapee, S. (2002) The effectiveness of using cooperative learning to enhance
students’ critical thinking skills in business English at Chiangrai commercial school in
Chiangrai, M.A. Dissertation, Payap University.

Somers, N. (1980) Revisions strategies of student writers and experienced adults,

College Compositions and Communications, 31 (4), 378-388.

Standish, L. (2005) The effects of collaborative strategic reading and direct

instruction in persuasion on sixth-grade students’ persuasive writing and attitude,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Maryland.

Storch, N. (1999) Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical
accuracy, System, 27 (3), 363-374.

Storch, N. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52

(1), 119-158.

Storch, N. (2003) Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for

learning, International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3/4), 305-322.

Storch, N. (2005) Collaborative writing: product, process, and students’ reflections,

Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (3), 153-173.

Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2007) Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration, in

Maria del Pilar & Garcia Mayo (eds.) Investigating tasks in formal language learning,
157-177, Multilingual Matters Ltd, 157-177
Stroch, N. (2007) Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL
classes, Language Teaching Research, 11 (2), 143-159.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: two
adolescent French immersion students working together, Modern Language Journal,
82 (3), 320-337.
Swales, J.M. (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suzuki, M. (2008) Japanese learners, self revisions and peer revisions of their
written compositions in English, TESOL Quarterly, 42 (2), 209-233.

Thousand, J., Villa, R. & Nevin, A. (1994) Creativity and collaborative learning: a
practical guide to empowering students and teachers, Baltimore: P.H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Tribble, C. (1996) Writing, Oxford University Press.
Tribble, C. (2003) Writing, Oxford University Press.

Vanderburg, R. M. (2006) Reviewing research on teaching writing based on

Vygotsky’s theories: What we can learn, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22 (4), 375-
393.

259
Van Gennip, N; Segers, M. & Tillema, H. (2010) Peer assessment as a collaborative
learning activity: the role of interpersonal variables and conceptions, Learning and
Instruction, 20 (4), 280-290.

Van Lier, L. (1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy,

and authenticity, Longman.

Villamill, O. S. & Guerrero, M.C.M. (1996) Peer revision in the L2 classroom: social-
cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior, Journal of
second language writing, 5 (1), 51-75.

Villamill, O. S. & Guerrero, M.C.M. (2000) Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in
L2 Peer Revision, The Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 51–68.

Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Wadsworth, B. J. (1989) Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development,

Harlow, UK.

Wallace, M. (1998) Action research for language teachers, Cambridge University

Press.

Wang, Q. (2009) Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment,

Computers & Education, 53 (4), 1138-1146.

Webb, N. (1991) Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small

groups, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 (5), 366-389.

Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2009) Pair versus individual writing: effects on

fluency, complexity and accuracy, Language Testing, 26 (3), 445-266.

White, R. V. & Arndt, V. (1991) Process writing, London: Longman

White, C (2007) Focus on the language learner in an era of globalization: Tensions,

positions and practices in technology-mediated language teaching, Language
Teaching, 40 (4), 321-326.

Williams, J. (2003) Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Third edition.

Yamarik, S. (2007) Does Cooperative Learning Improve Student Learning

Outcomes? The Journal of Economic Education, 38 (3), 259-277.

Zamel, V. (1982) Writing: The process of discovering meaning, TESOL Quarterly, 16

(2), 195-209.

260
Zamel, V. (1983) The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case
studies, TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 165-187.

Zellermayer, M. (1989) The Study of Teachers’ Written Feedback of Students’

Writing: Changes in Theoretical Considerations and The Expansion of Research
Contexts, Instructional Science, 18 (2), 145-165.

261
APPENDIX A

Writing Prompts

Pre-test and Post-test

Write in English about the following topic. You will have only 60 minutes to finish the

composition. Some vocabularies will be provided to help you to complete your essay

successfully.

‘'Describe the different reasons you have for coming to university?’

The following words may help you in writing your essay:

Attend, common, prepare, experience, increase, knowledge, career, primary reason, job,

competitive, opportunities, Information, technology, expected, decision, expand, recommend.

262
APPENDIX B-1

Questionnaire to collect students’ attitudes towards writing skills

N Questions

1 Writing an essay is very difficult for me.

2 I think that writing is an important skill

3 Writing isn't just completing a composition, but planning, drafting, revising and editing.

4 I think that the most important aspect of the skill of writing is grammar.

5 I find it interesting to practise and learn writing skills.

6 I do not have the motivation to learn writing skills.

7 I get a lot of opportunities to practise writing in class.

8 I think learning writing skills is boring.

9 Before starting writing, I spend a lot of time trying to understand and familiarize myself with
the topic.

10 Before I start writing (pre-writing stage), I plan the topic mentally.

11 Before I start writing, I plan my topic by making an outline and writing down my ideas.

12 It is difficult for me to get new ideas for my writing topic.

13 Organizing ideas is the most difficult part for me.

14 Before I start writing, I have difficulty understanding the topic of the essay.

15 During the writing stage, I usually follow the plan that I have written before starting to write.

16 When I start writing, my priority is to concentrate on grammatical and spelling errors.

17 During the writing and drafting stages, I usually don't know how to start writing.

18 When writing the first draft, no attention is paid to grammatical and spelling mistakes.

19 During writing, I normally do revisions before finishing my writing completely.

20 During writing, I concentrate on using the vocabulary supplied by my teacher.

21 During the editing stage, I concentrate on finding appropriate words and vocabulary.

22 During the editing stage, I make several revisions before submitting my final draft.

23 During my editing stage, I must correct grammatical and spelling mistakes.

263
APPENDIX B-2

Questionnaire to collect students’ attitudes towards collaborative

learning
N Questions
1 Working together in groups is a good strategy that helps me to write effectively.
2 Writing about something with my friends is not suitable for me.
3 Before starting writing (pre-writing stage), planning a topic with friends is much better
than individually.
4 Before I start writing (pre-writing stage), making an outline and writing down ideas
with classmates are not good methods.
5 Working by myself without help from others is very important for me.
6 Working and writing in groups helps me to know how to revise my essay effectively.
7 I prefer editing and proofreading my activities and tasks in a group rather than
individually.
8 Working with other students is very important for me.
9 Writing in a group can help me to get better scores in my writing exams.
10 Colleagues in my group are able to give comments on my writing.
11 I would like to get feedback from my friends on my compositions.
12 I would like to see students involved in more collaborative writing.
13 My experience of CL has increased my understanding of my own accountability.
14 I like reading the essays of my classmates and I understand what they write.
15 I understand and learn from listening to students when they read their essays in front of
others.
16 Revising my essay with classmates many times can improve it effectively.
17 At the pre-writing stage, talking with my friends can facilitate finding ideas for my
topic.
18 Sharing my essay with my friends collaboratively is useful and beneficial.
19 Collaborative writing helps me to acquire and use new vocabulary correctly.
20 I feel more satisfied with my writing when I work in small groups than when I work
individually.

264
APPENDIX C

Interview questions to collect students’ attitudes towards

collaborative learning

1- When do you think you learn better?

2- If you get stuck or face a problem while practicing any English’s skill, what do you prefer

to do?

3- Do you like learning English individually? Why?

4- Do you like learning English in a group? Why?

5- Did you like writing skill before you were involved in collaborative learning method?

6- What kind of difficulty do you face normally when you start writing?

7- Do you feel difficulty finding the right vocabulary when you start writing?

8- During prewriting activities such as brainstorming and planning, do you think that you

learn from working together with classmates to structure and plan your ideas? Can you

explain in some details?

9- During drafting activities, do you feel that you write better collaboratively rather than

individually without any help from others?

10- During revising and editing stages, do you feel that working together can overcome your

difficulties such as correcting mistakes, restructuring ideas, finding right vocabularies,

and so on?

11- When you read your essay in front of your classmates in the same group, do you feel

that your writing can be better?

265
APPENDIX D

Essay-scoring rubric (Paulus, 1999)

Organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocabulary Mechanics

1 No organization No Not coherent; no Attempted simple Meaning obliterated; Little or no

evident; development relationship of sentences; extremely limited command
ideas random, ideas evident serious, recurring, range; of spelling,
related unsystematic incorrect/unsystematic
punctuation,
to each other grammatical inflectional,
but not to errors obliterate derivational paragraphing
task; no meaning; non- morpheme use; little to capitalization
paragraphing; English no knowledge of
no thesis; no patterns appropriate word use
unity predominate regarding meaning
and syntax
2 Suggestion of Development Not coherent; ideas Uses simple Meaning severely Some
organization; severely random/ sentences; some inhibited; evidence of
no clear thesis; limited; unconnected; attempts at very limited range; command
ideas listed examples attempt at various verb relies on
of basic
or numbered, random, if transitions may be tenses; repetition of common
mechanical
often not in given. present, serious words;
sentence form; but ineffective; few or unsystematic inflectional/derivational features;
no unclear errors, morphemes incorrect, error-ridden
paragraphing/gr referential ties; occasional clarity; unsystematic; very and
ouping; reader is lost. possibly limited unsystematic
no unity uses command of common
coordination; words; seldom
meaning idiomatic;
often obliterated; reader greatly
unsuccessful distracted
attempts at
embedding may
be evident

266
Organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocabulary Mechanics

3 Some Lacks content at Partially coherent; Meaning not Meaning inhibited; Evidence of
organization; abstract and attempt impeded by use limited developing
relationship concrete levels; at relationship, of range; some patterns of command of
between few examples relevancy and simple sentences, errors may be evident; basic
ideas not progression of some despite errors; limited command of mechanical
evident; ideas, attempts at usage; much repetition; features;
attempted but inconsistent or complicated reader distracted at frequent,
thesis, but ineffective; sentences inhibit time unsystematic
unclear; no limited use of meaning; errors
paragraphing/ transitions; possibly uses
grouping; no relationship within coordination
hierarchy and between successfully;
of ideas; ideas unclear/non- embedding
suggestion existent; may be evident;
of unity of ideas may occasionally use non-English
appropriate patterns evident;
simple referential ties non-parallel
such as and inconsistent
coordinating structures
conjunctions
4 Organization Underdevelope Partially coherent, Relies on simple Meaning inhibited by May have
present; d; lacks main purpose structures; somewhat paragraph
ideas show concreteness; somewhat clear to limited command limited range and format; some
grouping; examples reader; of variety; often systematic
may have may be relationship, morpho-syntactic uses inappropriately errors in
general inappropriate, relevancy, and system; informal spelling,
thesis, though too progression of ideas attempts at lexical items; capitalization,
not for general; may may be embedding may systematic errors basic
persuasion; use main apparent; may begin be evident in in morpheme usage; punctuation
beginning points as to use simple somewhat
of hierarchy of support for logical connectors structures limited command of
ideas; lacks each other. between/ without word
overall within consistent usage; occasionally
persuasive ideas/paragraphs success; non- idiomatic;
focus effectively; English frequent use of
and unity relationship patterns evident circumlocution;
between/ reader distracted
within ideas not
evident; personal
pronoun references
exist, may
be clear, but lacks
command of
demonstrative
pronouns and
other referential ties;
repetition
of key vocabulary not
used
successfully

267
Organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocabulary Mechanics

5 Possible Underdevelope Partially coherent; Systematic Meaning occasionally Paragraph

attempted d; some shows attempt to consistent inhibited; format
introduction, sections may relate ideas, still grammatical some range and variety; evident;
body, have ineffective at times; errors; some morpheme basic
conclusion; concreteness; some effective use of successful usage generally under punctuation,
obvious, some may logical attempts at control; simple
general thesis be supported connectors complex command awkward or spelling,
with some while others between/within structures, but uneven; capitalization,
attempt to are not; some groups limited variety; sometimes informal, formatting
follow it; ideas examples of ideas/paragraphs; clause unidiomatic, under control;
grouped may be command of construction distracting; some use of systematic
appropriately; appropriate personal pronoun occasionally circumlocution. errors
some supporting reference; partial successful,
persuasive evidence for a command of meaning
focus, unclear persuasive demonstratives, occasionally
at essay, deictics, determiners disrupted by use
times; hierarchy others may be of complex or
of ideas may logical fallacies, non-English
exist, without unsupported patterns; some
reflecting generalizations nonparallel,
importance; inconsistent
some unity structures
6 Clear Partially Basically coherent in Some variety of Meaning seldom Basic
introduction, underdevelope purpose and complex inhibited; adequate mechanics
body, d, focus; mostly structures range, variety; under
conclusion; concreteness effective use of evident, limited appropriately control;
beginning present, but logical pattern of error; academic, sometimes
control over inconsistent; connectors, used to meaning usually formal in lexical successful
essay format, logic flaws progress ideas; clear; clause choices; successfully attempts at
focused topic may be evident; pronoun references construction and avoids the first person; sophistication
sentences; some mostly clear; placement infrequent , such as
narrowed thesis supporting referential/anaphoric somewhat under errors in morpheme semi-colons,
approaching proof and reference may control; finer usage; beginning colons
position evidence used be present; command distinction in to use some idiomatic
statement; to develop of morpho-syntactic expressions
some thesis; some demonstratives; system evident; successfully; general
supporting sections still beginning non-English command of
evidence, yet under appropriate patterns may usage; rarely distracting
ineffective at supported and use of transitions occasionally
times; generalized. inhibit meaning
hierarchy of
ideas
present without
always
reflecting idea
importance;
may
digress from
topic.

268
Organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocabulary Mechanics

7 Essay format Acceptable level Mostly coherent in Meaning Meaning not inhibited; Occasional
under control; of persuasive focus generally clear; adequate mistakes in
appropriate development; and purpose, increasing range, variety; basically basic
paragraphing concreteness progression of ideas distinctions in idiomatic; mechanics;
and topic present and facilitates reader morpho-syntactic infrequent errors in increasingly
sentences; somewhat understanding; system; usage; some successful
hierarchy consistent; logic successful attempts sentence variety attention to style; attempts at
of ideas evident, to use logical evident; mistakes rarely sophisticated
present; main makes sense, connectors, lexical frequent distracting; little use of punctuation;
points mostly repetition, successful circumlocution may
include adequate synonyms, attempts have
persuasive supporting collocation; cohesive at complex systematic
evidence; proof; devices may still be structures; spelling errors
position may be inconsistent/ non-English
statement/thesi repetitive ineffective at times; patterns do not
s may show inhibit meaning;
narrowed and creativity; possibly parallel
directs essay; still some and consistent
may irrelevancy structures used
occasionally
digress
from topic;
basically
unified;
follows
standard
persuasive
organizational
patterns
8 Definite control Each point Coherent; clear Manipulates Meaning clear; fairly Uses
of organization; clearly persuasive purpose syntax with sophisticated mechanical
may show some developed with and attention to style; range and variety; word devices
creativity; may a focus; ideas relevant generally usage to further
attempt implied variety of to topic; consistency error-free under control; meaning;
thesis; content convincing and sophistication in sentence variety; occasionally generally
clearly relevant, types of use of transitions/ meaning clear; unidiomatic; attempts error-free
convincing; supporting referential ties; non-English at original,
unified; evidence; ideas effective use of lexical patterns rarely appropriate choices;
sophisticated; supported repetition, evident may use some
uses effectively; may derivations, language nuance
organizational show synonyms;
control to originality in transitional devices
further express presentation appropriate/
ideas; of support; effective; cohesive
conclusion may clear logical and devices used to
serve persuasive/conv further the
specific function incing progression of ideas
progression of in a
ideas manner clearly
relevant to the
overall meaning.

269
Organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocabulary Mechanics

9 Highly effective Well-developed Coherent and Mostly error-free; Meaning clear; Uses
organizational with concrete, convincing to reader; frequent sophisticated mechanical
pattern logical, uses success in using range, variety; often devices
for convincing, appropriate transitional language to idiomatic; for stylistic
persuasive supporting devices/referential stylistic often original, purposes;
essay; unified examples, ties/logical advantage; appropriate choices; may be error-
with clear evidence and connectors to create idiomatic may have distinctions in free
position details; and further syntax; non- nuance
statement; highly a particular style English patterns for accuracy, clarity
content effective/convin not evident
relevant and cing;
effective possibly
creative use of
support

10 Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate native- Appropriate Appropriate native-like Appropriate

native-like native-like like native-like standard native-like
standard standard standard written standard written written English standard
written English written English English English written
English

270
APPENDIX F-1
Pre and post-test scores of the students’ essays in the experimental CL
group

Pre-test Post-test
name First Second Mean first second Mean
maker marker score maker maker score
1 23 24 23.5 45 27 36
2 21 21 21 46 48 47
3 19 19 19 32 27 29.5
4 14 14 14 29 29 29
5 15 15 15 32 29 30.5
6 23 24 23.5 47 48 47.5
7 13 11 12 42 14 28
8 15 6 10.5 27 27 27
9 5 7 6 17 6 11.5
10 19 13 16 26 24 25
11 19 15 17 21 23 22
12 21 11 16 42 24 33
13 22 17 19.5 35 35 35
14 14 11 12.5 20 23 21.5
15 16 14 15 28 25 26.5
16 22 17 19.5 29 27 28
17 18 14 16 33 15 24
18 14 12 13 27 19 23
19 21 24 22.5 32 27 29.5
20 19 14 16.5 44 40 42
21 18 12 15 24 28 26
22 17 19 18 27 27 27
23 13 11 12 32 24 28

271
APPENDIX F-2
Pre and post-test scores of the students’ essays in the control TL group

Pre-test Post-test
First Second Mean First Second Mean
Name maker maker score maker maker score
1 16 36 26 19 17 18
2 19 18 18.5 26 23 24.5
3 21 24 22.5 19 18 18.5
4 19 24 21.5 22 18 20
5 12 12 12 24 23 23.5
6 22 25 23.5 36 30 33
7 33 36 34.5 45 47 46
8 24 36 30 32 34 33
9 20 24 22 22 29 25.5
10 13 15 14 14 13 13.5
11 16 12 14 22 20 21
12 14 14 14 31 27 29
13 13 15 14 22 21 21.5
14 19 16 17.5 27 25 26
15 34 42 38 39 40 39.5
16 20 25 22.5 32 34 33
17 18 14 16 23 21 22
18 17 14 15.5 26 24 25
19 6 6 6 19 16 17.5
20 16 14 15 26 25 25.5
21 10 12 11 19 18 18.5
22 13 13 13 24 16 20
23 18 18 18 21 22 21.5
24 12 15 13.5 21 22 21.5
25 19 7 13 27 20 23.5

272
APPENDIX G

First Marker: Group one

organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocab. Mechanics Total
Names: Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
test test test test test test test test test test test test test Test
1 4 7 4 7 4 8 3 8 4 8 4 7 23 45
2 4 7 3 8 3 7 4 8 3 8 4 8 21 46
3 3 5 3 5 4 5 3 6 3 5 3 6 19 32
4 2 5 2 5 3 5 2 5 3 4 2 5 14 29
5 2 5 2 5 3 6 3 5 3 5 2 6 15 32
6 4 8 3 8 4 8 4 7 3 8 5 8 23 47
7 2 7 3 7 2 7 2 6 2 7 2 8 13 42
8 2 4 2 5 3 5 3 5 2 4 3 4 15 27
9 1 3 0 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 3 5 17
10 3 4 3 3 3 5 3 5 4 5 3 4 19 26
11 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 19 21
12 4 7 3 7 3 8 4 7 3 7 4 6 21 42
13 4 6 4 6 3 6 3 5 4 6 4 6 22 35
14 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 2 3 14 20
15 3 5 3 4 3 5 3 5 2 5 2 4 16 28
16 4 5 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 3 6 22 29
17 3 5 3 5 3 6 3 5 3 6 3 6 18 33
18 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 4 2 4 2 6 14 27
19 4 5 3 6 3 6 4 5 4 5 3 5 21 32
20 3 7 3 8 4 8 3 8 3 7 3 6 19 44
21 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 4 5 18 24
22 3 5 2 4 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 17 27
23 1 5 2 5 2 5 3 6 2 5 3 6 13 32

273
First Marker: Group two

organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocab. Mechanics Total

Names Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre post
test test test test test test test test test test test test test test
1 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 16 19
2 4 3 3 4 3 5 3 4 3 5 3 5 19 26
3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 21 19
4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 19 22
5 2 5 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 4 12 24
6 4 6 4 6 4 6 3 5 3 6 4 7 22 36
7 6 7 6 7 5 8 5 7 6 8 5 8 33 45
8 5 6 4 6 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 5 24 32
9 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 20 22
10 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 13 14
11 2 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 16 22
12 3 5 3 5 2 4 2 6 2 5 2 6 14 31
13 2 3 2 3 3 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 13 22
14 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 5 3 5 3 4 19 27
15 6 7 6 6 5 6 6 7 6 6 5 7 34 39
16 4 6 3 5 3 6 3 5 4 5 3 6 20 32
17 4 5 3 5 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 18 23
18 3 4 3 4 2 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 17 26
19 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 6 19
20 2 4 3 5 3 5 3 4 2 4 3 4 16 26
21 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 1 3 2 3 10 19
22 2 4 2 4 2 5 2 5 3 3 2 3 13 24
23 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 18 21
24 2 3 2 3 2 5 2 3 2 4 2 3 12 21
25 3 4 4 3 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 19 27

274
Second Marker: Group one

organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocab. Mechanics Total

Names: Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

test test test test test test test test test test test test test Test

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 24 27

2 4 8 3 8 3 8 4 8 3 8 4 8 21 48

3 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 5 3 4 3 5 19 27

4 2 4 2 4 3 5 2 5 3 4 2 5 14 29

5 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 6 3 6 2 4 15 29

6 4 9 3 8 4 8 4 7 4 8 5 8 24 48

7 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 11 14

8 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 6 27

9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 6

10 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 2 4 13 24

11 3 5 3 5 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 3 15 23

12 2 4 2 5 1 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 11 24

13 2 7 3 6 3 7 3 5 3 5 3 5 17 35

14 2 4 2 4 3 3 1 4 1 4 2 4 11 23

15 2 5 2 5 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 14 25

16 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 5 3 5 3 5 17 27

17 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 14 15

18 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 12 19

19 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 24 27

20 3 6 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 3 7 14 40

21 2 5 2 4 2 4 2 5 2 5 2 5 12 28

22 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 5 3 5 3 5 19 27

23 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 11 24

275
Second Marker: Group Two

organization Development Cohesion Structure Vocab. Mechanics Total

Names Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
test test test test test test test test test test test test test test
1 6 2 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 3 6 3 36 17
2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 18 23
3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 24 18
4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 24 18
5 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 4 12 23
6 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 25 30
7 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 7 6 8 6 8 36 47
8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 36 34
9 4 6 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 29
10 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 15 13
11 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 4 1 3 2 4 12 20
12 3 4 3 4 3 4 1 5 2 5 2 5 14 27
13 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 15 21
14 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 5 2 4 16 25
15 7 8 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 42 40
16 5 5 4 5 4 5 3 7 5 6 4 6 25 34
17 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 14 21
18 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 14 24
19 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 6 16
20 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 5 2 4 3 4 14 25
21 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 12 18
22 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 13 16
23 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 18 22
24 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 15 21
25 1 3 1 3 2 4 1 2 1 4 1 4 7 20

276
APPENDIX K

Distinguishing the researcher’s study from previous studies (e.g. Grami, 2010)

Even though that this study is similar to some previous studies namely Grami (2010), there

are some differences which are summarized in the following table.

Category Grami’s study The researcher’s study

Evaluating the success of Investigating whether using

integrating peer feedback into collaborative learning in one class
ESL writing classes in terms of could help ESL students to produce
Aim of the developing writing and social better written texts in terms of
study skills. organization, development,
coherence, vocabulary, structure and
mechanics

The sample The population were not The population were equal. All
equal. 61.6% of the students students were in the second year in
were in both first and second the English language department at
year, whereas the remaining Al-Qassim University in Saudi Arabia.
was in third and fourth year.

Methods of Semi structured the questionnaire items were in

data questionnaires closed formats
collections

Writing class The treatment group trained The treatment group trained to
divisions to use peer feedback beside to practice writing process approach
teacher-written feedback; though collaboration, whereas the
whereas a control group control group trained to practice
received only teacher-written writing process approach to writing
feedback. individually with help from teacher.

Training students in the Collaborative learning in the

treatment group to act as experimental group was based on
Students’ both giver and receiver of the placing an expert student in each
training feedback. group who plays essential roles
during the writing process.

277
APPENDIX M

Presenting experimental CL and control TL group equally in terms of

proficiency before start of study

N Mean Mean difference T Sig. (2-tailed)

Experimental CL group 30 68.6

0.9 287 0.77

Control TL group 34 69.5

278
APPENDIX N

Letter to support lack of bias in favouring one group unconsciously

during teaching experimental and control groups

279