indonesian english-as-a-foreign-language (efl) learners
TRANSCRIPT
Indonesian English-as-A-Foreign-Language (EFL) Learners’ Experiences in
Collaborative Writing
by
Yanti Sri Rezeki
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Supervised by
Professor Joanne Larson
Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York
2016
ii
Dedication
To my dearest husband, Aspian Noor
To the lights of my life, Muhammad Rizky and Aqila Nur Shadrina
Thank you for walking this journey along with me
Thank you for always staying with me in my ups and downs
For what I have achieved now
I could not have done it without your love, patience, and care.
With love
A proud wife and mom
iii
Biographical Sketch
Yanti Sri Rezeki was born in Singkawang, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. She attended
Tanjungpura University from 1995 to 2000 and graduated with a Bachelor of Education
degree in English Language Education. When she was a teacher educator at the Faculty
of Education, Tanjungpura University, she was awarded an Australian Development
Scholarship (ADS) in 2006 with which she pursued a Master of Education degree in
Adult Education and Training at Monash University, Australia. In 2011, she received a
Fulbright Presidential Scholarship and began her doctoral program in Teaching,
Curriculum, and Change at the Warner Graduate School of Education and Human
Development, University of Rochester. In fall semesters 2014 and 2015, she worked as
an adjunct faculty for the Warner School of Education and Human Development and
taught ED 409 Language and Literacy in Education. She pursued her research on
Indonesian EFL undergraduate students’ experiences in collaborative writing under the
direction of Professor Joanne Larson.
iv
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, my deepest gratitude goes to Almighty Allah who has granted
me His countless blessings and bestowed upon me the strengths and health to be able to
complete my study. I wish to thank my late mother and father whose priceless love and
support set the strong foundation for what I could achieve now.
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Joanne Larson,
for her continuous support, constructive feedback, and invaluable insights on my
dissertation. I am truly indebted to her for her dedication and time in the completion of
my study. I am deeply thankful to my committee members, Dr. Jeffrey Choppin and Dr.
Thomas Gibson for their rich perspectives, guidance, and expertise in assisting me in my
dissertation project.
I am also grateful to all my research participants for their willingness to share
their perspectives and experiences leading me to a better understanding of collaborative
writing. I also want to thank all my colleagues, friends, and relatives for their constant
prayers and support during my PhD journey.
Finally, my heartfelt thanks go to my husband and my two children for their
unconditional love, patience, sacrifice, and support. I thank them for allowing me to
travel far to pursue my academic goals and for always cheering me up with their smiles
and laughter during these years we were apart. To three of them I extend my deepest love,
gratitude, and appreciation.
v
Abstract
Collaborative writing has been claimed to offer potential benefits for language learners in
that it affords them wide opportunities to learn by using the language. Nevertheless,
research exploring the ways in which learners understand and experience collaborative
writing is still scant, especially in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context. The
present study aims at filling this gap. Specifically, it explores Indonesian EFL
undergraduate students’ experiences in collaborative writing and the ways they make
meaning out of these experiences in a qualitative case study using a theoretical
framework of sociocultural theory (SCT) and writing as social practice theory. It focuses
on four students and the instructor of an essay writing class. Data for the study were
collected through individual interviews, participant observations, and document
collection, and analyzed by using grounded theory methods.
This study provided rich insights into EFL students’ understanding and meaning making
of their collaborative writing experiences. Specifically, it showed that collaborative
writing afforded learners opportunities to learn English and to write in English through
social interactions. Additionally, it revealed the difficulties learners encountered when
writing collaboratively and the affordances of learning social values and skills while
writing with their peers. Finally, the study provided evidence of the influencing factors of
collaborative writing, including types of peers, affect/emotions, power dynamics,
Indonesian social and cultural norms and values, prior knowledge of English, and
experiences with various literacy practices in specific community of practice.
vi
This study shed lights onto the growing body of L2 collaborative writing literature and
research. It expanded methods and theories that could be used to study collaborative
writing and the ways it could be better implemented in EFL language classrooms.
vii
Contributors and Funding Sources
This work was supervised by a dissertation committee consisting of Dr. Joanne Larson
(advisor) and Dr. Jeffrey Choppin from the Warner Graduate School of Education and
Human Development and Dr. Thomas Gibson from the Department of Anthropology of
the University of Rochester. All work for the dissertation was completed independently
by the student.
viii
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Biographical Sketch iii
Acknowledgments iv
Abstract v
Contributors and Funding Sources vii
List of Tables xiii
List of Figures xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Context 1
1.1.1 The Roles of English Language in Indonesian Education and
Development 2
1.1.2 Academic Writing for EFL Learners 5
1.1.3 EFL Instruction and Collaborative Writing 8
1.1.4 Defining Collaborative Writing 11
1.2 Purpose Statement and Research Questions 13
1.3 Significance of the Research 14
1.4 Researcher Positionality 16
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation 19
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 21
2.1 L2 Collaborative Writing 21
2.1.1 The Social Nature of Learning 21
ix
2.1.2 Peer Interaction in Pair/Group Work 22
2.1.3 L2 Learning, L2 Acquisition, and L2 Writing 23
2.2 Research on L2 Collaborative Writing 28
2.2.1 Collaborative Writing, L2 Learning, and L2 Writing 28
2.2.2 The Process of Collaborative Writing 34
2.2.3 Factors Affecting Collaborative Writing 37
2.2.4 Technology-based Collaborative Writing 40
2.3 Research Gaps and Conclusion 44
Chapter 3: Theoretical Frameworks 48
3.1 Overview 48
3.2 Sociocultural Theory 49
3.3 Writing as Social Practice 55
3.4 Conclusion 61
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 63
4.1 Research Questions 64
4.2 Rationale for a Qualitative Study 64
4.3 Rationale for Qualitative Case Study 66
4.4 Research Site and Participants 68
4.4.1 Research Site 69
4.4.2 Research Setting: Essay Writing Class 70
4.4.3 Research Participants 73
4.4.4 Core Participants’ Profiles 77
x
4.5 Data Collection Methods 80
4.5.1 Interviews 81
4.5.2 Participant Observation 84
4.5.3 Document and Artifact Collection 87
4.6 Data Sources 87
4.7 Data Management 88
4.8 Data Analysis 91
4.8.1 Grounded Theory 91
4.8.2 Memo-writing 97
4.9 Quality in Qualitative Research 98
4.9.1 Triangulation 98
4.9.2 Study Trustworthiness 99
4.10 Ethical Considerations 100
4.10.1 Researcher Role 101
4.10.2 Reciprocity 102
4.10.3 Exit Strategy 103
4.11 Conclusion 103
Chapter 5: Affordances of English Language Learning 104
5.1 Extended Use of English 106
5.1.1 Languaging, Participation Roles, and the ZPD 111
5.1.2 Use of L1s 121
5.2 “Thinking Beyond Ourselves” 128
xi
5.2.1 Using Individual’s Prior Knowledge 135
5.2.2 Employing Members’ Shared Experiences 139
5.2.3 Utilizing External Sources 143
5.3 Conclusion 145
Chapter 6: Struggling and Learning Social Values 147
6.1 Having Hard Times 148
6.2 Learning Social Values and Skills 163
6.2.1 Respect, Understanding, and Open-mindedness 164
6.2.2 Empowerment and Empathy 169
6.3 Conclusion 177
Chapter 7: Factors Influencing Collaborative Writing Experiences 179
7.1 Teacher’s Roles, Instructional Design, and Learning Atmosphere 180
7.2 People Significant to Learners and Prior L2 Knowledge and
Experiences 195
7.3 Social Identities and Membership in Specific Communities 205
7.4 Conclusion 214
Chapter 8: Discussions and Conclusion 215
8.1 Summary of Findings and Discussions 215
8.1.1 L2 Learning Affordances 216
8.1.2 Constraints and Affordances of Learning the Social Values
and Skills 220
xii
8.1.3 Factors Influencing Student Collaborative Writing
Experiences 223
8.1.4 EFL Collaborative Writing Model 227
8.2 Theoretical Contribution 230
8.3 Pedagogical Implications 233
8.3.1 Group Formation 234
8.3.2 Teacher Role and Instructional Designs 235
8.4 Policy Implications 237
8.5 Study Limitations 241
8.6 Areas for Further Research 242
8.7 Conclusion 243
References 244
Appendix A Student Information Letter 269
Appendix B Teacher Information Letter 271
Appendix C Sample Student First Interview Protocol 273
Appendix D Sample Student Second Interview Protocol 275
Appendix E Sample Teacher First Interview Protocol 277
Appendix F Sample Teacher Second Interview Protocol 279
xiii
List of Tables
Table Title Page
Table 4.1 Distribution of Writing Courses 71
Table 4.2 Sampling Distribution and Demographic Profiles of Research Participants 76
Table 4.3 Data Collection Matrix 90
Table 4.4 Examples of Coding 93
Table 6.1 Types of Peers and Social Characteristics 158
xiv
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
Figure 6.1. Types of Peers and Patterns of Interaction 161
Figure 7.1 Classroom Setting in Conventional Sessions 186
Figure 7.2 Classroom Setting in Collaborative Writing Sessions 187
Figure 7.3 List of Topics for Collaborative Argumentative Essay Writing 189
Figure 7.4 Class Discussion on Collaborative Writing 192
Figure 8.1 EFL Collaborative Writing Model 227
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
“Understanding more and more about how people learn is empowering for the
profession of teaching, and will enhance your own development.”
(Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Herrington, J., & Okely, T., 2006, p. 10)
Background and Context
In this dissertation, I report on my study, which aimed at understanding
Indonesian undergraduate English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ experiences in
collaborative writing. Specifically, I was interested in finding out how these students
experienced, engaged with, and made sense of collaborative writing in an English class.
My reasons for studying Indonesian tertiary EFL students in collaborative writing were
threefold. First, the roles of English language in Indonesian education and national
development are significantly increasing. Second, despite the struggles that many
Indonesian students faced to write in English and the importance of English writing
ability for their study and future career (e.g., Megaiab, 2014; Mistar, Zuhairi, &
Parlindungan, 2014; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015; Soedjatmiko & Widiati, 2002),
there was scant research that looked into Indonesian students’ experiences in academic
writing. Last, while pair work and group work have been widely implemented in
Indonesian higher education setting, including in EFL writing classes, little has been done
to see the ways in which learning takes place and what constraints occur within such
pedagogical instructions. In order to set the context of my research and its rationale, I
briefly discuss the status of the English language in Indonesia and its implications for
Indonesian education. This is followed by a section about the teaching and learning
2
instruction of EFL in my research site. I also present the importance of second language
(L2) academic writing by relating it specifically to my research participants. From the
background, I move to a section defining collaborative writing, followed by the research
purpose and significance. Then I address researcher positionality before I end this chapter
by outlining the organization of the dissertation.
The roles of English language in Indonesian education and development.
English is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world (Crystal, 2003; Kachru,
1992), and depending on its status, it plays very important roles in many aspects of
people’s lives all over the world. Kachru’s (1992) conceptualization of the geographic
and historical spread of the English language is helpful to see how English has gained its
current status as a world or global language. In his model, Kachru presented the spread of
the English language in three circles; the smallest, inner circle represents the countries
where English was originally spoken, such as the United Kingdom, the United States,
Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. The second (extended) circle shows the
countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, India, and more than 50 other countries in which
English is regarded as the second language and plays major roles in their primary
institutions. The last circle in Kachru’s model is the expanding group which includes
countries such as China, Japan, Poland, and Indonesia, in which English is regarded as a
foreign language. Unlike the countries in the outer circle, the countries in the expanding
circle do not give official status to English, as these countries were not colonized by those
in the inner circle (Crystal, 2003; Lauder, 2008).
3
Nevertheless, due to the large number of English speakers and the emergence of
the United States as the current world economic superpower (Crystal, 2003; Jenkins,
2003; Lauder, 2008), countries in this expanding circle, including Indonesia, also
recognize the important role of the English language. Additionally, as the fourth most
populated country in the world with around 249 million people (Population Reference
Bureau, 2014), it is also arguable that Indonesia has “huge potential ‘foreign language’
populations” (Crystal, 2003, p. 109), including English language speakers. With this said,
in order to develop itself socially, economically, and politically, Indonesia as a country
needs to pay more attention to the important roles of the English language, especially in
the international domains. For example, because English is the most popular language of
knowledge and science, as is evident in its wide use in printed and electronic resources,
mastering the language is important to keep abreast with and participate in the
development of global knowledge and science (Lauder, 2008). English is also essential as
it is widely used in the international trades and business, social and political negotiations,
education, and global culture (Crystal, 2003; Huda, 2000; Jenkins, 2003). Unfortunately,
while recognizing these important roles of the English language, the Indonesian
government does not seem to provide adequate support for the development of English
language proficiency for its people (Huda, 2000; Lauder, 2008). This can be seen from
the status given to English and Indonesia’s foreign language education policy as
discussed below.
Regarded as a foreign language, English is not the main medium for
communication and formal education systems in Indonesia, and it is only spoken or used
4
in limited occasions such as in English language classes or courses (Gebhard, 2006;
Harmer, 2007; Lowenberg, 1991). In addition to Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language)
as a lingua franca and around 500 local or regional languages, English is the most widely
used for international communication and is the only foreign language taught as a
compulsory subject in junior and senior high schools in Indonesia (Dardjowidjojo, 2000;
Lauder, 2008; Lowenberg, 1991). Other foreign languages such as Japanese, Chinese,
and French are electives (Renandya, 2000). Despite this special status, there does not
seem to be adequate support from the government to develop the English language in the
country. The status of the language has been limited to that of “a ‘tool’ to serve the needs
of development, and its potential as a means of intellectual development or cultural
curiosity have [sic] been purposely excluded” (Lauder, 2008, p. 13). While recognizing
that mastering the English language is helpful to access knowledge and information in a
globalized world, there has been little attention to exploring and maintaining the potential
benefits of the language in improving the quality of the nation as a whole. In terms of
EFL education policy, for example, because of the status of the English language as a
foreign language and the main stress of the use of Bahasa Indonesia as a lingua franca,
English education is only given a small proportion of the teaching and learning hours in
the formal state education. This small proportion has even been reduced based on the
current 2013 curriculum (BSNP, 2014). Additionally, despite its importance as one of the
requirements for job promotion in academia, there is still little research in Indonesian
EFL education and publication in the English language as researchers have not been
highly rewarded. For example, there is very limited research funding for teachers in all
5
education levels, and the elevation from one level to another in the job promotion is not
followed by the considerable increase of salary. These factors and other issues such as the
poor quality of human resources (EFL teachers) and infrastructure (classes with large
numbers of students), as well as the frequent changes of school curriculum for primary
and secondary education, contribute to the lack of success of English language education
in Indonesia (Dardjowidjojo, 2000, 2003; Huda, 2000; Lauder, 2008; Lowenberg, 1991;
Marcelinno, 2008; Masduqi, 2011).
Considering the growing importance of the English language and education in
Indonesia and in the world and the need to gain more support for its current status,
research that investigates the common practices within the Indonesian EFL education is
vital. The lack of research in EFL education and the low quality of English language
ability in our country were among the problems I intend to address through my study. By
investigating the students’ experiences in collaborative writing as a widely implemented
teaching and learning instruction in our tertiary EFL education classrooms, my research
provides valuable insights and solid evidence for the government to improve its EFL
educational policy and to do more evaluation of current educational practices, including
the process of English teaching and learning. In the following section, I discuss the
importance of EFL academic writing, especially for student teachers, which formed the
rationale for my study.
Academic writing for EFL learners. Academic writing is an integral part of the
life of university students because it is the primary way students’ work is graded or
assessed (Coffin et al., 2003; Tang, 2012). Students must write for academic purposes,
6
such as papers for course assignments, research proposals, and theses for their final
projects (Craig, 2013; Manchón, 2009). However, due to its required conventions and
specific characteristics, academic writing presents considerable challenges, especially for
students who are new to higher education (Coffin et al., 2003). In the case of L2 learners,
including EFL learners, academic writing is more challenging because students are
required to use various language elements such as syntactical and rhetorical devices and
to demonstrate good skills in organizing ideas cohesively and coherently, all in a
language with which they are not familiar (Brown & Lee, 2015; Celce-Murcia, 2001;
Richards & Renandya, 2002). Despite these difficulties, these learners have to develop
competency in these skills because of the significant roles of writing in English in their
education.
For teacher education students majoring in EFL in Indonesia, academic writing
skill is crucial both for their study and for their future career. In addition to writing
academic papers for their coursework, these students are also required to write a thesis
and publish this thesis in the form of a scholarly journal article in order to graduate. This
requirement of journal publication follows the policy currently issued by the Indonesian
Ministry of Higher Education (Dirjen DIKTI, 2012). So far, the implementation of this
policy is that each university provides a journal archive system to accept student
publications. Before submitting their articles, students must consult with their
supervisors. The university appoints a team of reviewers who will review the articles
before deciding whether the articles are to be published directly or they need to go
through a revision process. Students in the English department have to write the journal
7
article in English. In addition to these coursework and graduation requirements, the need
for English academic writing also relates to the students’ future careers, especially as
teachers at the secondary school or university level. It has become an increasing demand
that those who work in academia must show their scholarship through publication as a
way to participate in the knowledge construction of this academic discourse community
(Becher & Trowler, 2001; Hyland, 2000, 2009).
Following the world trend of the importance of publication in English for
academia (Lillis & Curry, 2010; Swales, 2004; Tang, 2012), the Indonesian government
has announced research and publication as required components for job promotion for
those who work in the academy (Dirjen DIKTI, 2012). Action research and lesson study,
which require teachers to collaborate with each other, have been the most encouraged
types of research in Indonesia (Hendayana, 2010; Suratno, 2010; Suratno & Cock, 2009;
Zulkifly, Suratno, & Nur’aini, 2009). In other words, collaborative skills in conducting
research and in English academic writing for the research report are crucial for their
professional development. Therefore, collaborative writing, which is commonly
implemented in EFL classes, is beneficial for these student teachers to prepare for their
future careers. Nevertheless, the benefits so far have still been anecdotal as there has been
scant research that systematically investigated collaborative writing, especially in
Indonesian tertiary EFL settings. While it was not my purpose to investigate the
effectiveness of collaborative writing on students’ English writing ability, my research
documented students’ collaborative writing experiences and what the experiences meant
to them. This is an important effort to inform ourselves as teachers and our student
8
teachers about meaningful (or otherwise) processes of knowledge construction. In the
following section, I present a brief overview of the EFL instruction in my research site,
including the implementation of collaborative writing.
EFL instruction and collaborative writing. English Education departments,
including the one with which I am affiliated, are the main institutions responsible for the
education and training of teachers of English in our region. Within these institutions,
students learn the language both for their general language proficiency and for the
pedagogical knowledge and skills they will need to teach the language (Tang, 2012). In
our curriculum, English is taught through several different domains: the skill domain (i.e.,
Listening Comprehension, Reading Comprehension, Speaking, Writing, Pronunciation,
Grammar, and Vocabulary), the teaching/pedagogical domain (i.e., Teaching English as a
foreign language (TEFL), English language teaching (ELT), Curriculum and Instructional
Development, Language Testing, and Teaching Practicuum), the linguistics domain (i.e.,
Introduction to Linguistics, English Phonology, English Morphology, and English
Syntax), and the literature domain (i.e., Introduction to Literature, Prose, Poetry, and
Drama) (Djiwandono, Rambadeta, & Rahayu, 2001). In addition to these core courses,
our department also offers some elective courses such as Second Language Acquisition;
Discourse Analysis; and Information, Communication, and Technology in Education
(ICTE). Each of these courses is offered in two to four credit hours per week of the 16 to
32-week meetings per semester, including the mid-term and final examination. Each class
usually consists of more than 40 students of mixed gender. However, for skill-based
9
classes, there is usually a smaller number of students so that they can have wider
opportunities to practice learning by using the language.
Language teaching worldwide, including ELT, is always influenced by the trends
in linguistic theories (Dardjowidjojo, 2000). Consequently, ELT pedagogies – as
formally mandated in policy – in Indonesia have changed at least five times since its
independence in 1945 in accordance with the major language teaching approaches in the
world, namely the Grammar Translation Approach, Oral Approach, Audio-Lingual
Approach, and Communicative Approach, respectively (Dardjowidjojo, 2000).
Currently, as the most recent trend the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
method therefore dominates the ELT in Indonesia. Within this approach, students are
provided with as many opportunities as possible to practice and experience the use of L2
in various communicative contexts and events in order to develop their communicative
competence, which includes grammatical competence, discourse competence,
sociocultural competence, and strategic competence (Savignon, 2005). Briefly stated,
learners’ L2 learning is facilitated, among other things, by their interaction with the
teacher as well as their peers. CLT has therefore underlined the common practices of
pair/group work in tertiary EFL classrooms, including the implementation of
collaborative writing activities in which students work collaboratively to produce a text
(Howard, 2001; Storch, 2005, 2013).
L1 collaborative writing (e.g., in composition class) is generally aimed at
developing learners’ writing and workplace skills (Bremner, 2010; Bruffee, 1999;
Shields, 2010; Vass, Littleton, Miell, & Jones, 2008). In L2 (ESL/EFL) settings,
10
collaborative writing offers additional benefits; that is, it affords learners with
opportunities to facilitate and mediate language learning through interaction (Manchon,
2009; Mutwarasibo, 2013; Storch, 2013). Such opportunities are especially crucial in
EFL contexts where access to resources and chances to use English are limited to EFL
classes or courses (Ortega, 2009a, 2009b; Storch, 2013). With these supposed benefits
and the growing demand for higher education to help students develop their L2
communicative competence, teacher educators in my department (the English
Department) have been assigning students collaborative writing tasks. In some courses
such as Writing in different levels; Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL);
Information, Communication, and Technology in Education (ICTE); and Second
Language Acquisition (SLA), my colleagues and I used to assign students to work
collaboratively in pairs or in groups to produce written assignments. Nevertheless, while
it has become a common practice, we have not made a serious effort to find out whether
or not our students benefit from writing collaboratively. Additionally, little information is
available about how such instruction is implemented in class and how the teacher and
students go about it. Since collaborative writing originated from L1 contexts (Bremner,
2010; Bruffee, 1999; Shields, 2010; Vass, Littleton, Miell, & Jones, 2008), that is the
contexts in which English is the mainstream language and collaboration has been a
common pedagogical practice for a long time, its relevance when implemented in
different contexts such as Indonesian EFL settings calls for further examination. This
provides another rationale for my study.
11
To summarize, the significant roles of the English language in Indonesia, the
importance of English academic writing and the ability to write collaboratively in
English, and the need for more research on collaborative writing in Indonesian EFL
higher education and L2 settings more broadly are among the reasons justifying my
study. I will address more research gaps in the literature review in chapter two. To
provide further understanding of my research topic and its scope, in the following section
I present the definition of collaborative writing as highlighted in the literature.
Defining collaborative writing. There has been a large debate among researchers
on the definition of collaborative writing and the types of activities it involves (Bruffee,
1999; Harris, 1994). Speck, Johnson, Dice, and Heaton (1999) argue that it is hard to put
forward a single definition of collaborative writing, as it comprises many features and
activities. These authors agree, however, that although collaborative writing can be
generally defined as writing that is conducted by more than one person, such a definition
could be challenged. Although one may write a text alone, he or she still involves other
people's work in the writing process, thus making all writing collaborative at certain
stages (Lillis & Curry, 2006; Speck, Johnson, Dice, & Heaton, 1999).
Another source of complexity in defining collaborative writing comes from the
connection to another similar concept or form of instruction, that is, cooperative learning.
The interchangeable use of the terms collaborative and cooperative learning has blurred
the distinction between the two concepts (Bruffee, 1999; Lai, 2011; Storch, 2013). Lai
(2011) provides the distinction between collaboration and cooperation, stating:
“cooperation is typically accomplished through the division of labor, with each person
12
responsible for some portion of the problem solving. Collaboration involves participants
working together on the same task, rather than in parallel on separate portions of the task”
(p. 6). She further argues that collaborative learning does not simply mean two or more
people working or learning together. Rather, it requires strong effort and equal
responsibilities from the people involved in order to solve a problem or to successfully
accomplish a certain task. She concludes that the characteristics of collaborative learning
include "shared goals, symmetry of structure, and a high degree of negotiation,
interactivity, and interdependence" (Lai, 2011, p. 2). Situating collaboration in writing,
Storch (2013) describes collaborative writing as “an activity where there is a shared and
negotiated decision-making process and a shared responsibility for the production of a
single text" (p. 3). This definition implies that writers share ownership and authorship of
the text that they jointly produce.
Furthermore, Ede and Lunsford (1990) distinguish three features of collaborative
writing: “(1) substantive interaction in all stages of the writing process; (2) shared
decision-making power over and responsibility for the text produced; and (3) the
production of a single written document” (p. 2). Based on this definition, Storch (2013)
argues that collaborative writing comprises two distinctive features: process and product.
She states that “process” refers to the interaction participants engage in when they write
together, such as planning, generating and developing ideas, editing, and revising. In
addition to exchanging ideas, negotiation of disagreements may also be part of the
interaction. “Product” in collaborative writing is the jointly produced and shared text.
13
Due to its equal ownership by all participants, it is therefore not possible to distinguish
elements of the text based on separate individual contributions (Storch, 2013).
In fact, researchers in collaborative writing have paid attention to different
activities/tasks and aspects of collaborative writing. With regard to the types of tasks,
some researchers believe that peer review or peer response is collaborative work essential
in the writing classroom (Edgington, 2012; Wirtz, 2012). However, Storch (2011) argues
that the defining feature of collaborative writing is the “joint ownership of the document
produced” (p. 275). Thus, she rejects the idea that peer feedback or group-planning
activities constitute collaborative writing. She contends that in peer-feedback, peer-
editing, or peer-response activities, students only work with the text in one stage−the
editing; they do not produce or own the text together (Storch, 2011, 2013). Storch’s
argument is in line with Howard’s (2001) idea that in collaborative writing, students are
usually assigned to “work together from start to finish, producing a single paper from the
group” (p. 52). In my research, I followed the definition of collaborative writing posed by
Storch and Howard: an activity where two or more learners work together to produce a
single written text.
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
The purpose of my research was to explore students’ in-depth understanding of
their collaborative writing experiences. My study served exploratory, explanatory, and
descriptive purposes. Specifically, I explored and described the students’ beliefs,
perceptions, and attitudes regarding collaborative writing. I also investigated the ways in
which they experienced writing collaboratively and made meaning of those experiences.
14
Using a qualitative case study design, I aimed at answering this broad question: How do
Indonesian EFL undergraduate students experience, engage with, and make sense of
collaborative writing in an English class? Specifically, I sought answers to these
questions:
1. How do Indonesian EFL undergraduate students describe their collaborative
writing experiences?
2. In what ways do Indonesian EFL undergraduate students learn in collaborative
writing, and what mediates their learning?
3. What are the influencing elements of their collaborative writing experiences?
Answering these questions will contribute to the larger field of L2 writing,
especially regarding L2 collaborative writing in higher education settings.
Significance of the Research
Although this study aimed to answer my research questions on students’
collaborative writing experiences in an Indonesian EFL higher education setting, it is also
significant to the theories and research in broader L2 settings. First, my study is
significant to the existing research in L2 collaborative writing, especially in EFL settings
in terms of the research methods. While most research in L2 collaborative writing has
implemented experimental methods that focused on the effects of collaborative writing
on learners’ linguistic competence or their writing quality in a laboratory-like setting, I
employed a qualitative case study method. The use of qualitative case study methodology
allowed me to document and describe participants’ lived collaborative writing
experiences and their meaning making of these experiences. It enabled me to elicit
15
participants’ own voices and describe the ways in which they engaged in collaborative
writing activities in a natural setting. This setting included deployment of conventional
instruction in addition to collaborative writing instruction, various tasks, and group
compositions in a prolonged one-semester study period. My participants’ perceptions,
attitudes, and reflections on their collaborative writing experiences, the descriptions of
the ways they learned through collaborative writing, their struggles, and the situating
context of their experiences are unique and rich contribution to researchers who want to
further explore L2 collaborative writing.
Next, my study is also significant in that it involved both students and a teacher,
instead of investigating collaborative writing from the perspectives of only one or the
other. While emphasizing the students’ experiences, I also included the teacher’s role in
shaping the students’ experiences for example in terms of his instructional designs, belief,
and attitude toward collaborative writing. The use of SCT as a theoretical lens allowed
me to see the importance of these elements that situated and contextualized my
participants’ knowledge construction and meaning making in and through collaborative
writing. The findings are also valuable for teachers who want to implement collaborative
writing instruction in their class and for the students who strive to gain more benefits of
collaborative writing for their learning.
Finally, my study is significant for research and theory in L2 learning and
collaborative writing in that it offers the use of a relatively new theoretical lens in L2
collaborative writing research, namely writing as social practice. Working hand in hand
with SCT, writing as social practice theory allowed me to view writing not merely as
16
discrete skills, a viewpoint that often leads to the deficit view of learners when they fail
to master certain skills. Rather than focusing on how well students performed their
English language skills during the collaborative writing activities or what effects
collaborative writing had on their produced text, I attempted to see the ways in which
writing is embedded in the learners’ participation and interaction with other members in
social activities in variety of communities. These communities might be inside (e.g.,
classroom, collaborative writing groups) or outside the classroom (e.g., youth
community, musical group, and online communities). Writing as social practice theory
enabled me to see that participants’ collaborative writing experiences involved their
utilization of different roles and strategies in managing and experiencing social
relationships with others in the process of knowledge construction. Together with SCT,
writing as social practice theory offered perspectives into the ways in which my
participants’ literacy practices, social identities, and memberships in various communities
might shape their classroom collaborative writing experiences and meaning making.
Researcher Positionality
Researcher positionality refers to “the connection between the researcher’s
socially constructed identities and those of participants" (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006,
p. 79). A description of my positionality as a researcher is important as a way to inform
the audience of how my social identity, that is who I am, affected the choice for my topic
and the decisions I made throughout the research processes, including data gathering,
analysis, and interpretation, as well as representation of participants. In my case, since I
had a close connection with my participants in terms of similarities of social identity (I
17
had a collegial relationship with the teacher participant) and hierarchical position (I was
an authority figure to the student participants), an understanding of my positionality is
crucial. This helped me attend to the potential biases due to issues of power resulting
from such relationships. Clear articulation of my positionality prevented me from
providing my own views or experiences instead of presenting my participants’ stories
(Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006). In the following narrative, I explain how my socially
constructed identities as an EFL learner as well as an EFL teacher educator helped me
arrive at my interest on L2 collaborative writing.
I have been teaching EFL for undergraduate students in the English department of
Nirwana University, Indonesia since 2003. It is a teacher education institution from
which I obtained my bachelor’s degree in education. Becoming a student and a teacher
educator at the same institution has shaped both my learning and teaching experiences
with regard to EFL. When I was a student, I was accustomed to traditional, teacher-
centered ways of teaching. In the case of learning L2 writing, for example, our teachers
used to lecture about certain types of writing, and then they would give us topics to
choose from and some amount of time to write on our own. After that, we had to hand in
our work to be graded and returned with feedback. In my early years of teaching, I
replicated a similar teaching approach with my students. I continued this approach until I
had an opportunity to pursue my master’s degree in Australia, one of the L1 contexts in
which I experienced different teaching and learning approaches. In the classroom, we
were involved more in group discussions and interactions in which we exchanged ideas
and shared knowledge with each other. Most importantly, we used English. From this
18
experience and along with my own learning endeavors, I started to think about ways I
could improve my own teaching in my classes.
While recognizing that not all Western-based teaching paradigms are adoptable to
the EFL context such as Indonesia, teachers seemed to have neglected some points with
respect to the traditional or conventional foreign language learning. That is, learning and
specifically writing should be viewed as a social practice rather than an individual
activity in isolation (Larson & Marsh, 2015). Thus, writing and writing instruction can be
enhanced through dialogue as well as interactions with other peers and the teacher. My
participation in an online course on project-based learning offered by an American
university enriched my insight on the importance of working together with peers. I tried
to implement such an approach in my classes. My other colleagues who also had the
experience of studying abroad and got involved in various professional development
activities had also started implementing pair/group work collaboration in their classes.
My colleagues and I assigned students collaborative work, assuming that working
together with peers would make the learning atmosphere lively and fun. We thought
students would also feel more engaged in the activities. Nevertheless, these seemed to be
our “anecdotal” assumptions since we had not made any significant effort to hear from
the students how they felt about their collaborative writing experience and what it meant
to them. I noticed that some students in my classes did not seem to enjoy the activities
and thus did not collaborate with their classmates or peers. Additionally, despite our
expectation that students worked collaboratively in that they were supposed to share
equal responsibility of the authorship of the written product, it often turned out that they
19
divided the job instead, making it more of cooperative rather than collaborative project.
Therefore, while we could see the potential benefits of collaborative writing as
highlighted in the related literature, there was a need to investigate how these benefits
could really be afforded in our classes. One of the ways to meet this need is by asking the
students, as they are the center of learning. Briefly stated, my identities as an EFL learner
as well as a teacher educator enabled me to see the need for improved teaching practices
and pedagogies while my role as a researcher allowed me to see an area that required an
in-depth, systematic investigation. That is, I wanted to know, what can we learn from
students’ experiences in collaborative writing that can inform our teaching and facilitate
their learning?
Organization of the Dissertation
In this chapter, I presented the background of my study. After describing the
context in which my study was situated, I defined my research topic, stated the purpose
of my research, and addressed its significance. Finally, I highlighted my positionality as a
researcher. This dissertation is divided into eight chapters. Following this introduction
chapter, I present an extensive review of literature on collaborative writing which covers
discussions of L2 collaborative writing, research on L2 collaborative writing, and the
gaps I fulfilled through my study. In chapter three, I discuss SCT and writing as social
practice theory as theoretical lenses that underline my perspectives in this dissertation
study. Then I outline my research methodology in chapter four. Specifically, I highlight
the use of qualitative case study as my study design followed by descriptions of my
research methods of data collection, the research site and participants, the quality of
20
qualitative study, and the ethical considerations. In the following three chapters, I present
my findings and analyses which include L2 learning affordances, struggles and the
learning of social values and skills, and factors that influence students’ collaborative
writing experiences and what they meant to them. In the last chapter, I conclude my study
by summarizing the main findings and suggesting the study implications, the study
limitations, and areas for further research.
21
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
L2 Collaborative Writing
Collaborative writing is defined as an activity in which two or more people work
together to produce a written text (Howard, 2001; Storch, 2011, 2013). In order to gain
more understanding about collaborative writing and to situate this topic in my study, I
present discussions of collaborative writing in three areas suggested in the literature as
the main tenets and advocacy for collaborative writing as providing opportunities for L2
learning: the social nature of learning, pair/group work interactions, and “languaging”
(Swain, 2006, p. 96).
The social nature of learning. SCT, which views learning as socially situated
activity (Vygotsky, 1978), has been widely used to underpin research and implementation
of collaborative writing (Storch, 2013). Vygotsky posits that the development of human
higher cognitive functions occurs on two planes. First, the development is
interpsychological or on the social plane; that is, it occurs within one’s relationship with
others. Second, the development is intrapsychological or within the individual. The
concept known as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) comes from an
understanding of these two planes; a learner first learns from others who are more
capable in performing certain tasks or activities. Then, through assistance from these
experts, the learner develops his/her own skills (Vygotsky, 1978). This learning
perspective opposes the prior idea that learning occurs in isolation. In its later
development, Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD has evolved in three areas (Wells, 1999).
First, participants’ activities are a determining factor for learning. Second, all
22
participants, not necessarily the less skillful or knowledgeable, have the opportunity to
learn with and from others. Last, the potential for learning is open and evolving. Briefly
stated, the social nature of learning within collaborative writing enables learning,
specifically language learning, to take place through peer interaction.
Peer interaction in pair/group work. Emphasizing the view of learning as a
socially embedded activity, another reason for the advocacy of collaborative writing is
the benefit of peer interaction through pair/group work activities on students’ L2 learning
and writing (Howard, 2001; Philp, Adams, & Iwashita, 2014; Storch, 2013). McDonough
(2004) provides pedagogical reasons for the use of pair work or group work activities. He
argues that: these activities provide more time to speak the target language than just
teacher-learner interaction; they promote learner autonomy and self-directed learning;
they give instructors more time to work with individual learners; and they reduce
learners’ anxiety, thus increasing their self-confidence. When students feel less stressed
or anxious about talking to their peers, they will consider collaborative writing as a
meaningful activity for knowledge construction (Bruffee, 1999). Within collaborative
groups, learners participate in the exchange of ideas and resources to resolve issues that
may arise during the process of text production (McAllister, 2005). As members of the
same community of learners, group members learn from each other through collaborative
talk and interaction (Bruffee, 1999; Kostouli, 2005; McAllister, 2005; Storch, 2013;
Wirtz, 2012). While collaborative writing in L1 contexts is generally aimed at developing
good writing skills (i.e., learning to write) and to prepare students to write in the
workplace (Bruffee, 1999; Manchón, 2009), in L2 contexts, the purpose of collaborative
23
writing is usually to learn to write as well as to learn language (Manchón, 2011; Storch,
2013). Learners can gain these opportunities to learn L2 and to write in L2 as they are
involved in the collaborative process of negotiation, decision-making, and the fulfillment
of responsibility for the joint text-production or re-production with peers.
L2 learning, L2 acquisition, and L2 writing. Collaborative writing, in which
two or more people share responsibilities for producing a joint text, offers language
learners wide opportunities to learn and practice their L2 and to improve their L2 writing
skills (Manchón, 2011; Storch, 2013; Swain, 1993, 2006). Theoretically, these
opportunities for L2 learning and acquisition are based on Krashen’s (2003) input
hyphothesis, Long’s (1983) interaction hypothesis, and Swain’s (1993, 2006) output
hypothesis and languaging. Krashen (2003) argues that learners must have sufficient
input to be able to acquire a language. Input is defined as “the linguistic environment of
the learner, that is, to that which is available to be taken in, or rather, to everything in the
TL (target language) that the learner is exposed to and has the opportunity to either hear
or read” (Kast, 2008, p. 4). While accepting Krashen’s hypothesis that comprehensible
input is vital in second language acquisition, Long (1983) claims that it is the consistent
use of the input through modifications of verbal interaction that makes input
comprehensible. In other words, the more one attempts to change the structures of the
conversation to avoid or overcome misunderstanding, for example by asking for
confirmation or requesting clarification, the more likely it is that the second language
acquisition will take place. Based on Long’s interaction hypothesis, the verbal
interactions, which include negotiations of meaning in a conversation, stimulate language
24
acquisition (Ellis, 1999; Long, 1983; Storch, 2013). Thus said, collaborative writing,
which encourages opportunities for such interactions, may help learners acquire L2.
Another influential socio-cognitive view underpinning L2 collaborative writing is
Swain’s (1993) pushed output hypothesis. Citing her early work, Swain (1993) argues
that learners can best acquire or learn a language by producing the language rather than
just comprehending the input. She further claims that language production or output can
assist language learning and acquisition in four ways. First, by producing the language as
frequently as possible, learners develop automaticity in their use of linguistic resources.
In other words, the more the learners produce language through speaking and writing, the
more fluent they will likely become. Second, producing language forces learners to move
their focus from semantic (meaning) to syntactic (form) understanding as they notice
their grammatical problems and attempt to reprocess them in their subsequent output.
Third, language production or output allows learners to test their hypotheses of the
appropriate ways of expressing ideas. Finally, by producing language during interaction,
learners generate responses from other speakers in the form of “confirmation checks,
clarification requests, and explicit or implicit corrections” about the “comprehensibility
or well-formedness of their utterances” (p. 160). These responses function as feedback
that urges learners to modify their output. Swain contends that when applied to second
language teaching and learning, teacher-led discussion and collaborative learning (i.e.,
learning with peers) provide learners with a lot of opportunities for language output. Like
Long, Swain also stresses the benefits of pair work and group work for language learning
and acquisition, as they provide opportunities for a greater amount of output and
25
negotiation of meaning. Learners are more likely to learn a language when they are
pushed to use their linguistic resources and abilities to reflect and to modify their output
so that it can be more comprehensible, appropriate, and accurate.
Expanding the output hypothesis, Swain (2000) also suggests the importance of
collaborative dialogue that mediates language learning. Collaborative dialogue, according
to Swain, aims at problem solving and knowledge building. In the case of language
learning, collaborative dialogue helps learners construct linguistic knowledge. Swain
(2000) explains that in collaborative dialogue, learners’ efforts to solve problems are
mediated by the language they speak or write. Learners’ output shows their cognitive
activity, and what was said becomes the object of reflection. Swain (2000) asserts that
new knowledge construction happens through these acts of discussing and reflecting on
what was said. She stresses the importance of looking at output as “an agent in the
making of meaning” (p. 96) rather than as “a conveyer of fixed message” (p. 95). Swain
later (2006) revisited her hypothesis and used the term “languaging” to replace output.
Emphasizing the use of language as a dynamic activity or process, Swain (2006)
defines languaging as “the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and
experience through language” (p. 98). As one way of learning language, Swain further
argues, “the languaging (either through dialogue or private speech) about language that
learners engage in takes on new significance. In it, we can observe learners operating on
linguistic data and coming to an understanding of previously less well understood
material” (p. 98). When learners talk about the language to themselves, they will be able
to hear, analyze, and process their own talk in their minds, notice the gap, and modify
26
their talk based on their existing knowledge about the language. When they talk about
language (languaging) to others, they will be able to notice any language gaps from the
responses of others, for example in the form of recasts or feedback. These processes
indicate that language learning is taking place. Interaction with others moves language
learning from a merely psychological act that takes place in the learner’s mind to a more
sociocultural orientation which emphasizes the importance of learner participation in
social activities. The implication of this perspective on language learning and instruction
is the creation of conditions that require students to engage in interactions during which
they use language to advance their understanding (Storch, 2013; Swain, 2006).
While engaging in the collaborative writing process, learners verbalize and
inscribe or write their thoughts. They are also required to “language” (Swain, 2006) and
interact in the process of examination or revision of the jointly produced text (Bruffee,
1999; Storch, 2005, 2013; Williams, 2012). Stahl (as cited in Storch, 2013) further argues
that the outcome of a collaborative learning activity is not only the jointly produced text
but also “a collective cognition” (p. 3) which results from the consensus reached by two
or more people during the process of collaboration. In short, collaborative writing that
involves languaging offers opportunities to learn new vocabulary, to improve ways of
expressing ideas, and to gain greater understanding of certain grammatical conventions
and how to use them (Storch, 2013).
Although little has been said about the types of tasks that best promote
interactions in SLA, collaborative writing tasks can provide more optimal conditions for
languaging and interactions than speaking tasks for several reasons (Fernandéz Dobao,
27
2012; Hanaoka & Izumi, 2012; Harklau, 2002; Storch, 2013; Williams, 2012). First,
while speaking requires learners to respond to utterances immediately, writing has a
slower pace that provides learners with time to think about, construct, and negotiate
meaning through continuous use of their linguistic resources (Manchón, 2011;
McAllister, 2005; Williams, 2012). Second, as writing is more demanding than speaking
(Manchón, 2011) in that it requires more accuracy: the writing tasks force learners to
utilize their linguistic resources and capabilities more than they have to when dealing
with speaking tasks. Miller (2011) argues that the absence of an interlocutor demands
more attention to structure and syntax in writing as compared to speaking. Third, writing
tasks, especially in groups (collaborative writing), create “audience awareness”
(McAllister, 2005, p. 208), for example through peer feedback. Audience awareness
encourages learners to meet the audience’s expectation. For example, students will work
on multiple drafts to make clearer connections between reading and writing (the use of
resources) and to build content, linguistic, and rhetorical schemata (McAllister, 2005).
Finally, writing leaves a long-term record that can be attended to for reviews, revision,
and exploration at any time, either alone or with others (Fernandéz Dobao, 2012;
Hanaoka & Izumi, 2012; Harklau, 2002; Storch, 2013; Williams, 2012). In these
processes, learners engage in the act of languaging (Swain, 2006). To conclude, due to
the strengths of writing tasks and working collaboratively with peers, L2 collaborative
writing is considered a promising approach to develop learners’ critical thinking,
communicative skills, L2 learning, and L2 writing.
28
In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding and to locate gaps for
further research, I next examine research on L2 collaborative writing, focusing mostly on
the higher education setting.
Research on L2 Collaborative Writing
In general, research on L2 collaborative writing can be grouped into four areas of
emphasis. These areas include the product or outcome, the process, factors that affect
collaboration, and collaborative writing in technology-based settings. Before I proceed
with the reviews of this research, it is important to briefly explain the term “language
related episodes” (LREs). Since the body of research that I review is on collaborative
writing in its relationship to L2 learning, researchers often used LREs as their unit of
analysis. LREs refer to “ any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the
language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or
others” (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p. 326). LREs are generated from the transcription of
students’ pair talk and are used as evidence of languaging and as an indication of
students’ L2 learning.
Collaborative writing, L2 learning, and L2 writing. Some research has focused
its investigation on the effects of collaborative writing on learners’ L2 outcomes such as
vocabulary and phrasal verb mastery (e.g., Kim, 2008; Nassaji & Tian, 2010). Other
research has focused on the overall quality of jointly produced texts (e.g., Fernández
Dobao, 2012; Jafari & Ansari, 2012; Mutwarasibo, 2013; McDonough, 2004; Shehadeh,
2011; Storch, 2005, 2007; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009,
2012; Youhanaee, Tehrani, & Piri, 2012). Most of this research provides positive support
29
for L2 collaborative writing, although some also points out issues regarding its
implementation. I review some of this research below.
As mentioned, collaborative writing in which learners use L2 (as well as L1) to
interact with each other provides opportunities for L2 learning and acquisition (Long,
1996; Storch, 2013; Swain, 2000, 2006; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). An experimental study
by Kim (2008) supports this premise. Thirty-two intermediate Korean as a Second
Language learners in a South Korean university were divided into two groups to work on
dictogloss1 tasks. Half of the students were required to write individually, and the other
half were required to write in pairs. In the dictogloss tasks, students listened to their
teacher reading a text two or three times and took notes. Then, individually or in pairs,
they reconstructed the text based on their notes and what they had listened to. Students
who wrote individually were required to produce think-aloud protocols during task
completion. The think-aloud procedure required students who worked individually to
verbalize whatever came to their minds as they were completing the tasks. The think-
aloud protocols were used in the same way as the transcripts of the dialogues between
pairs. That is, they served as data to be analyzed in terms of the LREs. Before working on
the dictogloss tasks, students were given a vocabulary pretest. Immediate and delayed
vocabulary posttests came after students’ dictogloss task activities.
1 Dictogloss is a task in which a text is read aloud, usually two or three times. Students are asked to listen
and then take notes. Then they use the notes to reconstruct the text with their peers in pairs or in groups.
30
The statistical analyses of the learners’ think-aloud protocols, pair talk, and the
posttests results showed that collaborative pairs produced more correctly resolved LREs
and significantly higher scores on both vocabulary tests (immediate and delayed posttest)
than learners working individually. Kim described a correctly resolved LRE as “an LRE
in which the problem or question was solved correctly through self-or-other-correction”
(p. 121). Briefly stated, Kim’s study provides evidence that collaborative tasks are
beneficial for L2 vocabulary learning. Nevertheless, the short period of the study (only
three weeks) and a single task type (dictogloss) are among the limitations that might
affect the research findings and conclusions.
While Kim’s study focused on learners’ vocabulary acquisition and was based on
only a dictogloss task, a similar study by Nasaji and Tian (2010) targeted the acquisition
of phrasal verbs and the effects of different types of tasks on the students’ collaborative
writing. The study involved 26 lower intermediate ESL students in a Canadian university
and included two types of tasks for the treatment: cloze tasks, in which students had to
fill in missing words in a text, and editing tasks, in which students had to identify the
erroneous parts of a text and correct them. Students were given eight minutes to complete
each task. In Kim’s (2008) study, a group of students had to do the dictogloss tasks
collaboratively, and the other group worked on the tasks individually. In Nasaji and
Tian’s research, however, each student was required to do the cloze task and the editing
task in two ways, first individually and then collaboratively. The researchers argued that
this approach would eliminate the effects of individual differences that could possibly
occur if different students worked on the tasks in different ways (collaboratively and
31
individually). The analysis on the pretest and posttest results of the two task types and
conditions (collaborative and individual) and the students’ recorded pair talk showed that
learners were more successful when they carried out the tasks collaboratively than when
they worked individually. In terms of the types of task, the study revealed that editing
tasks promoted learning and generated opportunities for form-focused interaction more
than the cloze tasks. Nasaji and Tian thus argued that form-focused interaction is believed
to be beneficial for language learning because learners’ attention is more focused on
solving problems and understanding target items.
The researchers noted, however, that the study did not show a statistically
significant difference between the collaborative and individual tasks in terms of their
effects on learning phrasal verbs. They concluded that the findings did not support the
idea that collaborative tasks are necessarily more effective than individual tasks. The
researchers recognized that such results might be due to the participants’ unfamiliarity
with the collaborative work, the nature of the interaction (i.e., brief and limited
interaction), and the level of difficulty of the target form (i.e., phrasal verbs).
Additionally, the eight-minute time limit given to the students to complete each task
might be another limiting factor. These reasons may be seen as limitations of the current
research, and they need to be taken into account in future studies investigating the effects
of collaborative tasks on students’ L2 learning.
While the above studies focused on L2 acquisition and learning, a different line of
research has compared the effects of L2 collaborative and individual writing activities on
the quality of students’ writing. A majority of this research has confirmed the positive
32
effects of collaborative writing on the quality of students’ writing, especially in terms of
fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Mutwarasibo, 2013; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005;
Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009, 2012; Youhanaee,
Tehrani, & Piri, 2012).
Storch (2005) examined the performance of 23 adult ESL students in an
Australian university on short compositions produced individually and in pairs. Storch’s
findings showed that students who worked in pairs spent a longer time writing and
produced shorter but grammatically more accurate and syntactically more complex texts
than their peers who wrote alone. From the LREs generated from the pair talk, Storch
found that working collaboratively with peers provided students with opportunities to
share ideas, pool knowledge, and give feedback. This finding on LREs supports the idea
that learning takes place during pair work interaction (Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Studies
by Storch and Wigglesworth (2007) and Wigglesworth and Storch (2009, 2012) echoed
similar findings.
Unlike the previous studies that were based on short-term collaborative writing
tasks (Storch, 2002, 2005; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), Shehadeh (2011) investigated the
effects of collaborative writing on the quality of students’ writing over a prolonged
period of time and on different types of writing tasks. His study involved 38 female first
semester EFL learners in two parallel intact classes in a large university in the United
Arab Emirates. The two classes were assigned two different roles: a control group (with
20 students) and an experimental group (with 18 students). Both groups were required to
complete 12 paragraph-writing tasks, but individually for the control group and
33
collaboratively in pairs for the experimental group. The study was designed as a pretest-
posttest experiment followed by a survey to be completed by the experimental group
immediately after the posttest. In the experimental group, students selected their peers
and were encouraged to change partners every two to three weeks to avoid students
forming potentially adversarial or overly acquiescing relationships when working with
the same peers throughout the semester. These relationships were believed not to be
conducive to language learning. The same teacher taught both classes and used the same
curriculum. Prior to working on the writing assignments, students in both groups wrote a
100-word paragraph individually in 30 minutes, which counted as the pretest. The same
writing task was also assigned at the end of the 16-week course as the posttest.
Immediately after the posttest, students in the experimental group were surveyed using
eight open-ended questions to elicit their views and perceptions of the collaborative
writing experience. The students’ pretests and posttest results showed that students who
wrote collaboratively performed better in their writing in terms of content, organization,
and vocabulary than those who wrote individually. However, Shehadeh also reported that
there was no significant improvement in the students’ writing in both groups in terms of
mechanics and grammar.
Supportive evidence regarding the positive effects of collaborative writing on
writing accuracy in EFL contexts is also presented in studies by Youhanaee, Tehrani, and
Piri (2012) and Mutwarasibo (2013). Working with Iranian EFL university students,
Youhanaee, Tehrani, and Piri (2012) reported that participants who composed in pairs
produced more accurate narrative texts in terms of structure and morphology but not in
34
spelling than those who wrote individually. Similarly, the Rwandan EFL tertiary students
who participated in Mutwarasibo’s (2013) study also indicated that collaborative writing
helped them improve their English vocabulary and knowledge about text coherence.
In addition to the improved quality of students’ writing and facilitation of L2
learning and acquisition, participants in the above studies also reported positive attitudes
toward collaborative writing. For example, the majority of the participants stated that
collaborative writing increased their self-confidence (Shehadeh, 2011) and interpersonal
as well as collaborative writing skills (Mutwarasibo, 2013). Nevertheless, despite these
positive results achieved by collaborative writing, these studies also reported students’
reservations during collaborative writing activities. For example, some students found it
hard to reach group agreement about efficient time management and good writing
quality. They also complained of having a lack of genuine collaboration among group
members (Mutwarasibo, 2013). These conflicting results demand further research to
identify activities that can promote the most positive learning opportunities through
collaborative writing. Additionally, since elicitation of students’ perceptions in the above
studies was mostly done through written questionnaires in L2, this method might have
limited the students’ responses as they might have misunderstood the questions or have
had insufficient L2 writing skills to express their thoughts. In-depth interviews might
serve as a better alternative to probe students’ opinions and reflection on their
collaborative writing experience. In the following section I present research that focused
on the process of L2 collaborative writing.
35
The process of collaborative writing. Highlighting the fact that not all
interactions afford rich learning, Storch (2002) investigated the patterns or types of
interactions among 20 adult ESL learners in an Australian university during paired
collaborative writing. Storch identified four patterns of interaction while students were
engaged in collaborative writing activities. Some of these patterns of interaction were
more conducive than the others to language learning. Based on the level of equality and
mutuality in the interactions, Storch identified four types of interactions: collaborative,
dominant/dominant, dominant/passive, and expert/novice. She argued that equality goes
beyond equal distribution and contribution but it could also refer to the “equal degree of
control over the task” (p. 127). She stated that in a high equality interaction, control does
not reside in one participant but in both. Mutuality, she added, refers to the degree of
engagement with each other’s contributions. Hence, high mutuality means interactions
with “rich reciprocal feedback (e.g., confirmations, repairs, explanations) and a sharing of
ideas” (p. 127). In the collaborative type, interactions showed high levels of equality and
mutuality because both participants contributed and engaged critically and constructively
with each other’s contributions. This was evidenced in the higher number of suggestions,
explanations, and repetitions they gave. In the dominant/dominant type, each participant
seemed to attempt to dominate the interaction and did not engage with the other’s
feedback or advice, as shown by higher level of disagreement and a frequent use of
directives and self-repetitions to stress an individual stance. In other words, this type of
interaction showed high equality but low mutuality. In the dominant/passive pattern, one
participant dominated the task and the other played a more passive role. Thus, this pattern
36
was low in both equality and mutuality. Finally, in the expert/novice pattern of
interaction, one participant took an expert (leading) role but attempted to involve the
other’s (novice’s) contributions, for example by asking questions or confirmations.
Therefore, although there was a moderate to low level of equality, the level of mutuality
was moderate to high. Among these four types of interactions, Storch concluded that the
collaborative and the expert/novice pairs showed more instances of knowledge transfer
than the other two groups. This was indicated by the relatively high occurrence of
collaborative dialogue in which all participants were actively involved in negotiations.
Participants negotiated through “requests, explanations, and repetitions of suggestions or
repairs made” (p. 148) during the interactions. Storch’s description of the types of
interaction and what characterized each type is helpful to understand my participants’
description of their participation and engagement in collaborative writing activities in
their class.
Storch’s (2002) findings on the different types of interaction are also visible in a
study by Watanabe and Swain (2007). The researchers examined the collaborative
dialogue of 12 Japanese learners studying ESL in a Canadian university during pair work
interaction and the individual posttest writing performance. Findings in Watanabe and
Swain’s study lent support to that of Storch in that pairs with a collaborative pattern of
interaction appeared to learn more than the non-collaborative orientation pairs. This was
evidenced in the high frequency of LREs produced and the improved results of the
individual posttest writing. It should be noted that Storch’s dominant/dominant pattern of
interaction did not occur in Watanabe and Swain’s study. Instead, the researchers
37
identified a new kind of pattern, that is, expert/passive, not to be confused with the
previously identified expert/novice type. They categorized this pattern of interaction as
non-collaborative because only the expert (i.e., member with higher language
proficiency) benefited from the interaction. The researchers explained that despite the
continuous encouragement of the more proficient participant, the less proficient member
was found to be more passive over time as he or she felt intimidated by the more
proficient peer. The case was different when members formed expert/novice patterns of
interaction, in that the novice participant also contributed to the group thus both learners
benefited from each other.
Studies by Storch and Wigglesworth (2007) and Wigglesworth and Storch (2009)
also reported students’ different ways of approaching the writing tasks during
collaborative writing activities. Some pairs in their study employed a recursive approach
through which students “generated an idea, read and re-read it to evaluate it for accuracy
and expression, before proceeding to generate the next idea” (p. 171). Others started by
writing a large portion of the text or the entire text followed by evaluation of the texts
they composed.
As evident in the above studies, students formed different types of interactions
while engaging in collaborative writing activities. The researchers also reported that the
types of interactions mattered for students’ learning. Therefore, it is important to find out
what factors affect the types of interactions formed, which is the focus of the research I
review below.
38
Factors affecting collaborative writing. The fact that some students perceived
the benefits of collaborative writing, for example in increasing their self-confidence and
in improving their writing ability, while some others did not, shows that participation in
and effectiveness of collaborative writing depend on a lot of factors. These factors
include L2 proficiency, goals or motives, the types of tasks, individual differences,
sources of expertise, number of group members, and affective factors such as trust,
reliability, commitment, and respect towards group members (Fernández Dobao, 2012;
Fernández Dobao & Blum, 2013; Nasaji & Tian, 2010; Pathinathan & Yong, 2012;
Storch, 2002, 2004, 2005; Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Watanabe &
Swain, 2007; Tocalli-Beller, 2003; Yong, 2010, 2011).
For example, the study by Nasaji and Tian (2010) discussed previously showed
that types of tasks, students’ familiarity with the tasks, and the ways the tasks were
carried out affected the learning affordances of collaborative writing. Additionally,
Storch (2004) discovered that the ability to interact with the shared individual goals was
the most important factor determining the patterns of interactions. Moreover, Watanabe
and Swain (2007) concluded that grouping peers with differences in L2 proficiency was
conducive to L2 learning on the condition that the members form a collaborative type of
interaction.
Furthermore, in terms of the use of L1, some studies showed that L1 is not largely
used during pair/ group work (Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). These
studies also reported that the L2 proficiency and the type of task likely determined the
use of L1. Yong (2010) suggested that the use of L1 should not be totally prohibited, as it
39
can enhance L2 learning. As evident in her study, the use of L1 helped students generate
ideas and understand word meanings. Accordingly, Storch and Aldosari (2013) suggested
that in mixed L2 proficiency classrooms the decision of pairing or grouping students for
collaborative activities should not be based mainly on the students’ L2 proficiency.
Teachers should also consider the goals of the activity and the type of relationship that
learners are likely to form. Yong (2011) also supports the use of L1 in collaborative
activities, as it allows students to interact and collaborate comfortably and meaningfully
in groups.
As collaborative writing requires students to work together in groups, conflicts
due to differences, for example, in opinions, perceptions, reasons, power, culture,
learning styles, and processes among learners, are likely unavoidable (Pathinathan &
Yong, 2012; Tocalli-Beller, 2003; Yong, 2010, 2011). Scholars argue that while conflicts
can play positive roles in learning in that they may encourage reasoning, problem
solving, and creativity, conflicts may also hinder learning when they are not resolved. In
their study involving a group of Malaysian undergraduate ESL/EFL learners, Pathinathan
and Yong (2012) identified two types of conflicts: substantive (cognitive) conflicts and
affective conflicts. Pathinathan and Yong argued that substantive (cognitive) conflicts
were evident in their study where participants considered alternatives and voiced
disagreement about the task. Affective conflicts, on the other hand, indicated
misunderstandings and differences due to group members’ personal opinions of other
members. Although substantive conflicts can enhance learning in that learners are
involved in negotiation processes when they evaluate differences in opinions or
40
disagreement, the researchers reported more evidence of affective conflicts in their study.
These conflicts seemed to hinder learning, as they caused miscommunication and
dissatisfaction and therefore discouraged learners from participating in the tasks.
In terms of the number of students working in a group, it is commonly believed
that those who work in pairs will have equal opportunities to participate, while in bigger
groups, some students may play passive roles. While some of these ideas have merit,
participants in the study by Fernández Dobao and Blum (2013) reported that working in
the larger groups allowed them to share more ideas and to provide and receive more peer
assistance.
Nevertheless, some studies also revealed students’ reservations about
collaborative writing due to different learning styles and preferences (Fernández Dobao,
2012; Fernández Dobao & Blum, 2013; Storch, 2005). For example, a small section of
participants in Storch’s (2005) study stated that pair work was more suitable for oral tasks
such as group discussions rather than writing. They found that working with others
impeded their concentration when writing, and they did not feel confident with their
language proficiency and the fact that they had to critique others. Similarly, a few
participants in a study by Fernández Dobao and Blum (2013) reported that they preferred
to work individually on writing task because they could finish the work more quickly and
they had personal opinions about the tasks at hand.
In this section, I have evaluated research that investigated factors affecting
collaborative writing. Although my research focuses on classroom, face-to-face
41
collaborative writing, it is useful to provide a brief review of the last strand of research,
technology-based L2 collaborative writing.
Technology-based collaborative writing. Researchers have argued that the pace
and time independence, quick feedback, real time interaction, and the visual form of
interactions (written communication and tasks) are features that make the computer or
web-mediated communication an environment conducive to L2 learning (Arnold, Ducate,
& Kost, 2012; Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, 2012; Kost, 2011).
Other supporting features cited in these studies include the opportunities for equal
participation, creativity, and reduced anxiety. With such beneficial features of technology
for learning, researchers also investigated the possibilities of transferred benefits of
collaborative writing on L2 learning and writing from a classroom-based, face-to-face
setting to a technology-based online environment. Similar to the researchers studying
face-to-face or classroom collaborative writing, these researchers focused their studies on
the nature or types of interaction, students’ perceptions and experiences in web-based
projects, and factors influencing the ways students collaborated. In the following
sections, I briefly summarize some of this research, focusing mainly on the technology-
based L2 collaborative writing research in ESL/EFL higher education settings.
Some studies have shown that engaging in computer-mediated collaborative
writing, for example through the use of online learning platforms like Moodle and wikis,
can improve students’ L2 learning (e.g., Arnold, Ducate & Kost, 2012; Elola & Oskoz,
2010; Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, 2012; Kost, 2011; Lee, 2010; Zeng & Takatsuka,
2009). Zeng and Takatsuka (2009) investigated the effects of 16 Chinese undergraduate
42
students’ engagement on written tasks facilitated by Moodle (an online site in which
learners can read the task instructions, collaborate, and upload their joint texts) toward
their language learning. Zeng and Takatsuka reported that the online collaborative writing
fostered the students’ language learning, as was evident in the very high frequency of
LREs. The researchers stated that during the online interactions, participants made
collaborative efforts in that they “stated or invited opinions, asked for or received help,
expressed agreement or disagreement, self corrected or corrected each other, and
modified initial utterances or explored alternatives” (p. 443). The survey responses and
the significant improvement on posttests results also led the researchers to conclude that
online collaborative writing had positive effects on students’ language learning.
Studies by Elola and Oskoz (2010) and Lee (2010) echoed these results. The
former study involved advanced Spanish learners taking a Spanish writing course at a
U.S. university, while the latter studied those at the elementary level. Elola and Oskoz
reported that online chats benefited learners in that they allowed for a more structured
approach to essay writing. An example of this approach was the focus given on the topic
and thesis development and organization. On the other hand, the use of a wiki encouraged
learners to focus on more specific parts of the essay, such as the grammatical details and
editing. Lee also reported that the use of social tools such as a wiki helped students
develop content for their writing.
A series of studies investigating L2 intermediate students studying in German
language classes displayed students’ various writing strategies and revision (Arnold,
Ducate, & Kost, 2012; Kost, 2011). Students in the studies approached writing tasks
43
differently in each of three areas: during the pre-writing phase, in adding or changing
content, and in making revisions. Revision-related strategies included discussions on
grammar, linguistic accuracy, and editing. Interestingly, Arnold, Ducate, and Kost (2012)
reported that a number of participants in their study demonstrated not only collaborative
but also cooperative revision strategies in which learners divided the work and focused
mostly on their own contribution to the text. According to the researchers, collaborative
strategies were employed mostly in the meaning and formal revisions, whereas
cooperative strategies were adopted mostly in the process of making changes to the
content. When applying cooperative strategies, the students focused mainly on their own
parts instead of on others’ contributions. The studies provided additional supports for the
positive effects on students’ learning of wiki-based collaborative writing, which allowed
them to work at their own pace and time and to share and pool resources regarding
subject matter and linguistic knowledge (Kost, 2011). Additionally, wiki-based
collaborative writing enabled students to share the workload and to create an informative
wiki page (Arnold, Ducate, & Kost, 2012). The researchers also reported that students did
not assign themselves specific correction roles but showed different degrees of
engagement, ranging from “free riders” (contributing very little or not at all) to leaders
(working on the wiki very extensively). Nevertheless, the studies also reported that group
dynamics, such as disagreements, shared roles and responsibility in task accomplishment,
and the shared grade for the assessment, hindered collaboration.
As reported in the studies above, collaborative writing afforded learners
opportunities to develop their L2 learning as well as writing quality through the pooling
44
of resources and sharing of knowledge during the interactions. Likewise, the majority of
the research reviewed above reported learners’ positive perceptions and attitudes toward
collaborative writing. It can be concluded from the empirical studies that the successful
implementation of collaborative writing is influenced by, among other things, learners’
characteristics, learners’ language proficiency, group composition, types of tasks, and
learners’ goals or motives.
Research Gaps and Conclusion
Based on the literature review I have presented, I identified several gaps that call
for further research. First, most of the research in collaborative writing took place in a
context where English is the mainstream language. As collaborative writing pedagogy
originated in this context, the findings might not apply to other contexts. Due to
differences such as literacy practices, language proficiency, and competency, scholars
argue that there is a need to extend L2 writing research from the dominant second
language (SL) contexts to foreign language (FL) contexts (Manchón, 2009; Ortega,
2009b; Shehadeh, 2011). With reference to the different characteristics of second
language and foreign language contexts, Ortega (2009b) asserts that:
These differences are insufficiently recognized in the wider field of L2 writing.
Furthermore, in many reports, knowledge about English as a second language
(ESL) writing gets naturalized inadvertently as being about L2 writing more
generally, with the implication that it is universally valid and easily generalizable
across writing contexts, including FL and English as a foreign language (EFL)
contexts. Thus, we cannot but recognize a decided ESL bias in much L2 writing
45
scholarship. (pp. 232-233)
Briefly stated, research on the implementation of collaborative writing in other contexts
such as EFL is timely in order to provide more sound evidence of its applicability across
different contexts and learners. Investigations that involve a wider range of participants
with differences in characteristics, personal views, attitudes, language proficiency, socio-
cultural norms, and values will provide richer insights on how collaborative writing can
be better implemented while paying attention to those differences. My research, which
focused on Indonesian tertiary EFL students’ experiences in collaborative writing, is
therefore an attempt to fill in this gap of researching collaborative writing in broader L2
contexts.
The next gap that I addressed through my study relates to the methodological
approach in researching collaborative writing. Quantitative research methodologies have
been used quite considerably in research on collaborative writing. For example,
experimental study design has been widely used to investigate the effects of collaborative
writing tasks or activities on students’ writing quality and language learning (e.g., Brooks
& Swain, 2009; Fernández Dobao, 2012; Kim, 2008; Nasaji & Tian, 2010; Shehadeh,
2011), the students’ attitudes toward pair work or group work in collaborative writing
(e.g., Fernández Dobao & Blum, 2013), and the strategies that the students employed
while writing collaboratively using wikis (e.g., Arnold, Ducate, & Kost, 2012).
Quantitative researchers aim to “discover” objective reality by finding out the
relationships among variables through established procedures and measurement (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2000; Johnson & Christensen, 2012; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The
46
purpose of quantitative research is to test a hypothesis or theory. Consequently,
quantitative researchers rely highly on statistical measurement and data such as numbers
and figures as evidence to support or reject their hypothesis, analyze the data deductively,
and generalize their findings. To avoid bias and to maintain objectivity, quantitative
researchers aim to detach their roles from the research and rely heavily on the research
instruments (i.e., surveys and achievement tests). While quantitative research
methodologies are helpful in providing evidence of changes in effects of collaborative
writing or tasks on certain learning aspects, caution should be taken in generating claims
of causal relationships. Extraneous factors such as the historical or currently existing
conditions of the participants before and during the treatment may affect their
performance on the posttest.
Furthermore, in the research on L2 collaborative writing that has employed
quantitative methodologies, students’ L2 acquisition, L2 learning, and L2 writing were
assessed through various test instruments, such as the use of pretests and posttests in an
experimental research. Such study design treats writing mainly as a product or skill to
master. The purpose is to identify the extent to which students are successful when
studying under a laboratory-like collaborative writing environment. It neglects the idea
that writing is a social practice that is shaped and influenced by students’ social and
historical contexts (Lantolf, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978, 1981). When eliciting students’
perception and experiences, single structured interviews, tests, questionnaires or surveys
will not sufficiently reveal the reality. Since perceptions and experiences are personal,
dynamic, and unique across contexts and individuals, there is a need for an in-depth
47
investigation of students’ own voices on their collaborative writing experiences. An
understanding of students’ lived experiences through multiple methods of data collection
and from various sources, including the teacher, will add to the breadth and depth of the
study. Briefly stated, my study addressed the methodological gap by conducting L2
collaborative writing research as a qualitative case study and by focusing on the students’
experiences and meaning making in an EFL collaborative writing classroom. I discuss the
details of my research methodology in chapter four. In the following chapter, I present
my theoretical framework.
48
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework
Overview
In the preceding chapter, I presented my literature review of collaborative writing
including the potential benefits it offers and its dynamic implementation in ESL/EFL
classrooms. My review of the literature shows that SCT has been the most widely used
theoretical framework to investigate L2 collaborative writing (e.g., Fernández Dobao,
2012; Pathinathan & Yong, 2012; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005). SCT is a useful lens to
study L2 collaborative writing as it helps us to see how knowledge construction and
meaning making take place among students and their peers through interactions during
collaborative writing activities. Framed under SCT, researchers of L2 collaborative
writing show how writing does not take place in isolation. During the collaborative
writing activities, students work together with their peers. They learn with and from each
other in the pooling of resources: they use language (L2 as well as L1) to share
responsibilities and ownership, to negotiate roles and ideas in order to achieve a common
goal of writing or producing a text. Considering these advantages of using SCT as a
theoretical framework, I adopted this theory to frame my study.
However, while viewing writing as a social activity, the existing literature on L2
collaborative writing seems to focus the attention on language and the socio-cognitive
processes during the interactions (Storch, 2005). Collaborative writing is likely seen as a
teaching pedagogy that is implemented to improve students’ writing skills and L2
learning. The research focus is therefore on the students’ writing product or on the
measurement of students’ L2 proficiency. In my study, I considered the importance of
49
understanding the ways in which students described and made meaning of their
collaborative writing experiences. In viewing writing, I followed Larson and Marsh
(2015) who posited that literacy−writing in particular−should not be seen as acquiring a
set of discrete skills. Rather, it should be viewed as a social practice that takes place in
particular context and is shaped by the social interactions. Therefore, my focus was not
on the quality of students’ writing, nor was it on the L2 proficiency as measured through
certain tests. I focused on the students’ learning or knowledge construction as they
themselves described it and from my observation of the contexts situating the
collaborative writing experiences. For this purpose, the perspective of writing as a social
practice, which is embedded in the larger theory of literacy as social practice (Street,
1984) served as another theoretical framework for my study. Briefly stated, SCT and the
theory of writing as social practice served as my theoretical lenses to study the students’
experiences in collaborative writing and the ways they made meaning of these
experiences.
Sociocultural Theory
SCT views learning as both cognitive and social activity (Lantolf, 1996;
Vygotsky, 1978, 1981). Important interrelated concepts in SCT−mediation and
internalization, the ZPD, agency and participation−afforded a critical lens to examine my
participants’ co-construction of knowledge and meaning making in a collaborative
writing environment.
First of all, Vygotsky (1978, 1981) proposes that human development takes place
through two interrelated planes, that is, the interpsychological and intrapsychological
50
planes. First, development is interpsychological, or on the social plane, where learning
occurs as a result of one’s relationships with others. Second, development is
intrapsychological, or taking place inside the individual’s mind. Unlike cognitive theories
that emphasize learning as taking place merely in the human mind, SCT emphasizes the
importance of the individual’s participation in social activities. These social activities in
which individuals interact with one another will generate the development of higher order
thinking or cognitive functions such as “problem-solving, voluntary memory and
attention, rational thought, planning, and meaning making” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p.
198). Such development is possible due to mediation and internalization, the two
important elements emphasized in SCT. Lantolf and Thorne define mediation as “the
process through which humans deploy culturally constructed artifacts, concepts, and
activities to regulate (i.e., gain voluntary control over and transform) the material world
of their own and each other’s social and mental activity” (p. 79). Internalization, on the
other hand, is a process in which the use of cultural artifacts is internalized in the human
mind and then appropriated and used to construct knowledge. Mediated by cultural tools
such as language, individuals are regulated either by objects, others, or themselves, to
interact with others, to internalize the process, and to use or perform it independently in
the future.
When it relates to SLA and second language learning (SLL), scholars argue that
language activities such as speaking and writing are the essential mediational means to
learning (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Therefore, scholars (Bruffee, 1999; Lai, 2011; Nunan,
1992) promote collaborative writing as it offers opportunities for speaking and writing to
51
facilitate students’ learning. Through interaction and collaborative dialogue in completing
written tasks, learners use language as a mediating tool not only to learn a second
language but also to perform other higher cognitive functions such as analyzing,
synthesizing, evaluating, and problem-solving. By working with others, learners share
their knowledge and resources with each other and are expected to internalize what they
have learned together for subsequent individual task performance. SCT, with its main
emphasis on language-mediated social and individual activities, helped me to understand
learning that takes place through interactions between expert and novice learners (e.g.,
between learners and a teacher or native speaker) and among peers during collaborative
writing activities.
Another important concept to explain how learning is a socially embedded
activity in SCT is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978) defines the
ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental 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” (p. 86). This definition implies that individuals develop competency in problem
solving activities first with the help of more capable others and then by themselves. It
also posits the idea that an individual can develop to a greater extent with the help of
others than when he or she works alone. Although it originally emphasized the notion of
a “novice-expert” relationship, in its later development, the concept of the ZPD has
included a more horizontal type of relationship, including among peers with similar
levels of expertise or proficiency (Swain & Lapkin, 2000; van Lier, 2004). Supporting
52
this idea, Wells (1999) states that “to learn in the ZPD does not require that there be a
designated teacher; whenever people collaborate in activity, each can assist others, and
each can learn from the contributions of the others” (p. 333). This has implications for
collaborative writing that emphasizes the fluidity of expertise (Storch, 2013) among
learners working together in that they still can learn with and from each other regardless
of their different levels of capability.
An important notion in the ZPD is scaffolding or “assisted performance” (van
Lier, 2004, p. 147), defined as assistance provided by more capable others in order to
help learners develop in a way that they cannot when performing alone (Lantolf, 1996).
From the perspective of the ZPD, development in L2 not only points to improved
linguistic performance, but it also refers to the amount of responsibility the learners
assume to perform appropriately in the L2. The increasing amount of the learner’s
responsibility can be seen from the types and changes of assistance a learner needs to
perform (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). In this sense, the ZPD, which shows how the
dynamics of interaction influence the nature of feedback and scaffolding as well as their
usefulness for learners, provides a helpful perspective to study students’ collaborative
writing experience. Furthermore, Gutierrez’s (2008) reconceptualization of the ZPD that
requires us to expand our view of the ZPD from merely “a space of productive adult-
centered scaffolding” to a “transformative space” (p. 152) of learning and development
helped me to understand my students’ collaborative writing experiences. It prevented me
from identifying their learning based on a deficit point of view or a view that sees
learners as having “academic deficiencies” (p. 154). In this sense, students’ various levels
53
of engagement or participation in collaborative writing activities should be seen as crucial
to their learning and as revealing their social, cultural, and historical dimension of
learning. Briefly stated, the ZPD concept is helpful to understand my participants’
engagement in collaborative writing activities and the contextualizing elements as they
described them during the interviews.
Finally, viewing learning as socially situated, SCT emphasizes the importance of
agency and participation in learning (Lantolf, 1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Agency
means that learners play an active role in the construction and co-construction of
knowledge. Because it is socially situated, learning does not take place in a vacuum.
Instead, it is embedded in social, cultural, and historical contexts. It is not only about
what is taking place within an individual; rather, it requires participation or membership
in a certain community of practice. In a community of practice, members share common
goals that direct their action and practices toward the goals (Lave & Wenger, 1991). A
prominent metaphor in this situated learning perspective advanced by Lave and Wenger
is legitimate peripheral participation (LPP), which explains the fluid yet dynamic learning
trajectories of members of a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Learning
takes place through learners’ participation within a community of practice, and to master
knowledge and skills, their participation should move from peripheral (as “newcomers”)
toward full or legitimate participation (as “old-timers”). This means that learning is not
only a requirement to be a member of certain communities of practice, but also that it is
“an evolving form of membership” (p. 53).
54
Learning takes place when all members of a group (as a community of learners
and part of larger community of practice) share responsibility and actively participate in
the co-construction of knowledge. The term “community of practice,” in my case, may
refer to the collaborative writing groups of which learners are members and the
classroom, as well as the broader context of EFL higher education institution. It is
expected that in the collaborative writing environment, learners participate based on their
capability to share knowledge and resources. Kostouli (2005) argues that “students’
learning about writing should be seen as an interactionally emergent process that can be
traced through the paths or the trajectories students follow when participating in recurring
interactive activities constructed within a certain local community” (p. 19). In line with
this statement, part of my data collection methods was participant observation, in which I
observed and documented my participants’ engagement in collaborative writing. I
observed and took notes on my participants’ ways of participating in the collaborative
writing activities by paying attention to their actions, utterances, and texts. Recognizing
the dynamic nature of students’ engagement across time, tasks, and other conditions, SCT
as a framework helped me situate my observation, analysis, and examination of these
data to validate the students’ description of their collaborative writing experience. As my
study included one-semester data collection in which my participants were involved in a
number of collaborative writing activities and groups, SCT allowed me to see the ways in
which their participation evolved over time and across these different groups.
Furthermore, as discussed in the literature review and pointed out in this chapter,
learners can still collaborate and learn from each other regardless of their language
55
proficiency and competence. However, language proficiency and competence may not be
the only factors affecting student learning. As learning is situated within social, cultural,
and historical contexts of the learners, it is important to consider all these other factors
when examining students’ perceived experiences and meaning making. Language
proficiency, for example, should not be the only point of consideration used to draw
conclusions about students’ collaborative writing experiences. SCT provided me with a
critical lens to see the bigger picture or contexts situating my participants’ learning. It
helped me to understand the ways learners viewed their participation in collaborative
writing activities as opportunities (or not) to learn and what they saw as factors affecting
their learning experiences situated under EFL collaborative writing conditions.
Writing as Social Practice
Another helpful theory to understand students’ experiences in collaborative
writing contexts and what it means to them is the theory of literacy as a social practice
(Street, 1984), with particular emphasis on writing as social practice. Viewed as social
practice, writing is embedded in the everyday practices of the people in specific
communities. An important concept of this framework is that both the writer and the
writing are seen as historically and socially situated. Using writing as a social practice as
a theoretical framework, I examined how my participants’ understanding of their
collaborative writing experiences was shaped by the various discourses within which
their writing and other literacy-related experiences took place.
According to Lillis (2013), from the perspective of writing as social practice, “the
writer is construed as engaging in a social practice by both drawing on socially available
56
ways of writing and enacting particular ways of writing” (p. 158). She further explains
that the notion of social practice indicates three important points. First, any instances of
language, be they spoken or written texts, do not occur in isolation. Rather, they are
bound in what people do. Second, ways of doing things with texts are part of the implicit
life routines of individuals and social institutions. This practice, Lillis argues, may
become the way to legitimize certain representational resources of social institutions.
This leads to the third aspect of social practice, that is, by legitimizing specific
representational resources, we are maintaining a “particular type of socially structured
and stratified (semiotic) practice” (p. 158). In relation to EFL writing, an example of this
would be the evaluation of the quality of student writing as determined by the fulfillment
of the standardized rules of English and writing structures.
With specific reference to the higher education context, Coffin et al. (2003) list
three ways in which writing is social practice. First, student writing and success in
writing are influenced and shaped by the ways writing is taught and learned. Second,
conventions that determine appropriateness of student writing are social as they develop
“within specific academic and disciplinary communities over time” (p. 10). Last, students
develop their personal and social identities as writers by learning to become “particular
kinds of people” (p. 10) within specific communities. This idea of contextually shaped
identities and practices aligns with Gee’s (1996) notion of Discourse. Gee defines
Discourse as particular “ways of talking, listening … acting, interacting, believing, [and]
valuing” (p. 128) that encompass people’s specific use of tools or symbols to enact their
socially situated activities. In terms of academic writing, an example would be that
57
students of an engineering department would write as engineers, which involves a
different set of values and practices from writing in other disciplines. To view writing as
social practice in these ways, socially powerful institutions such as higher education
institutions, support the dominant practices that regulate students’ literacy practices (de
Pourbaix, 2000; Lillis, 2013; Pardoe, 2000; Street, 1995). Entering into an institution,
students are required to conform to the standard form and evaluation criteria that divide
writing practices as either “‘right’ or ‘wrong’, adequate or inadequate, successful or
unsuccessful, dominant or marginal” (Pardoe, 2000, p. 150). Consequently, most research
on writing seems to focus on the deficit model, in which students are considered
unsuccessful if they cannot meet the demands of the dominant discourse (Coffin et al.,
2003; Lea & Street, 1998; Pardoe, 2000).
A view on the deficit model is also evident in much of the literature and research
in collaborative writing I previously reviewed. Although writing in L1 and L2 is seen as a
socially embedded activity, research in L2 collaborative writing seems to be linguistically
oriented, mostly focusing on students’ texts and their writing skills. In other words, the
majority of the research maintains the traditions of viewing writing as skill and product
rather than as social practice. When viewed as product, the research focus is usually on
the “verbal dimension” (Lillis, 2013, p. 27) or the textual characteristics of a text,
including the linguistic features and rhetorical structures of specific types of texts or
genres (Casanave, 2007). In the product-oriented view of writing, sentence structure and
text organization usually determine the writing quality and development (Kostouli, 2005).
Looking at writing as a product, student writing is evaluated based on how texts follow
58
specific conventions, which in the case of L2 writing are usually directed toward “native-
like” language (Casanave, 2007, p. 69). Consequently, L2 learners, especially EFL
learners, mostly struggle to meet this writing expectation, leading to teachers or
researchers judging them as incompetent writers.
In a similar vein, when writing is viewed as a skill, it is seen as a set of
competencies that students have to learn. From the skill-based perspective, the quality of
students’ writing is determined by their learning and mastery of universal rules related to,
for instance, “grammar, usage, and text organization” (Lea & Stierer, 2000, p. 3). Based
on such perspective, Lea and Stierer argue that the reasons for students who encounter
problems in their academic writing are usually attributed to the individual learners rather
than questioning “the way in which the ‘ground rules’ of academic writing become
established and negotiated in particular academic contexts” (p. 3). The authors add that
due to its main emphasis on decontextualized skills, such perspective tends to ignore
“issues of personhood and identity” (p. 11) which are influential to student writing.
Within this view, students are considered to have problems or deficits in writing;
therefore, the main purpose of teaching writing is to “fix” students’ problems (Curry,
2003; Lea & Street, 1998). Lea and Street (1998) argue that the theory of language that
supports this model primarily emphasizes “surface features, grammar, and spelling” (p.
159). In relation to this view of writing as product, research in L2 collaborative writing
has mostly viewed collaborative writing as an instructional strategy, the use of which is
expected to improve students’ L2 writing and learning (e.g., Kim, 2008; Nassaji & Tian,
2010). Scholars argue that writing should not be perceived as a solitary act (Antón &
59
DiCamilla, 1999; Bruffee, 1999; Kostouli, 2005; Larson & Marsh, 2015; Storch, 2005,
2013). Instead, as Kostouli (2005) asserts, “writing should be seen as an inherently
dialogic and socially-situated process of making meanings through texts; written texts are
not seen as neutral structures produced by autonomous writers but as units of social
action conveying ideological meanings” (p. 1). Based on this approach, learning to write
does not simply mean applying correct language conventions or linguistic rules to create
structurally correct sentences, which Kostouli called “linguistic process” (p. 2). It is a
social process of knowledge construction, re-construction, and conservation, which
requires learners’ abilities to appropriate, judge, and make decisions on the meanings
established in the communities or contexts of which they are a part (Bruffee, 1999;
Kostouli, 2005). Aligned with this concept of writing as a social, collaborative, and
constructive activity, Bruffee (1999) states, “we judge what we write, and other people
judge it, according to the assumptions, goals, values, rules, and conventions of these
communities” (p. 56). Within this statement we can infer the importance of audience as
an influential factor affecting decisions we make in writing (Hunzer, 2012). Given all
these factors that influence and shape students’ writing and knowledge co-construction,
thinking of writing as a social practice enabled me to examine my participants’
collaborative writing experiences by paying attention to the contexts situating their
experiences.
Helping and encouraging students to be aware of the importance of following the
standard form of English language and academic writing is undeniably important.
Teaching them to use powerful written language, as legitimized by the institution, is a
60
way to empower them (Pardoe, 2000). However, if research only focuses on the deficit
view, it will not offer further insights into writing practices, including knowing “what
implicitly or explicitly guided the writers” (Pardoe, 2000, p. 150) which may be
important for their further development. Maintaining the view that students need help in
their writing or something needs to be done to “fix” students’ problems while not
attempting to find out what practices and thoughts underlie their existing experiences will
disempower them. Such pedagogy and research may contribute to the students’ feeling of
exclusion and personal failure. Therefore, while the focus of most L2 collaborative
writing research has been on the effectiveness of collaborative writing on students’ L2
learning and writing, I offer a different lens to see how students understand and make
meaning out of their collaborative writing experience. Through the lens of writing as
social practice, I was afforded understanding that the ways in which my participants
engaged in collaborative writing, the struggle or the joy of this engagement, and what the
experiences meant to them, were influenced and shaped by the larger social and
institutional practices of academic writing. What counted as participation in collaborative
writing, what qualified good or bad writing, and the students’ perception of collaborative
writing as either facilitating or hindering their learning are affected, among other factors,
by the dominant practices of the institutions (i.e., the classroom, English department,
teacher education, and larger higher educational institutions).
Finally, emphasizing the claim made in SCT that learning does not take place in a
vacuum (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978), writing (and literacy in general) as
social practice enabled me to take into account what background knowledge and
61
experiences my participants brought to school and how they were deemed significant to
their learning at school, including in collaborative writing. Both theoretical frameworks
compelled me to take into account, among other things, my participants’ literacy learning
practices and experiences that they described as constitutive of their life and learning.
Conclusion
In the preceding section, I presented SCT and writing as social practice as my
theoretical frameworks. Based on the perspective of SCT, learning is seen as an
interdependent relationship between individual cognitive and social activity. This means
that learning takes place as a result of individuals’ interactions with their social
surroundings, mediated, among other things, by the use of language. SCT afforded me a
lens to examine my participants’ understanding and meaning making as situated in a
collaborative writing environment and mediated by the use of various resources such as
language (L1 or L2), peers’ support, and tasks. It helped me to see how the social,
historical, and cultural contexts situating my participants’ collaborative writing
experience affected their knowledge co-construction. Supporting SCT, writing as social
practice also afforded me a critical lens in examining my participants’ collaborative
writing experience. It prevented me from looking at the students’ writing experience as
limited to applying correct grammar and other linguistic rules. Instead of evaluating the
students’ writing performance, writing as social practice focuses on looking at the bigger
picture situating the writing production. To conclude, SCT and writing as social practice
worked together as theoretical lenses to understand and describe students’ perceived
meaning of collaborative writing experiences as contextualized within their social,
62
cultural, and historical contexts. Framed within these theoretical perspectives, I discuss
my research methodology in the following chapter.
63
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
“What is General Nature? is there such a Thing?/What is General Knowledge? is there
such a Thing?/Strictly Speaking All Knowledge is Particular.”
(William Blake in Ericson, 1986, p. 119)
This study aimed at understanding the experiences of Indonesian EFL
undergraduate students in collaborative writing. Specifically, it explored the perceptions
of these students about their collaborative writing experiences, described the ways in
which they engaged in knowledge co-construction in collaborative writing activities, and
sought for what mediated and influenced their collaborative writing experiences and
meaning making. As presented in the previous chapter, SCT and writing as social
practice theories served as my theoretical frameworks. These two theories enabled me to
situate my participants’ experiences within the social, cultural, and historical context of
an EFL teacher education program and specifically in an Essay Writing class. While SCT
was useful to see the ways in which participants employed their linguistic resources to
learn about language and how to write during the collaborative writing activities, writing
as social practice added a critical lens that allowed me to shift the focus of major research
in L2 collaborative writing from merely skill-based and a linguistic aspect orientation of
writing to writing as participation in social interaction. Writing as social practice, in
particular, also allowed me to examine the ways in which my participants’ literacy
learning practices and their prior L2 experiences that they brought to school were
influential to their learning through writing collaboratively in class. Together, both
64
theories worked well in gaining an in-depth understanding of my participants’
collaborative writing experiences.
In my goal to understand students’ experiences in collaborative writing in an EFL
class, it is important to present a clear explanation of my research methodology. After
stating my research question below, I provide a brief discussion of qualitative research
methodology in general, followed by my rationale for choosing a qualitative case study.
Then I describe my research site and participants. After that, I detail my methods of data
collection, data sources, management, and data analysis. In the last sections, I address the
quality of my research and discuss the ethical considerations. I end this chapter with a
conclusion that summarizes my research methodology.
Research Questions
My study was guided by a broad research question: How do Indonesian EFL
undergraduate students experience, engage with, and make sense of collaborative writing
in an English class? Specifically, the study aimed at answering the subsequent questions:
1. How do Indonesian EFL undergraduate students describe their collaborative
writing experiences?
2. In what ways do Indonesian EFL undergraduate students learn in collaborative
writing and what mediates their learning?
3. What are the influencing elements of their collaborative writing experiences?
Rationale for a Qualitative Study
Taking an epistemological stance rooted in interpretivism, I considered qualitative
research to be the most appropriate methodology to serve the purpose of my study, that
65
is, to understand the Indonesian EFL undergraduate students’ experiences in
collaborative writing. As an interpretivist, I hold the belief that human behavior is “fluid,
dynamic, and changing over time and place” (Johnson & Christensen, 2012, p. 35). This
stance implies that individuals construct their own realities and perspectives, which
influence the ways they understand their worlds, what they see as important, and how
they believe they should act. Qualitative research is based on a constructivist paradigm in
which “truth is relative and it is dependent on one’s perspective” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p.
545). In other words, there is no one general truth and, realities, including knowledge, are
socially constructed (Searle, 1995).
Furthermore, Bogdan and Biklen (2007) argue that qualitative methods can be
distinguished from other methods of research based on several factors: natural setting of
the data sources, descriptive data, emphasis on process rather than outcomes or products,
inductive data analysis, and major focus on participants’ perspectives. These
characteristics of qualitative research methodology served my purpose to capture and
understand the students’ experiences with collaborative writing by going directly to the
setting in which such experiences occurred and by interacting with the participants
(Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Because I acted as the research instrument (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007), qualitative research methods allowed me to gather my data by
interviewing my participants for their “thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and values” (Marshall
& Rossman, 2011, p. 91), by involving myself as a participant observer at the research
site, and by gathering and analyzing necessary documents related to the students’
experiences in the setting. These methods afforded me opportunities to understand
66
participants’ meaning making of their collaborative writing experiences, the ways in
which they learned through participation in collaborative writing activities, and factors
that mediated their learning. In short, qualitative methodology served as the best
approach for my emphasis on contexts and participants’ voices and perspectives in
addition to my own reflectivity as a researcher.
Rationale for Qualitative Case Study
My research aimed at gaining an in-depth understanding of the Indonesian EFL
undergraduate students’ collaborative writing experiences and what those experiences
mean to them. Key purposes of my research included providing detailed and rich
description of the experiences of a specific group of people in a specific place and time,
and under particular conditions. Viewing the collaborative writing experiences of this
specific group of people as an important case to investigate, I believed qualitative case
study was the best approach to serve my research purpose. Using a research approach that
“facilitates exploration of a phenomenon within its context using a variety of data
sources” (Baxter & Jack, 2008), I was able to focus on a “case” and gain a “holistic and
real-world perspective” (Yin, 2014, p. 4) of the students’ collaborative writing
experiences in an EFL class. Yin specifically argues that a case study is best to use under
four conditions: if a study aims at answering the “how” and “why” questions;
manipulation of participants’ behavior by the researcher is not possible; the researcher
considers the importance of conditions contextualizing the phenomenon under
investigation; and there are no clear boundaries between context and phenomenon.
Therefore, designing my research as a qualitative case study is the best way to explore
67
“how” my participants experienced collaborative writing and made meaning of those
experiences in its natural context of an EFL Essay Writing class.
Furthermore, Creswell (2013) states that in qualitative case study research, the
researcher:
explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded
systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving
multiple sources of information (e.g., observation, interviews, audiovisual
material, and document and reports), and reports a case description and case
themes. (p. 97, emphasis in original)
Based on the above statement, I explored my participants’ collaborative writing
experiences in an EFL class by examining their understandings and meaning making of
the experiences and as they described them in the interviews. My exploration also
included observation of their engagement and participation in collaborative writing
activities. I contextualized their experiences, engagement, and meaning making within
the specific teaching instruction and in connection with other members in the class such
as peers and the instructor. With these various data sources, qualitative case study
approach allowed me to explore my participants’ collaborative writing experiences in
their context using varieties of lenses. Such affordance allowed for “multiple facets of the
phenomenon to be revealed and understood” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 544).
Employing a qualitative case study design, my unit of analysis is the case,
specifically, the collaborative writing experiences of Indonesian EFL undergraduate
students in a one-semester Essay Writing class. As a case is considered as a bounded
68
system (Stake, 1995), it is important to determine what bounded my case. Researchers
suggest various ways of binding a case, namely, by time and place (Creswell, 2013), time
and activity (Stake, 1995), and by definition and context (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Thus, incorporating all these definitions, the boundaries of my case include the fourth
semester students of the English education program at Nirwana University, Indonesia
who enrolled in the Essay Writing class taught by Mr. Irvan (pseudonym) in the
academic year 2015/2016.
Moreover, Stake (1995) categorizes case studies in three groups based on the
intent: intrinsic case study, single instrumental case study, and multiple or collective case
study. He argues that intrinsic case study applies to the case that is unique or interesting
in and of itself and needs detailed description. On the other hand, if a selection of a case
(or cases) is aimed at understanding a specific problem or concern, this case study is
called an instrumental case study. Finally, a multiple or collective case study is one in
which a researcher is interested in studying a specific issue and uses multiple case studies
to illustrate the issue in different perspectives. In my case, intrinsic case study fits my
research design in that I had a genuine interest in EFL students’ collaborative writing
experiences, I intended to provide detailed description, and I was aware of the “limited
transferability” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 550) of my study results; thus I did not seek
generalization of the findings (Stake, 1995).
Research Site and Participants
In this section, I provide the rationale for my site selection and a brief description
of the research site and setting, participant recruitment and participant profiles. In
69
presenting the relevant details of the research site and participants, I maintained the
anonymity of specific settings and subjects to fulfill the ethics requirements in terms of
confidentiality.
Research site. My research site was Nirwana University (pseudonym), one of the
state universities located in the province of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. The university
offers a Diploma degree, Bachelor (undergraduate) degrees, masters, and doctoral
degrees in nine faculties (schools), namely the Faculty of Law, Faculty of Economy,
Faculty of Agriculture, Engineering Faculty, Faculty of Social and Political Science,
Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Faculty of Forestry, Faculty of Science, and
Medical Faculty. In 2014, the university reported having 20,499 students (Dirjen DIKTI,
2015). The university admission was based on the national and local university entrance
tests and was eligible for students who graduated from secondary school level (senior
high schools). Specifically, I conducted my research as a qualitative case study in an EFL
Essay Writing class belonging to the Teacher Training and Educational Faculty.
Researchers argue that there are at least three important criteria to consider for
site selection, namely high presentation of the phenomenon under investigation, access,
and opportunities to build rapport with the participants (Creswell, 2013; Marshall &
Rossman, 2011). Based on these criteria, the reasons for selecting my research site
mentioned were threefold. First, I selected this site because it related directly to the
context that I identified as a gap needing further research in collaborative writing: that is,
EFL higher education setting. Studying the students’ collaborative writing experiences in
70
this setting is important to the field of EFL collaborative writing research and educational
practice in general.
In addition to fulfilling the gap in terms of research setting, I also found that some
faculty members in this site have incorporated collaborative learning instruction in their
classes. After having informal conversations with these faculty members, I found that one
of them would teach a writing class and include collaborative writing instruction in his
class at the same time I planned to do my data collection. Considering the feasibility of
conducting research within a strict timeline and budget, I requested his permission to do
research in his class and I gained his approval. This leads to my next reason for selecting
this site: that is, access. I have been affiliated with this institution for twelve years and
have been in contact with the gatekeepers such as the Dean of the Education Faculty,
chairperson of the English department, and some faculty members teaching in the
program. Because of this affiliation, I gained permission from them to do research in the
institution. The permission letter I obtained provided me with formal and legal access to
participants, documents, and classroom observations. Last, due to my collegial
relationship with the instructor and my affiliation with the research site, it was relatively
easy for me to build trust with my research participants as well as the instructor.
Research setting: Essay Writing class. Essay Writing is one of the core courses
offered for the fourth semester undergraduate students in the English education
department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Nirwana University. It was a
four-credit course held twice a week. In total, there were 34 scheduled meetings in a
semester including the midterm and final exam. Each meeting was comprised of a 100-
71
minute face-to-face session. Prior to taking this course, the students were required to have
passed two other writing courses: Writing for General Communication and Paragraph
Writing. The following table shows the distribution of all writing courses in the English
education department.
Table 4.1
Distribution of Writing Courses
Course Title Semester Number of Credits
Total Meetings per Week
Duration of each Meeting (in minutes)
Writing for General Communication 1 3 1 150
Paragraph Writing 2 2 1 100
Essay Writing 4 4 2 100
Research Paper Writing 5 2 1 100
As Table 4.1 shows, students studying in the English education department had to
complete four writing courses as part of their undergraduate degree study. Each course
qualified for a different number of credits, ranging from two to four. The number of
credits determined the length of the course and as seen, Essay Writing comprised the
largest number of course credits of all writing courses.
At the time I collected my data, there were 21 students taking the course. Four of
them were male and the rest were female students. It was not possible to strictly
categorize the students’ level of English language proficiency, as there was not any
English standardized test they were required to take. A Test of English as a Foreign
72
Language (TOEFL) is a requirement for the students before graduation, but students are
allowed to take it any time during their study. Because of this flexibility, students usually
take the test at different times. Nevertheless, based on my observation and information
from the instructor, the average English proficiency level of the students in this class
could fall under the low to intermediate category. Only one or two students seemed to
have an “above-intermediate” level of English proficiency.
The objective of the Essay Writing course wherein this study took place was to
enable the students to write good essays by implementing various ways of essay
organization, including logical division of idea, cause and effect, order of importance,
and comparison and contrast. The instructor evaluated the quality of the students’
writing by looking at their usage of grammar rules including sentence structure and
mechanics of writing, choices of words or vocabulary, and the unity, coherence, and
cohessiveness of their writing. Over the course of the semester, the instructor
implemented both conventional and collaborative writing instruction. During the
conventional classes, the instructor introduced different types of essays, provided
examples or essay models, and explained writing strategies for each type of essay. After
materials were delivered, the students were usually required to practice writing an essay
individually, either in class or at home. Once in a while, the instructor asked them to do
peer review on their writing or to have a brief one-on-one writing conference with him
as a way to provide feedback. Every two or three meetings, the instructor assigned
students to write collaboratively in small groups as an additional way to practice their
writing skills. Feedback was usually given to an individual group or sometimes
73
discussed with the whole class. Prior to assigning students to write with their peers, the
instructor asked the students whether they wanted to self-select the group members or
they wanted the instructor to decide the grouping arrangement. In all collaborative
writing sessions, the students preferred the group members to be selected by the
instructor and a random counting technique was always used. As the result, students did
not always work in the same groups or with the same peers. The class assessment was
based on student portfolios, which consisted of a number of writing assignments and
projects such as journal writing, Facebook inbox posting, and a midterm and final exam
writing projects.
Research participants. Scholars argue that research participants must be selected
from those who can provide rich data or multiple perspectives on the topic under
investigation (Creswell, 2013; Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006; Marshall & Rossman,
2011). Unlike the probability sample in quantitative research that allows for statistical
inference of the population, sampling in qualitative research is purposeful. In qualitative
research, individuals or a group of people are intentionally selected from those who can
best inform the researcher about the problem under investigation (Creswell, 2013).
As I considered the experiences of Indonesian undergraduate EFL students in a
collaborative writing class an important case to study, I selected the participants with
“maximum variation of sampling strategy” (Creswell, 2013, p. 156) to represent the case.
Creswell (2013) suggests that when we maximize the variation of sampling strategy in
qualitative research, we base our selection of individuals or sites on specific
characteristics. As I explained above, I purposefully selected an Essay Writing class in an
74
English education department of Nirwana University in Indonesia as my research setting.
There were 21 students in the class. Since I aimed at investigating the students’
experiences in the natural setting in which collaborative writing instruction was
implemented hand in hand with other instructions (e.g., conventional teaching
instructions), all the students in this class agreed to participate in the study especially
after I explained what I would do and what was required from them for this research.
Specifically, they did not have any reservations about being observed or audio-recorded
while they were writing collaboratively in groups as part of the teaching and learning
activities in their Essay Writing class. They also agreed to share their sample writing.
In order to allow for in-depth exploration and detailed description of the case
under study, I employed a purposive sampling technique to have four students as my core
participants, from whom I obtained the primary data through two individual interviews
on their collaborative writing experiences. To minimize bias over choices of participants,
I purposefully set up a few criteria for selection of these four participants. First, in regard
to gender, male and female should be equally represented. Second, they should be of the
same cohort, that is, they should have enrolled to the university in the same year. Third,
they should be representative of various demographic groups such as religion and
ethnicity. Initially, I wanted to include language proficiency criteria for the participant
selection because the literature seemed to relate L2 proficiency with learners’
collaborative writing. However, since the students had not been assessed through any
standardized test during their study, I was unable to include this criterion. In other words,
I avoided making a premature judgment on the students regarding their language
75
proficiency and how that would affect their collaborative writing experiences. Finally,
because I was interested to explore learners’ experiences and meaning making of
collaborative writing and to include detailed description of their engagement, I looked for
those who could provide me with rich sources of data. Hence, I decided to do my
participant selection after observing a few of their collaborative writing activities. In my
early observations, I specifically focused on students who seemed to have dynamic
engagement in class in that they mostly (though not necessarily always) participated
actively during the collaborative writing activities and the conventional sessions. Based
on these criteria and after a few observations and some informal talks with the students in
this class, I considered Raisya, Sandi, Vera, and Beni (pseudonyms) focal research
participants for my study. I then asked if they agreed to be interviewed twice during the
semester about their collaborative writing experiences. All of them accepted my request.
It is noteworthy that although I only interviewed four students, my data sources
also involved the rest of the students in the class as they were deemed a significant
element contextualizing my case study. For example, during my participant observations,
I took field notes, including some informal talks I had with any students in the class and
tape-recorded my core participants’ collaborative writing activities when they worked
with any other students. Moreover, as I aimed at capturing the participants’ collaborative
writing experiences in their natural context, I also included the course instructor, Mr.
Irvan (pseudonym) as my research participant, whose role and perspectives were deemed
important in shaping the students’ experiences. Table 4.2 shows the sampling distribution
for the student participants for my research.
76
Table 4.2.
Sampling Distribution and Demographic Profiles of Research Participants
Participant (Pseudonym)
Sex Age Religion Ethnicity
Raisya Female 19 Islam Malay
Vera Female 20 Buddhism Chinese
Sandi Male 19 Islam Javanese
Beni Male 21 Islam Javanese
Irvan Male 50 Christian Javanese
As shown, I have selected four students and included the course instructor as my
research participants. The instructor was 50 years old, whereas the student participants’
ages ranged from 19 to 21 years at the time of data collection. The instructor was a
Javanese Christian man. Two student participants were female Muslim and Buddhist,
whereas the other two were male Muslims. In the next chapters, I organize and present
my analysis and discussions based on the themes or issues that I uncovered in studying
the participants’ experiences (the case) rather than presenting the case of individual
participant. Before I do that, however, in the following section, I provide my core
participants’ profiles. The information about these participants included in Table 4.2 as
well as in the vignettes below were obtained from the interviews as well as some follow
up conversation with them through emails, WhatsApp (a messaging application for
mobile phones), and Facebook messages.
77
Core participants’ profiles. This section provides the profiles of the core
research participants, namely Raisya, Vera, Sandi, Beni, and Mr. Irvan (pseudonyms).
Raisya. Raisya was 19 years old at the time I collected my data. She was the
oldest in her family and had only one younger brother. Raisya said she was confused
about deciding which ethnicity she belonged to as her family came from various ethnic
backgrounds. She mentioned that her mother was a mixture of English and Betawi (an
ethnicity in Indonesia), while her father had a combination of Arabic and Malay origins.
She felt a little regretful that she was not seen as English or Arabic in origin but inherited
the Malay identity instead. Malay is one of the majority ethnic groups inhabiting the
West Kalimantan province, where Raisya was born, grew up, and lived her life at the
time of the study. Raisya’s father owned several stores run by his friends, while her
mother was a nurse in one of the biggest private hospitals in West Kalimantan. Raisya
seemed like an active and talkative girl, and she was relatively fluent speaker of English.
Outside campus, Raisya joined youth organizations such as Scouting and a youth group
that focused its programs on English-related activities. One of Raisya’s favorite programs
in that youth organization was “I love my book” in which she said they were required to
bring a book that they liked and share it with other members. In her spare time, Raisya
used to write horror short stories and often posted them on an English-language blog
called “creepy pasta.” Raisya said that she wanted to become a teacher and run a cat
shelter, too.
Vera. Vera was one of the three Chinese Indonesian students in the Essay Writing
class (Chinese is one of the ethnic groups in Indonesia). She was a cheerful girl and she
78
spoke English quite fluently. Vera was one out of the few active and critical students in
her class. During my observations, she always asked questions related to the lessons in
class, either to the instructor or sometimes to me. Vera was born and raised in a small
town about one-hour drive from the capital city of West Kalimantan, where she was
studying for a college degree at the time of the study. Her father ran a food store and her
mother helped him with the business. Vera had three younger sisters and she had learned
Japanese language for three years in her senior high school. Vera said that rather than
attending college, she had actually planned to work soon after she finished high school
but her teacher encouraged her to apply for a scholarship to pursue a college degree at
Nirwana University. She did submit an application for the scholarship and got accepted
as a student in the English education department. Vera said she loved everything about
Korea and that she used to write English fanfiction about stories related to Korean
popular culture. In the future, she wanted to become a lecturer or a tour guide.
Sandi. Sandi was the oldest child in his family with two younger brothers and one
little sister. He was one of the four male students in Essay Writing class and was
appointed by his friends as the class leader or coordinator. Being a class leader, Sandi
was responsible for bridging the needs of the lecturers and his friends in class, especially
in terms of technical necessities. For example, Sandi helped prepare the LCD projector
before each class, informed his friends about assignments or project submissions, or
assisted the program Chairperson and staff with needed data or information about the
class. Sandi was talkative and an easy-going person. He and another male student in the
class used to practice singing or playing musical instruments (guitar and drums) together
79
in a rented musical studio. In his spare time, Sandi liked to play DOTA 2, an online
game. He said it helped him a lot in learning English, as he had to communicate with
players from many parts of the world. Sandi failed to gain admission on his first
university entrance tests to Nirwana University. For a year, he studied in the same major
in a private educational institution. He then tried taking the tests again and finally was
accepted as a student of the English education department at Nirwana University. Sandi
wanted to become a teacher, but he preferred to teach in high school or college rather
than teaching young learners.
Beni. Beni was 22 years old at the time I collected my data and was the oldest
among the four student participants. Beni and his younger sister chose to live with their
mother after his parents separated. However, Beni mentioned that his relationship with
his father was getting better as they lived quite close to each other. Before studying in the
English education department, Beni studied architectural engineering for a year. Feeling
overloaded with the coursework and assignments, he decided to withdraw from his study
and took a one-year break. After that, he took another university entrance test and was
admitted to his current study program. Beni mentioned that he chose an English major
because he wanted to be an ambassador. In addition to doing his college study, Beni was
busy with his activities as an angklung coach (angklung is a musical instrument made of
bamboo). To date, he mentioned that he coached five angklung groups and his tight
schedule often clashed with his studies. He often skipped his classes, including the Essay
Writing class when he had to perform or follow angklung competition.
80
Mr. Irvan. Mr. Irvan had been teaching at Nirwana University for more than 23
years. He earned his Doctorate in vocational English education from a state university in
Indonesia and had experienced taking short courses and training at Illinois University, in
the United States. Mr. Irvan also mentioned that he learned Latin and found that this
language helped him learn English, too. Mr. Irvan was very keen on motivating and
supporting his students in learning. He created a blog and a Facebook group that he also
used as part of his instruction in his classes, including in Essay Writing class. Mr. Irvan
stressed the importance of providing and becoming a model for students, especially in
improving their English skills. In terms of the use of resources, for example, he always
used books written by well-known international authors in the field of ELT, including the
writing textbook he used for the Essay Writing class. Mr. Irvan was aware of the
challenges of asking students to write in groups. However, he believed that it was a good
way to provide students with opportunities to practice using their language by
participating in the social communities, in this case, the collaborative writing groups.
Data Collection Methods
My methods of data collection included individual in-depth interviews, participant
observations, and document or artifact collection and analysis. After I received my RSRB
approval on January 19, 2015, I collected my data in Indonesia for one semester, from
February 2015 to August 2015. Classes started on February 9, 2015 and ended on June
22, 2015. Within this one semester period, I held ten in-depth individual interviews with
my five participants and conducted 20 participant observations in class. I provide details
of my data collection methods in the following section.
81
Interviews. Interviewing has been the most widely used method of data collection
in qualitative research, including case studies. Interviews allow both the interviewer and
the interviewee to “discuss their interpretations of the world in which they live, and to
express how they regard situations from their own point of view” (Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2007, p. 349). Interviews provide flexible yet effective ways, through verbal
and non-verbal communication in a conversation, to explore the participants’ accounts or
stories that are not readily observable in other ways.
Since the purpose of my study was to provide a detailed description of the ways in
which Indonesian EFL students understood their collaborative writing experiences and
the ways they made meaning of those experiences, I conducted in depth individual
interviews for my method of data collection. In-depth interviewing provided access to the
context of my participants’ experiences and thereby enabled me to understand those
experiences (Seidman, 2013). More specifically, I employed in-depth semi-structured
interviews (using an interview guide approach), as this type of interview provided me
with some flexibility and freedom to explore my participants’ perceptions and accounts.
Patton (2002) points out that through this method, “the interviewer remains free to build a
conversation within a particular subject area, to word questions spontaneously, and to
establish a conversational style but with the focus on a particular subject that has been
predetermined” (p. 343). Briefly stated, the questions that I created for the interviews
functioned as a guide to keep my interview process on track while there was still room to
develop or expand the conversation based on the participants’ responses.
82
I conducted a one-semester study on the students’ collaborative writing
experiences in an EFL class. Within such a period of time, I was able to document and
describe in detail my participants’ lived experiences and what the experiences meant to
them, as I spent a considerable amount of time with my participants and in the research
site during the data collection. Spending a longer time with my participants and in my
research site was a way to build rapport as well as to obtain rich data. One semester
provided me with adequate time to see my participants’ engagement in various
collaborative writing activities and how they made meaning of such prolonged
experiences. Within this one-semester data collection, I conducted two individual
interviews with each participant. The purpose of conducting these two interviews was to
obtain rich data on students’ perceptions and understanding of their experiences at the
beginning and at the end of the semester. Seidman (2013) argues that the interview series
allow “both the interviewer and participant to explore the participant’ experience, place it
in context, and reflect on its meaning” (p. 20).
I conducted the first round interviews from March 18, 2015 to April 28, 2015 on
varying schedules decided based on the participants’ convenience. I held the interviews
either in an empty classroom or at the teacher office at the English education department.
I spent 30 to 40 minutes for each interview. Before starting the interview, I asked my
participants what language they wanted to use. Asking the participants in advance about
the language to use during the interview is important to avoid difficulties in expressing
ideas due to the potential English language barrier. It is also crucial in order to gain rich
and in-depth perspectives. All my participants suggested using English in the interview
83
and whenever needed, we used translation from English to Indonesian and vice versa or
code switched between the two languages. I informed the participants that they were
welcome to stop or ask me anytime they felt unclear about my questions. Likewise, I
asked them to explain their statements further whenever I needed clarification. To ensure
that they felt comfortable during the interview, I told them that there was no need to be
worried about giving “wrong” information. I convinced them that all stories they shared
were important, valuable and appreciated. For the first interview, I asked some
demographic questions to my participants, such as their age, religion, ethnicity, and
family background. I also asked them to describe their history of learning English and if
any, their experiences working in group or writing collaboratively. Since the interview
was held after they experienced at least three collaborative writing activities in class, I
also asked them to reflect on their early collaborative writing experiences (see Appendix
C). Similarly, in the interview with the instructor, I asked him some demographic
questions and his experiences in teaching English. I also elicited his perspectives
regarding his collaborative writing instruction (see Appendix E).
To gain more understanding about the participants’ collaborative writing
experiences, I conducted the second round of individual interviews from June 15, 2015 to
August 13, 2015. In these final round interviews, I asked my student participants’
perceptions about collaborative writing and requested them to share further reflection on
their experiences. I also asked questions that occurred after the first round of interviews
and during my participant observations and ongoing analysis for further clarification (see
Appendix D). Likewise, I asked the instructor about his final thoughts about his
84
incorporation of collaborative writing instruction into his class (see Appendix F). I tape
recorded all the interviews and transcribed the results myself. Whenever needed, I
translated any Indonesian words used during the interviews. I then stored the data in a
secure place while simultaneously revisiting them for the next data collection and
ongoing analysis. Next, I discuss participant observation as my other method of data
collection.
Participant observation. Participant observation is a data collection method in
which a researcher immerses herself into the research site, playing roles as both a
researcher and an observer to varying degrees (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). In addition
to in-depth individual interviews, my participation and observation in the contexts that
situated and shaped my participants’ experiences helped me make better connections to
what the participants shared in the interviews. Scollon and Scollon (2004) argue, “It is
not enough to know what people say they do. You need to observe directly to see to what
extent members’ generalizations about nexus of practices meet with the ‘reality’ you
observe” (p. 158). In this sense, I was aware of the possibility that what the participants
said they believe and what they do might not correspond to what actually took place.
Moreover, the observation helped me uncover and discover important information or
details that I missed from the interviews. It provided some important points that I further
raised and clarified in the next stage of the interviews. Through frequent participant
observations, I was able to build “more intimate and informal relationships” (Cohen,
Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 260) with my research participants, which was helpful to
gain their trust and to gather rich data. By spending a considerable amount of time in the
85
research site, I was able to see how my participants participated in collaborative writing
activities and how their participation evolved over time within the dynamic nature of
situation, resources, and roles (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Since the insider’s
way of making meaning (the emic perspective) is important, “Immersion in the setting
permits the researcher to hear, see, and begin to experience reality as the participants do”
(Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 140). Briefly stated, the data I obtained through
participant observations provided another means to triangulate my data sources, thus
improving the quality of my case study.
Nevertheless, although participant observation was advantageous in that it helped
me gain important data that I could not obtain in the interviews, I realized that it also has
some drawbacks if not performed well. It was a great challenge to be able to write
everything in detail from the observations while participating in the site or interacting
with my participants. Also, my notes could be very subjective in that I might tend to write
my interpretation of the situation instead of the exact occurring reality of my participants.
Therefore, I wrote my observation results as soon as I left the site and jotted down things
that took place in the site before moving on to interpreting what happened (Mack,
Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest, & Namy, 2005).
In order to gain an in-depth understanding and detailed description of my
participants’ lived experiences, I conducted 20 classroom participant observations from
February 11, 2015 to June 22, 2015. These participant observations included both the
conventional as well as the collaborative writing sessions. At the beginning of the
semester, the instructor and I talked about the course plans for the semester. Because he
86
planned to implement collaborative writing in addition to the conventional instruction, he
showed me the course outline with specific dates on which students would have
collaborative writing activities. However, due to many reasons, we both learned that the
classes and students’ activities did not always meet the scheduled plans. Since my
research focus was on collaborative writing, I requested the instructor to inform me in
advance every time he planned collaborative writing activities so I could come prepared
for the data collection. In addition to giving him my own participant observation schedule,
due to some unexpected changes and as a matter of courtesy, I also always informed him
at least one day before I planned to collect data in class.
During all the participant observations, I took field notes to be used for my data
analysis. I also tape-recorded all collaborative writing activities of every group. Because
there were 21 students in the class, the instructor often divided them in groups of three or
four. Consequently, there were usually up to seven collaborative writing groups in one
session, depending on the number of students attending the class at the time collaborative
writing was implemented. Although my main data sources came from the interview
results of the four student participants and the instructor, I recorded all students’
collaborative writing activities to ensure that I did not miss important information from
the context situating my core participants’ experiences. This included other students and
their practices in class. While I continued collecting data, I listened to these recordings
carefully and took notes of important details that I could use for my data. After I selected
the four core participants for my study, I started doing detailed transcription of the audio
recordings of their collaborative writing activities. As the instructor selected the groups
87
for each collaborative writing session randomly, it happened sometimes that two of these
core participants worked in the same group and in more than one collaborative writing
session.
Finally, as a participant observer, I also participated in activities such as
supervising students and helping the instructor with distribution of the handouts while
taking notes on participants’ important comments and behaviour. By doing this, I
continued to build rapport with my participants and get myself closer to the data.
Document and artifact collection. The last type of data collection method I
employed for my study was document and artifact collection. Some researchers call this
type of data “secondary data” (Johnson & Christensen, 2012) and it may include diaries,
pictures, student work, curriculum guides, and educational journals. The purpose of
collecting and analyzing documents or secondary data was to supplement the main data I
collected through in-depth interviews and participant observations. Marshall and
Rossman (2011) argue, “the analysis of documents is potentially quite rich in portraying
the values and beliefs of participants in the setting” (p. 160). In my case, the documents
or artifacts that I collected in connection to students’ experiences with collaborative
writing were students’ sample work, teachers’ handouts, the syllabus, pictures of slide
presentations or teacher notes and seating arrangement in the classroom.
Data Sources
Based on the specific methods of data collection that I explained in the preceding
sections, my data sources consisted of four types: interview transcripts, field notes,
transcription of audio recordings from the participants’ collaborative writing interactions,
88
and documents. My first set of data was the transcriptions of the in-depth interviews I
conducted with the participants. My next data sources were field notes from my
participant observations, interview processes, and ongoing analysis or reflection.
According to Bogdan and Biklen (2007), field notes refer to the “the written account of
what the researcher hears, sees, experience, and thinks in the course of collecting and
reflecting on the data in a qualitative study” (p. 108). Field notes supported me with
additional data and kept me on track. Field notes were also a way to know and reflect on
factors that influenced my data collection, analysis, and interpretation. As part of my
participant observation, I audio-taped and transcribed the recordings of the participants’
activities in collaborative writing groups and used them to supplement my research data.
Finally, the documents such as teacher instructional materials (textbook, syllabus, scoring
rubric, handouts, student sample writing) enriched the data I collected through other
methods. They provided me with more sources for data triangulation and verification.
Data Management
The next crucial step both during and after data collection is data management, in
which data are organized, managed, and saved to facilitate analysis. Researchers argue
that good data management helps the researcher to retrieve the data easily and is thereby
a way to maintain the quality or trustworthiness of research (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
From the various methods of data collection I explained above, I had a significant amount
of data in various forms. From the interviews, I had digital audio recordings of my
participants’ stories or accounts. After transcribing the audio recordings, I printed the
interview transcripts and saved the Microsoft Word documents file in my computer and
89
on my online (Dropbox) storage. Additionally, my participant observation generated files
of field notes and transcripts of audio recordings that I also saved in the form of hard or
soft copies. Finally, the same form of data as in the interviews and participants
observation was obtained from the document or artifact collection; I saved this data in the
same way I saved the field notes and transcripts.
To help manage my data, I saved my software file data in my personal password-
protected laptop. I also had them backed up on my encrypted external hard disk, flash
disks, personal emails, and online storage like Dropbox. I organized each piece of data
into folders with listed information about the type of data, the date, and place of data
collection. For the hard copies of my data, for example the printouts of the interview
transcripts, field notes, and documents, I had personal drawers in my office with locks.
Table 4.3 presents my data collection matrix, which includes a clear description of my
data collection and management processes.
90
Table 4.3.
Data Collection Matrix
Data Collection Method
Timeframe Resulting Data Sources
Quantity of Data
Purposes
Participant observations
February 9, 2015 to June 22, 2015
Field notes Audio recordings of 10 sessions of all students’ collaborative writing activities.
One set of field notes from the total of 20 participant observations
To document how students experience collaborative writing, what activities/tasks/interactions, etc. they are involved in.
Individual in-depth interviews
Round 1: March 18, 2015 to April 28, 2015 Round 2: June 15, 2015-August 13, 2015.
Audio recordings Transcripts
A total of 10 interview transcripts (8 interviews with student participants, 2 interviews with the instructor).
To elicit participants’ opinions, perspectives, and meaning making of their collaborative writing experiences.
Documents and artifacts
February 9, 2015 to June 22, 2015.
Instructional materials, students’ sample writing with feedback.
A set of instructional materials and students’ sample writing.
To obtain documentation needed to support the interview data on students’ collaborative writing experiences.
91
Data Analysis
Grounded theory. For the analytic framework of my study, I employed
constructivist grounded theory methods, which “acknowledge subjectivity and the
researcher’s involvement in the construction and interpretation of data” (Charmaz, 2014,
p. 14). As my research aimed at understanding the participants’ experiences of
collaborative writing and ways they describe and make sense of those experiences,
grounded theory methods helped me achieve this purpose through their “systematic yet
flexible guidelines” (Charmaz, p. 1) of data collection and analysis. With such systematic
and flexible guidelines, grounded theory methods allowed me to approach my data in
iterative, non-linear ways. That is, it enabled me to go back and forth to the data and
continue making comparative analysis across these data. In other words, I used “constant
comparative methods” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 as cited in Charmaz, 2014, p. 132,
emphasis in original). As I explained in my methods of data collection, in-depth
interviews, participant observations, and collection of documents and artifacts constituted
my research data. Through in-depth interviews, I learned the ways in which my
participants described their experiences; the participant observations helped me see my
participants’ lived experiences, and the documents or artifacts provided important
information about the context situating my participants’ experiences. I used “interrelated
units of analysis” (Dyson, 2006, p. 13) that included narratives generated from the
interviews, utterances and episodes drawn from the participants’ talk during the
collaborative writing activities, as well as images and content from the documents and
artifacts I collected. Grounded theory methods afforded me an analytic lens to reflect on
92
and understand my data in all these processes from the insider’s perspectives instead of a
distant observer. Used as an analytic framework, grounded theory methods provided me
with clear guidelines of how to proceed or follow up on interesting data (Charmaz, 2014).
Employing grounded theory methods, I made sense of my data through inductive
coding, that is, the ongoing process in which I defined what was happening in the data,
labeled the units of data, and attempted to understand the meaning that these data
generated. As “specific use of language reflects views and values” (Charmaz, 2014, p.
114), coding urged me to problematize my own language as well as the language of my
participants. It also inspired me to examine hidden assumptions and tacit meanings in the
language and actions of my participants and me as a researcher. Briefly stated, coding
helped me to learn and understand my participants’ views and actions from their
standpoint.
Charmaz (2014) suggests at least two stages of coding in grounded theory
methods: open or initial coding and focused coding. Initial or open coding entails a close
reading of the data at the levels of words, lines, or segments. In my case, this ongoing
process of coding provided me with various perspectives and analytic lenses on the data.
Also, it pointed me to possible gaps and led me to further data collection and analysis.
When engaging in the initial or open coding in my research, I tried to be as open-minded
and as close as possible to my data. I studied words, lines, and segments in my data, and
whenever possible, I coded them by using gerunds to show action. Charmaz argues that
by using gerunds, a researcher emphasizes the importance of the participants’ actions and
sequence of processes in order to analyze them from the insiders’ perspective rather than
93
from an outsider’s point of view. Coding for actions helps researchers to focus on what is
happening in the data instead of on the “types” of individuals. Charmaz warns researchers
that coding people by assigning or labeling them with a specific type “freezes people in
time and space and also erases or minimizes defining variation in the studied
phenomenon” (p. 117). Thus said, coding for actions prevented me from making extant
theories about my participants without sufficient analysis.
After conducting the initial coding, I continued with focused coding. When doing
focused coding, I examined the most useful and frequently occurring codes in the initial
coding and used these codes to synthesize, analyze, and conceptualize larger segments of
the data (Charmaz, 2014). One goal of focused coding is to “determine the adequacy and
conceptual strength” (p. 140) of the initial codes. I did focused coding to identify codes
from the initial coding that I considered providing the best analytic lens to form incisive
and complete categories for my data. In this way, focused coding helped me condense
and sharpen my previous analysis because I focused only on the significant points in the
emerging analysis. The following table provides examples of my initial and focused
coding.
Table 4.4.
Examples of Coding
Initial Coding Focused Coding Being open-minded Accepting others’ ideas Respecting Helping Encouraging Pushing others to talk Asking others’ opinion
Navigating relationships
94
Being polite Initiating ideas Feeling pity Feeling empathy Not underestimating others Understanding Contributing Taking responsibility Being active Talking Considering others’ opinion Including ideas Supporting Listening to others Giving chances Not being harsh Responding appropriately Not being selfish Evaluating own opinion Taking efforts Having quiet friends Having less talkative friends Being agreed Not being argued Dominating Not wanting to talk Taking much time Going off topic Being reluctant to use English Avoiding debate Feeling down Feeling incapable Struggling to accept critiques Feeling inferior Losing ideas Having too many opinions Facing conflicts Having different preferences Lacking responsibility Feeling excluded Facing domination Voices not heard Feeling uncomfortable
Struggling to collaborate
95
Losing concentration Feeling confused Preferring to write alone Feeling frustrated Feeling unconfident Sharing resources Evaluating sources Selecting topics Asking meaning of word Asking terms in English Expressing opinions Finding supporting expert’s opinion Getting more opinions Getting better ideas Revising Correcting Getting feedback Responding to feedback Suggesting ideas Arguing Giving reasons Accepting ideas Asking opinions Leading discussion Taking responsibility Negotiating Improving vocabularies Improving pronunciation Asking questions Confirming Disagreeing
Group interaction and participation
While arguing that initial and focused coding are sufficient for many projects,
Charmaz (2014) mentions axial coding which was proposed by Strauss and Corbin
(1998) as the next optional stage of coding. The goal of axial coding, according to Stauss
and Corbin, is to make coherent analysis by relating categories to subcategories,
specifying properties and dimensions of categories, and reassembling the data which was
fractured during the initial coding. Axial coding answers questions such as “when, why,
96
who, how, and with what consequences” (p. 125) and enables researchers to “describe the
studied experience more fully” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 147). Although axial coding provides
an analytic frame for researchers to apply to their data, Charmaz points out that relying
on axial coding may “limit what and how researchers learn about their studied worlds,
and thus, restricts the code they construct” (p. 149). As a novice researcher, however,
axial coding and its frame strengthened my analytical power during the data collection
and analysis. In axial coding, I sought relationships between the categories and sub-
categories, which were generated from my initial and focused coding. For example, my
initial and focused coding indicated the ways in which the participants used English and
L1s to interact with each other as well as engaged in the sharing of information and
resources during the collaborative writing activities. In doing axial coding, I went back to
the data to find out the conditions or circumstances, interactions or strategies, and
consequences or outcomes of these strategies (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) related to the
ways in which my participants learned (language, about writing and how to write) by
writing collaboratively. From these processes, I developed themes such as languaging,
various participation roles, and the creation of the ZPD to understand the ways in which
collaborative writing afforded learners extended opportunities to use English.
Although there seem to be layers or stages of coding as mentioned above,
grounded theory is not a linear process. The use of grounded theory methods required me
to go in and out of my data and codes in order to get familiar with what was really
happening with my participants and their experiences. I was encouraged to attend to the
data and bring to them an analytic lens to help me see different perspectives and
97
emerging ideas. My research questions and “sensitizing concepts” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 30)
functioned as the points of departure rather than constraining lenses. In other words,
grounded theory prevented me from making early conclusions or generalizations about
my participants by forcing data into preexisting codes and theories.
Highlighting the importance of sensitizing concept in grounded theory methods, it
is important to point out that my research was situated in the larger discourse of
collaborative writing, especially in L2 settings. Consequently, my way of doing research,
including in collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data was, to some extent,
influenced by the existing research and literature in this field. While grounded theory
methods allowed me to be as open as possible to the emerging codes during the data
collection and analysis with which I could contribute to the field of L2 collaborative
writing, it was not possible for me to come to my research without preconceived ideas,
disconnected from the existing literature situating my study (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
In my case, my theoretical framework provided sensitizing concepts such as interaction
in social activities, language functions, as well as cultural norms and values that I could
use to guide my analysis. Sensitizing concepts were a helpful way to connect my own
research results to the larger discourse of collaborative writing.
Memo-writing. Memos are “informal analytic notes” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 162)
that researchers write as they stop, question, and think about our data, codes, and any
emerging ideas throughout the research process. Memo-writing provided me a space for
more active engagement with my research materials and idea development. It encouraged
me to be critical and reflective while attempting to fine-tune my subsequent data
98
gathering. I started writing memos as soon as I began collecting my data and analyzing
them. For example, memo writing after conducting the first round interview allowed me
to see important points to think about and to follow up when I entered the class for the
classroom observation.
Quality in Qualitative Research
In this section, I discuss triangulation and trustworthiness to demonstrate how my
study meets the criteria of good qualitative research. I first elaborate on the concept of
triangulation, followed by the trustworthiness of qualitative studies that includes
credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability.
Triangulation. Stake (1995) argues that we need triangulation protocols for three
purposes: “to gain the needed confirmation, to increase the credence in the interpretation,
to increase commonality of an assertion” (p. 112). Citing the work of Denzin, Stake
(1995) mentions four types of triangulation that need to be addressed: Data source
triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation, and methodological
triangulation. The purpose of data source triangulation, according to Stake, is “to see if
what we are observing and reporting carries the same meaning when found under
different circumstances” (p. 113). In my study, I triangulated my data sources by
obtaining various data from student and teacher participants, participant observations, and
from the written documents. Similarly, by collecting the data using various methods,
namely individual interviews, participant observations, and document collection and
analysis, I have attempted methodological triangulation. Finally, by discussing and
consulting my work with my advisor, dissertation committee members, and my peers
99
who shared different views, perspectives, and expertise, I accounted for investigator
triangulation and theory triangulation.
Study trustworthiness. Researchers use different approaches to address the
goodness, trustworthiness, or quality of qualitative research, such as credibility,
dependability, confirmability, and transferability (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). First of
all, credibility aims at demonstrating “that the inquiry was conducted in such a manner as
to ensure that the subject was appropriately identified and described” (Marshall &
Rossman, p. 251). To ensure that my research was credible, I provided in-depth and
detailed description of all the research processes, decisions regarding my research site
and participants, theoretical frameworks and design, and data analysis and interpretation.
Triangulation in data sources, theory, investigator, and methodology also ensured the
credibility of my research in that I did not rely on only a single method of data collection
and my own interpretation.
Next, transferability refers to the “ways in which the study’s findings will be
useful to others in similar situations, with similar research questions or questions of
practice” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 252). I achieved this quality of transferability
by providing thick description (Geertz, 1973) of my site selection, sampling criteria,
research contexts, the methods of data collection, data management, and analysis, as well
as the interpretation procedures so that the findings can be transferred into wider or other
research contexts with similar characteristics. My research on collaborative writing that
involved EFL learners in Indonesia may thus be useful for those who are researching
100
collaborative writing for L2 learners in EFL contexts outside Indonesia and not so much
in ESL contexts.
Confirmability is achieved when “the findings of the study could be confirmed by
another person or another study” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 253). In this respect, I
had other doctoral students and my colleagues at my university in Indonesia as my
critical peers to read my work and provide me with thoughtful questions to think about. I
had a good audit trail, transparent methods of triangulation, and good records for
reflexivity (e.g., journal reflections, analytic memos) so that others who examined my
work could confirm my assertion. Similarly, thick and explicit description of research
methods, triangulation, peer debriefing, and a good audit trail helped me account for the
dependability of my research when some conditions changed as the result of the
“increasingly refined understanding of the setting” (Marshall & Rossman, p. 253).
Another related factor that may indicate the quality or trustworthiness of our
research is the way we address the ethics of our research, especially when it relates to
human subjects (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). In the following section, I present a
discussion about the ethical consideration that also includes explicit description of
researcher role, reciprocity, and exit strategy.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations especially need to be addressed because the research
involves human participants. According to Marshall and Rossman (2011), there are three
ethical requirements that need to be considered prior to collecting data: “(a) that
participants understand (have explained to them) that this is a research study with specific
101
parameters and interests; (b) that they are free to participate or not without prejudice; (c)
that their identities will be masked (protected) as much as possible” (p. 90). In my study,
I attempted to ensure that my participants were well-informed about the purpose of the
study that they were involved in, that they understood that their participation was
voluntary and that they could withdraw from participating at any stage, and that their
identity and information were kept confidential. I stated all these ethical requirements on
the Student Information Form and the Teacher Information Form (see Appendices A and
B, respectively). I explained this information to my participants before they decided to
participate in my study. For maintaining confidentiality, I used pseudonyms in order not
to disclose my participants’ identity. Also, I attempted a good audit trail in which I kept
the research data in a safe place, such as in private cabinets or hard disk, which was
password-protected. The data will be preserved there for maximum of five years, and I
am the only person who has access to them.
Researcher role. One of the major characteristics of qualitative research is that
the researcher is the critical instrument (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006; Marshall &
Rossman, 2011). This means that the researcher has an intimate relationship with the data
collection process, analysis, and interpretation. She or he will enter the lives of the
research participants, which means it is necessary to build rapport and trust with them. In
order to minimize dilemmas resulting from the evolving relationship between the
researcher and the participants, it is important that the researcher role is explicitly
articulated in the design and presentation of results (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006;
Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
102
I entered my research site as a PhD student and as a researcher. Having had these
roles, my presence in the classroom during the participant observations should not have
caused additional stress both for the teacher and the students. The same case applies
when I interviewed my participants. It was important to build trust so that they felt the
significance of their contribution to my research. Nevertheless, although I entered the site
with the roles of a PhD student and a researcher, I could not ignore the fact that my social
identities (e.g., being a faculty member, a teacher educator, member of the same or
different ethnic group, believer of the majority religion in Indonesia) would affect my
relationships with the participants. To anticipate issues related to power resulting from
these identities (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006), I assured the teacher participant (the
instructor of Essay Writing class) that our collegial relationship would not interfere with
my research conduct either negatively or positively. Keeping analytic memos and
reflective journals helped me keep on track. For the student participants, I convinced
them by telling them at the beginning of data collection that their participation in my
research would not affect their grades in negative manner due to our teacher-student
hierarchical relationship. I also built an egalitarian relationship with them so that they did
not feel intimidated to share their perspectives.
Reciprocity. I acknowledged that my research would not be possibly conducted
without the access, time, and efforts given by my participants. As a way to give back,
during the period of data collection, I helped the instructor with some logistical work
such as printing, copying, or distributing handouts. I also made myself available when he
needed to share or talk, especially about teaching-related matters. For the students, I
103
provided time for consultation related to their study, especially outside the class. After I
finished my data collection, I gave small souvenirs to my participants as appreciation for
their contribution.
Exit strategy. After finishing the data collection, I did not just leave the site and
my participants. Since I am affiliated with the institution in which I collected my data, I
keep in good contact with the instructor. With the student participants, I also maintained
our relationship and cooperation as one of their teachers and a partner when they later
become teachers. As I have stated in the Reciprocity section of this proposal, at the end of
the data collection, I gave them souvenirs as a way to demonstrate my appreciation of
their valuable contributions.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I explained my reasons for choosing a qualitative case study as my
research design. I presented my research participants and research site. I also elaborated
my methods of data collection and analysis. Specifically, I collected my data by
conducting in-depth individual interviews, participant observations, and document and
artifact collection. I used grounded theory methods as an analytic lens to analyze my data.
I addressed the ways I fulfilled criteria for soundness of the study by explaining
triangulation and trustworthiness as well as ethical considerations. In the next chapter, I
present my research findings.
104
Chapter 5: Affordances of English Language Learning
“…thought does not become completely developed until people attempt to speak or write
it.”(Luria, 1982, in Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 48)
This study explored Indonesian undergraduate students’ collaborative writing
experiences in an EFL Essay Writing class. In conducting this project as qualitative case
study research, I triangulated various data sources including transcripts of individual
semi-structured interviews, field notes, analytic memos, transcripts of participants’
collaborative writing activities, samples of participants’ writing, and instructional related
documents to provide in-depth descriptions and interpretation of participants’
experiences. Using SCT and writing as social practice theories as theoretical lenses for
this study, I explored the ways in which participants understood and experienced
collaborative writing activities in an Essay Writing class.
This study was guided by a broad research question: How do Indonesian EFL
undergraduate students experience, engage with, and make sense of collaborative writing
in an English class? Specifically, the study aimed at answering these questions:
1. How do Indonesian EFL undergraduate students describe their collaborative
writing experiences?
2. In what ways do Indonesian EFL undergraduate students learn in collaborative
writing, and what mediates their learning?
3. What are the influencing elements of their collaborative writing experiences?
Implementing grounded theory methods as my analytical framework, I present my
research findings under three major themes emerging from the data. The first theme,
105
which is presented in this chapter, is participants’ understanding of their collaborative
writing experiences as affordances for English language learning. Specifically, I describe
participants’ experiences related to English language learning afforded and demonstrated
in collaborative writing activities. I also discuss the mediating factors of these
affordances from the participants’ perspectives and practices. The second theme,
presented in chapter six, is about issues and values in collaborative writing. Particularly, I
present participants’ descriptions of the challenges they encountered and the social values
and skills that they identified as part of their collaborative writing experiences. In chapter
seven, I present the possible factors affecting participants’ collaborative writing
experiences. For more in-depth and clear presentation of the findings, I include the
analyses of participants’ descriptions of their experiences as well as critical incidents
foregrounded in the data from their collaborative writing interactions.
As mentioned, I used SCT and writing as social practice theories as theoretical
lenses to analyze my data. From the perspective of SCT, learning is defined as a socially
situated activity, involving the use of cultural artifacts as mediational means by which
people interact with each other (Vygotky, 1978). With specific reference to language
learning−including second or foreign language learning−speaking and writing are
considered essential mediational means for learning (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).
Additionally, writing as social practice theory worked coherently with SCT in that it
helped me analyze the ways in which my participants’ collaborative writing experiences
were embedded and contingent in specific context including discourse communities and
practices in such communities (Gee, 1996; Lillis, 2013; Street, 1984). Employing these
106
two theoretical lenses, I analyzed and interpreted my participants’ descriptions of what
they perceived as meaningful from their collaborative writing experiences. I also
examined the ways in which their meaning making was situated in their participation and
interaction in the collaborative writing activities.
In this chapter, I present the findings and interpretation of participants’
perspectives of their collaborative writing experiences as providing them opportunities
for language learning. To provide more in-depth description of their perspectives and the
situating context, I also include my analyses and interpretation of their oral interactions or
talk when they took part in the co-construction of knowledge in collaborative writing
activities. Specifically, I present them under the two major themes. The first theme is
“extended use of English” and includes two sub-themes, namely “languaging, participant
roles, and the ZPD”, and “use of L1s”. The second theme is “thinking beyond ourselves”
which covers the following subsequent themes: “using individual background
knowledge”, “employing members’ shared experiences,” and “utilizing external sources.”
I end this chapter with a brief conclusion that summarizes the findings on L2 learning
affordances of collaborative writing.
Extended Use of English
When asked what collaborative writing meant to them, all participants in this
study stated that collaborative writing offered English language learning affordances
especially in speaking skills as they had abundant opportunities to use the target language
while writing collaboratively with their peers. This finding seemed to be affected by the
participants’ experiences regarding English language use in their academic environment.
107
Being in the fourth semester and realizing that they did not spend much time outside the
class practicing speaking English, the student participants were aware that they should
use the collaborative writing opportunities to the utmost to improve their English
speaking skills. For example, Raisya stated that she had actually wished to be able to
speak English with her friends since the first time she came to the English education
program. However, she did not have the opportunity to do so because not everyone at
campus wanted to speak English. Therefore, whenever she had the chance to speak
English, she wanted to use the opportunity as much as possible, including during the
collaborative writing activities in class. She said, “Because the class already gives the
opportunity to develop our English, so why not using it?”2 (Raisya, Interview 04/08/15).
Vera echoed Raisya’s opinion about the use of English confirming that they must use it a
lot since EFL is their major (Vera, Interview 04/09/15).
Likewise, Sandi and Beni also shared their friends’ point of view regarding the
use of English. Sandi explained that he used English most of the time during the
collaborative writing activities. However, he would speak English outside the class only
with those who were good at English (04/06/15). Similarly, Beni stated:
2 Because the interviews were conducted in English which was not the participants’ native language, there
may be grammatical mistakes or incorrect utterances in the transcriptions that I used to support my
findings. However, in order to preserve the participants’ voices in what they said, I used verbatim
quotations. Whenever applicable, I provided the English translation of any uses of L1s in their statements
in parentheses.
108
Actually, in campus I prefer to use English to speak with my friends when they
speak in English too with me. If they speak Indonesian, I will speak Indonesian
too. In the group, I tried to speak English all the time except when I forget certain
words. My friends also tried to speak English and like me, when they forgot
certain words, they will ask the meaning of the words they forget. (Beni,
Interview 04/28/15)
From his statement, Beni confirmed his preference to speak English frequently
especially in class, including during the collaborative writing activities. However, he also
reported that he depended on his other friends in terms of using English outside the class.
The experiences that all these participants shared in relation to the use of English on
campus indicated that they could not always fulfill their need to practice speaking
English due to lack of chances. Despite studying in an English education program whose
main purpose is to produce “graduates with a complete mastery of English language
which includes writing, reading, speaking, and listening and also other language
components such as pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar” (Djiwandono, Rambadeta,
& Rahayu, 2001, p. 5), not all students seemed to make the same effort to achieve these
goals. In other words, they likely did not share the same need and willingness to improve
their English especially by using it to communicate with one another outside the class.
Such a situation is common to many EFL contexts for various reasons thus making the
classrooms the main outlets for students to practice communicating in English (Savignon,
2005; Storch, 2013). Hence, it is also reasonable that highly motivated students such as
the participants in this study viewed collaborative writing activities as invaluable
109
channels to practice their English. Evident in my classroom observations during the
semester was that most students consistently used English in their collaborative writing
activities although the amount of English which was used through the semester varied
across individuals and their collaborative writing groups. Researchers argue that the
different amount of the use of target language might be attributed to several factors such
as group composition, task types, group dynamic, and L1 influences (Fernández Dobao,
2012; Guk & Kellogg, 2007; Riley, 2009). Aligned with this, while my participants
generally used English in almost all their collaborative writing groups, there were times
in which they used L1s. I discuss more details of this point in the Use of L1s section
below.
Furthermore, participants mentioned that they had opportunities to learn more
about some linguistic elements such as vocabulary and pronunciation from their peers.
For example, Vera stated, “We can get new vocabularies from our friends. When we
actually don’t know, but when they say it, we can ask them. Having more opinion and
help pronunciation too” (Vera, Interview 04/10/15). Vera’s statement showed the ways in
which learning was made possible by the “here-and-now” (Kucer, 2009, p. 49) nature of
oral interaction that requires “immediate linguistic interchange” (Kucer, p. 49) among
participants. As Vera described it, the immediate opportunities to ask questions of one
another and the audible utterances each made during the collaborative writing activities
enabled her to expand her knowledge of vocabularies, ideas, and pronunciation. When
her peers mentioned certain English terms of which she did not know the meaning, she
could directly request their explanation. These immediate and flexible chances to get a
110
response would not be the case had the students been in conventional class instruction in
which the teacher holds the most control over the structures of interaction in the class
(Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). Moreover, although there is always an opportunity to ask
or talk to the teacher, students usually feel reluctant to do so as they have concerns
regarding the manners they are supposed to have in conversing with the teacher, who
possesses higher hierarchical status in class (Bruffee, 1999).
In the above section, I presented findings related to opportunities for development
of oral and linguistic aspects afforded by collaborative writing drawn mainly from the
participants’ own perspectives. To provide more vivid description of such affordances, I
present my analyses and interpretation of the participants’ oral interactions in groups.
Taking the stance of SCT and writing as social practice theories, I focused my analyses
and interpretation on the dynamic process of participants’ meaning co-construction
through “chains of utterances” (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002, p. 25) contextualized in
particular interactional situation. My interpretations of these utterances as “actions”
involved “viewing an utterance against a background of who said it, where and when,
what was being accomplished by saying it and in the light of what possible
considerations and in virtue of what motives it was said” (Heritage, 1984, pp. 139-140,
emphases in original). In other words, rather than focusing on decontextualized
utterances or turn taking of each participants, I analyzed and interpreted the ways in
which utterances related to one another. Evident in this study are affordances for
participants’ language learning, which include the following themes: languaging,
participation roles, and the ZPD, and use of L1s.
111
Languaging, participation roles, and the ZPD. Based on the close analyses of
participants’ oral interactions when writing collaboratively, learning or knowledge co-
construction was afforded through languaging, various participation roles, and
scaffolding within the ZPD. To illustrate, the following excerpt was part of Sandi’s
second collaborative writing activities, in which he worked with two female peers, Eri
and Fina. In this session, they were required to choose one of the topics listed on the
board or to create their own. Then, they had to write three body paragraphs for their
group’s argumentative essay on the topic they had selected. This group, like others,
started their work by discussing which topic they would choose for their essay. They
brainstormed for the ideas and outlined before they started developing and writing their
paragraphs. They spent the first fifteen minutes agreeing on a topic, online and traditional
education. The following excerpt shows the next stage after the group selected the topic,
brainstormed some ideas, and made a thesis statement.
Excerpt 1
1 Sandi: Okay, online education is better than traditional-face to face education because it’s easy and instant to access, and then research without distance…just make the topic sentence… no, thesis statement. You! I’ll try to make the body paragraph. Oh no no no…just make it together (laughing). Online education is better than traditional education… write it.
2 Eri: Yeah, I already write it down. 3 Sandi: Because it’s instant and easy to access. 4 Eri: Instant without C-E, right? 5 Sandi: Instant… T.. and easy to access… comma 6 Fina: Wait! Are you sure to use all of them? 7 Sandi: What? 8 Fina: I mean, are you sure to use this, and this, and this? 9 Eri: Yeah. Why not instant and easy to…I want to put the topic and then …
makes online education is better than the traditional. And then… No no no…I mean, example here, instant and easy to access make online education is better than traditional…I want to put this first and then why
112
10 Sandi: I know, I know what you mean. Something that…what is it? Online education is easy to access and instant, and then makes students independent. But it’s gonna be a hard sentence. Why don’t we just change this sentence into the advantages of online education?
11 Fina: Yeah 12 Sandi: Online education is better than traditional-face to face education because it
has many advantages. 13 Fina: So we just talk about the advantages 14 Sandi: Yeah… and the advantages itself are... these body paragraphs. (Collaborative Writing, 03/09/15)
The above excerpt could be analyzed in terms of the construction of the ZPD for
language learning through, among others, languaging (through private speech or
collaborative dialogue), noticing, feedback, and scaffolding. As seen in the above
excerpt, Sandi (turn 1) initiated in order to restate their agreed-upon thesis statement that
“online education is better than traditional face-to-face education.” He also repeated the
thesis statement when he tried to dictate the sentence to Eri, the group scribe (turns 3 and
10). Playing a leader role, Sandi initially instructed his peers to continue working on the
topic sentence while he would write the body paragraphs. However, probably because he
remembered the instructor’s reminder that they had to work together in all stages of
writing, he immediately realized that they should do the task together instead of dividing
the job. Thus, he repeated the thesis statement aloud as a sign for the group to move on.
Up to this stage, Sandi deployed the languaging strategy through private speech (Swain,
2000), which was important for the group work and afforded subsequent language
learning in a few ways. First, his repetitive private speech functioned as a reminder to
himself as well as his peers of the point of departure when planning their writing. In other
words, it helped them to keep on track. Next, Sandi’s private speech could operate as an
invitation to himself and other members to evaluate their previous statement, for example
113
in terms of choices of words and verb form as well as the content. This function seemed
to work successfully as evident in the next turns made by his peers, Eri and Fina. After
listening to Sandi’s repeated statements, Eri, the group scribe asked about the spelling of
the word “instant” (turn 4). She seemed to be familiar with the spelling but might not
have felt sure about it. Because it was group work, she might have wanted to avoid
making mistakes in the writing. Therefore, she asked questions to get confirmation from
her peers. The immediate response from Sandi (turn 5) solved the problems of spelling
and lexical choice.
Furthermore, looking at what Eri wrote, Fina asked critical question to Sandi as
an indication that she had a different opinion and demanded clarification. Fina’s question
was critical in that it was thought provoking, resulted from contemplation of her existing
knowledge, and evaluation of information, in this case Sandi’s statement. It was
important to improve the quality of their ideas in their writing. When she said, “Wait!
Are you sure to use all of them?” (turn 6), Fina implied that it might not be necessary to
include all ideas that Sandi stated into their thesis statement. Her interruption “Wait” and
the question that came after that also showed that Fina wanted others to spend more time
thinking about the thesis statement. Despite her disagreement, Fina did not provide any
argument to be further considered by her peers. Instead, the suggestion came from her
peer Eri, who also agreed that they might need to do some changes (turn 9). Responding
to his peers’ questions and suggestions, Sandi reconsidered his statement and proposed
another way of improving their thesis statement (turn 12). This time, he received no
objection from his peers, meaning that they had arrived at a shared understanding. This
114
evidence showed how languaging through private speech that developed into
collaborative dialogue worked strategically in stimulating critical thinking, which
resulted in a collaboratively produced revision. In the excerpt, if Sandi had not initiated
restating their thesis statement aloud or performing private speech, there would possibly
not be any responses from his peers as each of them might only have thought about the
work inside their mind. In addition to getting the peers’ response, by vocalizing the thesis
statement, Sandi also intended to direct his own cognition to focus more on the ideas and
generate further thoughts. This showed the self-regulatory function of private speech
(Swain, 2000). As Sandi’s private speech generated his peers’ responses and negotiation
of meaning, it is observable that private speech promoted collaborative dialogue in which
learners were engaged with one another in the co-construction of knowledge.
Furthermore, Fina’s question showed that she called attention to a gap in the ideas
Sandi stated, and this noticing might be seen as a kind of scaffolding for the group to
reconsider their decision and find a better solution. Although she did not immediately
offer a suggestion or argument to address what she thought of as problematic ideas, her
question was likely effective as it resulted in the reconsideration and revision of ideas.
While Fina’s question was directed toward the content or ideas, Eri’s question about the
language aspect, in this case word spelling and form, was also important for the group
learning. In this case, learning took place through the social act of languaging, in which
learners talk about language (Swain, 2006). Different parts of speech such as adjectives
and nouns commonly present problems to EFL learners; hence Eri’s question to confirm
her own knowledge about the word was reasonable. It also pushed Sandi to recall his
115
prior knowledge about the word before responding to his peer properly. Although it did
not generate further discussion, the group seemed to have learned about specific
vocabulary and the importance of using it correctly in their group writing and expectedly
later in their independent writing. Also, Fina and Eri’s attention to the gap in Sandi’s
verbalized language illustrates how output (later revised by Swain (2006) as languaging),
that is the “meaningful production of language” promotes noticing, an important aspect in
language learning (Swain, 2000, p. 99).
Finally, the above excerpt reveals that peers demonstrated various roles with
which they participated or contributed to the co-construction of knowledge. For example,
Sandi played a leadership role in that he mostly initiated and led the discussions. Eri
played a scribe role in that she was in charge of writing the results of the group
discussion. Fina was mostly quiet during the talk, but judging from her questions and
comments, which functioned as scaffolding for collaboratively produced revisions, she
demonstrated her role as a critical peer. It was also observable in the excerpt that these
roles were fluid and dynamic in that they shifted over time and across participants. For
instance, Eri’s role was not only a scribe but also a critical peer in that she asked an
important question regarding word form and suggested ideas for group work revision.
Likewise, adding to his role as a leader and reader, Sandi also played a role as tutor in
that he provided feedback and explanation for the feedback (Storch, 2013; Weissberg,
2006). The dynamic of these roles also indicates the ways in which participation roles
constituted and were constituted in the participants’ social interaction to produce a joint
text (Larson & Maier, 2000).
116
What seemed to underlie the specific participation roles identified above was that
each group member held the role of immediate audience to one another during the oral
interaction in collaborative writing activities. As learning is located in social interaction
and is “inherently dialogic” (Bakhtin, 1990 as cited in Hall, Vitanova, & Marchenkova,
2005, p. 3), one’s utterance cannot be understood as an individual act separated from its
context. In Bakhtin’s concept of “addressivity” (1986, p. 68), peers are the immediate
audience or addressee at whom utterances are appropriated or directed. When it relates to
L2 learning, as was the case with the current study, this immediate audience could raise
learners’ awareness to pay attention to their accurate use of the target language.
Specifically, before communicating their ideas orally in English as part of their
participation in group interaction, learners carefully considered their choices of words
and the ways they pronounced and used them in sentences. Based on my observations
during the collaborative writing activities, this sense of audience was frequently visible in
the students’ speech. For example, students often repeated and modified their words
immediately when they realized that they had pronounced them incorrectly. Also, they
corrected their own phrase as soon as they realized that they did not use it accurately
based on their existing linguistic knowledge. To illustrate, one of the students said, “I
think it’s work group. Group work, I mean” (Collaborative writing, 03/09/15). From this
example, we can see that this student repeated her words but immediately changed her
word order from “work group” to “group work” because she realized that she made a
mistake in the word form. Another time, one student said, “…and the good facilities
is…are…” (Collaborative writing, 03/09/15). In this case, the student changed her use of
117
auxiliary verb from “is” to “are” as she realized that “are” should follow the plural form
“facilities” that she mentioned in her sentence. This example of students’ self-correction
of their statements showed that students did not only practice how to speak English
fluently but also accurately. This was possible because peer interactions during the
collaborative writing activities provided them with a sense of audience by whom they
would feel monitored, and thus they tried to perform their best. To other peers, these
attempts might function as input that required response (by producing output), thus
creating opportunities for language learning (Krashen, 1981; Swain, 1993).
In addition to the above self-corrected acts in terms of word choices and form, the
sense of audience also encouraged participants to do their best to communicate their ideas
at the level of syntax and discourse. For instance, during a collaborative writing session, a
student stated, “Motivate them to learn… and then it can help the student independent
learning so they can find their own materials from the Internet. Then, how about the
negative sides of this online education?” (Collaborative writing, 03/11/15). These
statements could be analyzed at least in two ways. First, the student restated the group’s
ideas in order to gain her peers’ focus regarding their ongoing discussion. Second,
following her statement, she asked a question in a complete sentence asking for further
ideas to continue their group writing. Using a complete interrogative sentence was a way
to ensure that her peers understood the whole idea and responded to her accordingly.
While talking to peers might create the feeling of ease and comfort because it is less
formal than talking to a teacher, peers could also function as an imagined audience with
whom learners could practice conversing in a formal discourse. Briefly stated, these
118
findings provided evidence that collaborative writing allowed a sense of audience that
characterizes communication and which was helpful for English language learning.
Participants’ talk excerpted above was generated by the written task that they had
to do collaboratively. Regardless of their language accuracy, it can be seen that all
participants consistently used English to communicate their ideas and apparently
benefitted from this use of English language during the social interactions with their
peers. The analysis showed the ways in which knowledge was co-constructed through
various language activities (e.g., languaging, feedback and scaffolding) and participation
roles. The knowledge co-construction was also mediated by the various ways of using
language as semiotic symbol. With all these mediational means during the social
interaction, participants learned within the ZPD.
As described above, participants demonstrated that writing collaboratively
provided them with wide opportunities to express various language functions in English
such as suggesting ideas, asking questions, and clarifying ideas. In the above excerpt,
however, it is noticeable that the talk was dominated by one person (i.e., Sandi) as
evident in the frequency of turn taking, the length of turns produced, and the portion of
ideas included in the group work. Nevertheless, as discussed previously, each member of
the group played different roles, all of which were significant in the co-construction of
knowledge in this specific group or community. To provide more evidence of
participants’ engagement as part of their collaborative writing experiences, I present
another excerpt that shows more extended use of English and more affordances of
learning.
119
In the following excerpt, Raisya, Vera, Shanti, and Netty were composing one of
their body paragraphs for their argumentative essay. Out of the four topics provided by
the instructor and an option to create their own, they selected the topic “Teachers should
become their students’ Facebook friends” (Field notes 03/09/15).
Excerpt 2
15 Raisya: I think we could just link it to the… like we said before. In the virtual class, the teachers could manage the students
16 Vera: No no, don’t say it. In this paragraph, the new one we haven’t been friends with the teachers so we should persuade to accept the students’ friend request.
17 Shanti: So we can say the words by accepting the… 18 Vera: Again? By accepting? 19 Raisya: Oh yeah, by accepting 20 Vera: Just say by becoming their students’ friends on Facebook… in here we
only have two points, so we have to make it longer. 21 Shanti: By being friend with the teachers… 22 Raisya: No, by being friend with the students, it will be more easier for the
teachers to collect the assignment from the students. Is that OK? 23 Vera: Not OK. That’s the point of paragraph one, collecting the assignment. 24 Raisya: Oh yeah 25 Shanti: Actually this is the same point but we just make it from the students’ side 26 Vera: Yeah. Oh, by accepting the friend request from the students, it will help
the students submitting the assignment. 27 Raisya: Yeah yeah I will write. (writing) …it will help the students to… 28 Vera: Don’t [use] it will, it helps, no will. It helps the students to submit their…
(dictating) (Collaborative Writing, 03/11/15)
In the above excerpt, participants used various functions of language such as suggesting
opinions, expressing agreement and disagreement, confirming, clarifying, and reasoning
or justifying for the purpose of finding the best ways to write their essay. Unlike the talk
that took place in Sandi’s group (Excerpt 1), this group spent more time and was involved
in more deliberation about language (languaging) as there were more disagreements and
cognitive conflicts. The learning process in this group looked richer as it involved more
120
process of negotiation than in Excerpt 1 to solve the cognitive conflicts before they
arrived at an agreement. In turns 15 to 23, Raisya, Vera, and Shanti were engaged in
collaborative dialogue with the purpose of making their paragraphs coherent. Raisya first
suggested a new idea linking to their previous paragraph (turn 15). Vera disagreed with
Raisya’s suggestion and provided her justification (turn 16). She also expressed her
disagreement with Shanti’s word choices “by accepting” (turn 18) because she found
them repetitive and that the words would not match the point they would elaborate in
their next paragraph. Instead of asking her friends’ opinion, Vera’s next statement: “Just
say by becoming…” (turn 20), in which she changed “by accepting” into “by becoming”
affirmed her reservations about using the words suggested by her friends. She insisted on
using her word choice.
Another discrepancy occurred between Vera and Raisya regarding Raisya’s
suggested sentence (turns 22 and 23). Interestingly, agreeing upon Santi’s opinion, Vera
proposed her own constructed sentence in which she actually used the words with which
she disagreed before, that is “by accepting” (turn 26). When Raisya was writing while
vocalizing her private speech (turn 27), Vera noticed what she thought was incorrect
tense for the sentence and gave a correction. She suggested to Raisya not to use future
tense indicated by “will” and asked her to use the simple present form “helps” (turn 28).
To this point, there was no more response toward Vera’s final idea, which indicated that
the problem was solved. It was noticeable that the participants used repetition and
revision strategies as the result of peer scaffolding and feedback before they arrived at the
final version of their work. The repeated use of these strategies in most of their
121
collaborative writing activities throughout the semester allowed participants to use
language more frequently than when they were studying in the conventional sessions.
Similar to Excerpt 1, participants in this group learned through collaborative dialogue in
which they were “engaged in problem solving and knowledge building” (Swain, 2000, p.
102). This process, in the long run, might be helpful for their fluency and accuracy in
speaking English (Lynch & Maclean, 2001).
While the above findings showed participants’ meaning making of collaborative
experiences as chances to practice and develop their English language skills, the fact that
English is regarded as a foreign language makes the use of L1s, in this case Indonesian
and/or Malay, unavoidable. In this sense, L1s’ influences might be seen as the situating
context of participants’ experiences. Instead of associating the use of L1s with the
participants’ incompetence in English, analysis should be applied to the ways in which
L1s are used as part of social practices in specific collaborative context. What follows are
the findings on the use of L1s.
Use of L1s. One of the main concerns regarding group work in L2 or EFL classes
is the unavoidable use of L1 by the group members (Riley, 2009; Storch, 2013). When
used excessively, it could cause detrimental effects on students’ language learning (Guk
& Kellog, 2007; McDonough, 2004). Although my findings indicated that some students
used L1s for off-topic discussions when they had finished their collaborative writing
tasks earlier than the other groups (Field notes 03/11/2015, 05/27/15), in general, the use
of L1s was not abundant, and it was mostly helpful in enhancing their discussions. As
seen in the above findings, participants demonstrated frequent use of English during their
122
collaborative writing activities. All participants contended that they mostly used English
in the group and spoke Indonesian or Malay in only a few circumstances. For example,
Raisya admitted that she sometimes used Indonesian or Malay spontaneously, stating,
“It’s not like I’m using Indonesian but it’s like Malay English, like it’s okay lah. It just
came out unconsciously” (Raisya, Interview 04/08/15). Research in L2 revealed that the
use of a mother tongue or L1 is one of the universal influences that “mutually interact and
exert an impact on the internal processor system and the learner language it generates
whenever learners speak or sign, interact, write, negotiate and express themselves in the
L2” (Ortega, 2009a, p. 9, emphasis in the original). Therefore, Raisya and other
participants’ experiences regarding the use of L1s as discussed below is a common case
in L2 or EFL learning which is generally called “transfer or crosslinguistic influence”
(Ortega, 2009a, p. 9, emphasis in the original). In Raisya’s case, the particle “lah” is
commonly used in Indonesian or Malay oral discourses; its function is to emphasize the
word it follows.
Furthermore, Vera affirmed that she tried to use English consistently during the
collaborative writing activities, considering that it was one of the requirements in the
English major. She said, “[I prefer to use] English because we should speak in English,
right? (laughing).” She added, “Sometimes we used Indonesian when we can’t find the
words in English” (Vera, Interview 04/09/15). Vera’s statement revealed that she used
L1s only when she had to. Sandi and Beni also confirmed this. My observations also
showed that the participants, especially Raisya, Vera, and Sandi, consistently used
English in their collaborative writing groups throughout the semester. They used L1s
123
only when they struggled with finding specific words or trying to figure out certain
expressions in English. The following excerpt illustrates participants’ use of L1s
including code-switching during their collaborative writing activities:
Excerpt 3
29 Sandi: So, we have to… we have to have a an outline. So it’s impossible for us to have the whole outline so just focus to the plot outline, OK?
30 Ayu: Hmm..yeah 31 Sandi: Plot… (writing). Wait, it’s not a good sentence 32 Lisa: Why? 33 Sandi: Just a complete sentence. The plot, the plot of the Frozen movie 34 Lisa: This story? This movie? 35 Ayu: Frozen movie 36 Sandi: Frozen movie is what? 37 Ayu: How to say it, mengalir (flow)? (laughing) 38 Lisa: Scene 39 Sandi: What if we want to say about something, yeah, mengalir (flow)… it’s too
specific I think. We can talk about the story. What if the plot of the Frozen movie is easy to be understood? We can talk about the
40 Ayu: Ha’a (yes)…ya ya 41 Sandi: We can talk about the alur (story line), we can talk about the story 42 Ayu: OK, right 43 Lisa: Uh hmm 44 Sandi: …in the body, right?3 (Collaborative Writing, 05/27/15)
As seen in the above excerpt, Sandi worked with Ayu and Lisa on the outline of their
evaluation essay of the movie Frozen. The task was to evaluate a movie based on its three
elements, namely plot, characters, and moral values. The excerpt showed their talk when
3Words in italics are either in Indonesian or Malay. I provided the English translation in bold types in
parentheses. Since it is not always possible to provide one-to-one translation for each word into English, I
mostly translated them in units such as phrase or sentence in their relation to other utterances. This is
important to get the messages conveyed clearly without changing the original intention or meaning.
124
they specifically discussed the plot aspect of Frozen. It was noticeable that Sandi and his
peers mostly used English instead of Indonesian during the discussion. When suggesting
her opinion, however, Ayu asked her peers the English term for mengalir (the verb flow)
(turn 37) showing that she did not know the English term for the word. Lisa responded to
Ayu’s question by saying “scene” (turn 38). Sandi probably sensed that “scene” was not
the correct English term that Ayu meant to say. Nonetheless, since he also did not know
the exact term, he did a little code-switching, that is by using the same term, mengalir to
continue the talk (turn 39). In his next statement, Sandi also code-switched using the
word alur (turn 41) probably for the same reason; that is, he did not know its English
equivalent. My observation showed that Sandi resorted to asking the instructor to ask
how to express alur in English and develop this idea into their essay. He also rechecked
the term given by the instructor on his laptop to confirm his understanding of the term
(Field note 05/27/15). In this sense, the participants used L1s as a learning resource or
strategy because they did not possess sufficient knowledge of the words in the target
language (Carles, 2008; Ellis, 1985; Krashen, 1981). The last example of the influence of
L1s indicated in the above excerpt was Ayu’s use of a colloquial Malay term ha’a (turn
40) to mean to “yes’ in English. As in Raisya’s case, Ayu seemed to use this expression
spontaneously, possibly due to L1s transfer. These findings confirmed that the use of L1s
in collaborative writing activities mediated L2 learning in that they were used to maintain
the flow of the talk and the meaning making process.
While Excerpt 3 shows evidence of little use of L1s and the mediating function of
L1s in L2 learning, Beni’s collaborative writing experiences indicated a different case.
125
Although he mentioned that he always tried to speak English and used Indonesian only
when he forgot certain English words (Beni, Interview 04/28/15), my observation and
close look at his collaborative writing activities showed he actually used Indonesian quite
a lot. As an illustration, the following excerpt was taken from one of his collaborative
writing activities early in the semester.
Excerpt 4
45 Beni: Gimana? (So, what should we do?) Harus yang kita harus pilih? (Which one should we choose?) Kita harus (We must [choose]) should or should not?
46 Dini: Should. 47 Beni: Should kah? (Should we choose “should”?) Teachers should become their
students’ Facebook friends. 48 Dini: If we make friends, maybe we can sharing 49 Lia: Mixed? 50 Beni: Nda boleh sih ya. (We can’t do that, right?). coba nda pa pa ya.. (I wish it
was alright to choose both stances). 51 Lia : Tapi.. (But) this is just 52 Dini: Use English
53 Lia: Teachers.. not friends or another. Kalo misalnye bise untuk semuanye mungkin lebih mudah sih (if it is for both teacher and students, it’s easier to choose) should, tapi kalo buat teachers sih terserah..kalo menurut Lia lah, kalo teacher tu cuman buat ngasi kan tugas..cuman itu jak (But if it is only for the teacher, it’s up to you. I think, it is only useful for the teacher in terms submitting the assignments, just that).
54 Beni: Jadi, (So), should teacher become their students’ Facebook friends or the teacher should not become?
(Collaborative Writing 03/30/15)
As seen, Beni worked with two female peers in the group, and they were discussing the
stance that they would take on the topic. It is noticeable that Beni used quite a lot of
mixture of the Indonesian and Malay languages in interacting with his peers. It is hard to
conclude that he used L1s because he did not know how to express his opinion in
English, as they were basic expressions (e.g., asking “what should we do?” and saying
126
“so” or “we must choose”). Also, it is not possible to attribute his use of L1s to his peers’
influence as both of them seemed to respond him mostly in English. One of his peers,
Dini, even reminded the group to “use English” (turn 52). Lia’s long response mixing L1s
and English was probably in response to Beni’s use of L1s during the talk. In this case,
one possible reason for his more considerable use of L1s than other participants was
because that session was still his early collaborative writing experience. He had missed
many meetings prior to that collaborative writing session, so his unfamiliarity with the
goal of writing collaboratively in English and the teacher’s expectation might have
caused his considerable use of L1s. Additionally, Beni initially indicated his preference to
write individually over collaborative writing (Beni, Interview 04/28/15). As a result, he
might not have assumed that there would be any learning benefit from collaborative
writing and thus used L1s more than English in order to complete the task quickly.
From another perspective, the reason for the use of other short expressions in L1s,
such as particle kah (turn 47) and jadi (turn 54) might be due to the L1s transfers, and
thus their occurrences were likely spontaneous rather than intentional. Aligned with this,
researchers argue that when students are highly engaged in a task, they tend to use L1s
(Carless, 2008; de St Léger & Storch, 2009). Nevertheless, the above excerpt was only a
small part of Beni’s literacy practices in collaborative writing. Based on my observations
in his other collaborative writing groups and even in the interviews, he was relatively
fluent, though not always necessarily accurate, English. Also, in the above talk, Beni and
his peers’ use of L1s facilitated their discussion in that it kept the discussion moving
along. Hence, it could be seen as a mediational means for their learning.
127
Students’ use of English more than L1s was likely in accordance with the
instructor’s belief of the important use of the target language in class. However, the
instructor sometimes used Indonesian when he wanted to ensure that he conveyed his
message well to the students. He also used humor, most of which was in L1, to make the
class atmosphere less stressful. He emphasized that he mostly spoke English in the class
because “It is very important to create the model. It is a time to bring model to the real
setting of learning. If we speak English, the students will be motivated to speak English.”
(Mr. Irvan, Interview 03/18/15). In other words, the instructor paid much attention to the
use of English to provide a model and motivation for the students. In general, it can be
concluded that participants in this study were aware of the importance of using English
more than the L1s and that they considered collaborative writing activities as affording
them with such opportunities.
To summarize, this section presented findings and analysis on the learning
affordances of collaborative writing, especially related to opportunities for more frequent
and extended uses of the target language (English). In addition to the participants’ own
description, analyses of their talk provided evidence that participants consistently used
English during their collaborative writing activities. From the perspectives of SCT,
especially in L2 learning, the participants’ use of English (and sometimes L1s) in order to
negotiate meaning and solve problems through languaging, giving and receiving
feedback, scaffolding, and engaging in collaborative dialogue within a ZPD were
indications that learning took place. In addition, since learning means changing
participation in social interaction, participants’ engagement through dynamic
128
participation roles in various social functions including asking questions, suggesting
opinion, and expressing agreement and disagreement also proved that learning happened.
In the following section, I present findings related to affordances of collaborative writing
activities for participants’ learning about writing and how to write.
“Thinking Beyond Ourselves”
Due to the fact that participants’ learning was embedded in the one semester
Essay Writing class that also included individual and whole-class writing instruction,
participants in this study seemed to reflect upon their learning experiences based on what
writing together afforded them as opposed to writing solo. Comparing their collaborative
and individual writing experiences, participants contended that collaborative writing
provided a large pool of knowledge and resources. Having these extensive resources,
participants were able to explore and expand their ideas related to various aspects of
writing such as idea development and organization and linguistic elements including
vocabulary, grammar or structure, and mechanics of writing. These findings confirmed
previous L2 collaborative writing research (e.g., Fernandéz Dobao, 2012; Shehadeh,
2011; Tocalli-Beller, 2003) in that writing with peers in small groups provides more
sources of knowledge that could be referred to in accomplishing the group written task.
To illustrate, Raisya acknowledged that one of the obstacles for her and her
friends when writing individually in class was their little background knowledge. She
reported:
When you’re working individually, you just work on your own and, thanks for the
class that we have the atmosphere but we still lack of the materials and stuff and
129
we just depend on our background knowledge at that time. (Raisya, Interview
04/08/15)
Despite her preference for writing alone and while admitting that the quiet atmosphere
during the conventional class sessions helped her to concentrate and write, Raisya stated
that she struggled to write alone due to her limited preexisting knowledge. Thus, in terms
of what to write, she favored collaborative writing over individual writing as she could
get more sources of ideas from her peers. She further indicated that collaborative writing
allowed her and her peers to come up with stronger ideas as they were constructed from
more than one thought. She explained:
When I work on my own it means that it is just my opinion and then helped by the
expert’s opinion, but when it comes to collaborative one, we write down many
opinions based on my friends’ opinion and my opinion and also helped by the
experts’ opinion. So it becomes stronger than individual one. (Raisya, Interview
04/08/15)
Raisya viewed her collaborative writing experiences as meaningful because they allowed
for more exploration of ideas and opinions both from the peers and by the use of external
sources. Vera expressed her agreement with Raisya, affirming:
Of course, like, more than one head is better than only one. When I write alone
sometimes I like to fight with myself because I don’t know what to decide. When
we have others, we can just ask for their opinion and that would be easier. (Vera,
Interview 04/10/15)
130
Unlike her experience when writing alone, Vera perceived her collaborative writing peers
as helpful resources for ideas and decision making, thus easing her writing process. Vera
went on to say that writing together with her peers was easier as they provided support
“for example in the way we find the word, like the right word…the sentences, and then
the ideas” (Vera, Interview 07/05/15).
Beni and Sandi also echoed their friends’ perspectives in terms of idea exploration
and development. Comparing his individual and collaborative writing experiences, Sandi
stated:
I love writing individually because it’s faster. I just write what I want. I don’t
have to listen to what others say. But my writing will be just like me. If I write
collaboratively, it will take long time… yeah, to put ideas together. But we can
force ourselves…beyond ourselves. The process maybe great and then the result,
of course there’s something that we can learn from others. (Sandi, Interview
04/06/15)
As illustrated above, Sandi liked to write individually because it could save time
and give him more freedom to decide what to write. However, he admitted that writing
alone restrained him from exploring better ideas, as his writing was limited to what he
knew and what he intended to write. In this sense, Sandi’s answer seemed to be related to
the individual writing tasks that the students were often required to do in the conventional
sessions. In such occasions, time was highly limited and students had to finish their
writing under this time pressure. Consequently, they often did not have much choice in
researching topics other than relying on their existing knowledge. On the contrary, when
131
students were required to write in groups, they usually had more flexible time, and the
use of electronic devices to find sources was usually more encouraged than it was in the
conventional sessions. Sandi also contended that writing collaboratively with peers
pushed him to think beyond himself and it allowed him to learn both from the process
and the result.
Furthermore, Sandi added that his collaborative writing experiences allowed him
to learn different ways or styles of writing from his peers and that might enhance the
quality of his group writing as well as his own writing in the future. Sandi expressed this
experience as one of the “new things” he learned from collaborative writing, stating:
In the writing, I think I just wrote from the general one and then moved a little bit
to the specific one… and that’s it. But when I was in the collaborative work, when
I tried to do that thing, my friends said, ‘Wait, wait! Why don’t we just put it
here? Why didn’t we just…” That’s a new style maybe, something new for me. I
can use that style when I write alone next time. (Sandi, Interview 04/06/15)
In a way, Sandi’s above description showed that when writing with others, he could not
directly apply his own preferred way of writing. Instead, he had to consider his peers’
suggested style, too. However, being positive and open-minded, Sandi viewed the
differences in writing style as something positive, and he thought of adopting them into
his own writing in the future. His statement also provided evidence that writing
collaboratively allowed learners to share their expertise and to negotiate what was best
for the group.
132
Likewise, Beni, who also disliked collaborative writing in the earlier semester,
changed his perceptions about it, especially regarding exchanges of ideas with peers.
While he previously had a negative view about “debate in the group” (Beni, Interview
04/28/15) as part of negotiating different ideas, he changed his point of view later in the
semester, saying: “I like debate. We can find many unpredictable ideas and then we can
develop the unpredictable ideas in our essay” (Beni, Interview 06/15/15). Like others,
Beni also confirmed the benefit of collaborative writing experiences with particular
reference to idea exploration and development.
Furthermore, making a specific connection to the quality of writing, Beni
compared the quality of his individual and collaborative writing products and found the
latter case to be better because the students had time to check their writing before
handing it in to the instructor. He stated, “I think it’s good enough in terms of vocabulary,
ideas, grammar, and content. We reviewed it before we submitted it to the lecturer. So I
think we have already done the maximum” (Beni, Interview 04/28/15). The rest of the
participants also felt that the quality of their group writing was better than their own
writing because they had more people to check and find out what needed to revise. In
relation to the discourse of good quality writing, my observations, whether in the
conventional or collaborative writing sessions, showed that the instructor continuously
reminded students about the importance of “structure, grammar, and vocabulary to be
able to write a good essay” (e.g., Field notes 02/11/15). In another occasion, when the
instructor required students to do peer review on their paragraph, he specifically
instructed them to focus on aspects such as “Structure, unity, coherence, topic sentence,
133
quotation, mechanics of writing, and concluding or linking statement” (Field notes
03/23/15). Hence, it is reasonable that participants’ attempts to pay serious attention to
the quality of their writing were likely due to the need to fulfill the instructor’s
requirement and assessment criteria. This is also evidence that learners’ ways of writing
were shaped by the ways in which they were taught about writing and how to write. In
this case, the teaching and learning of writing are focused on “the surface manifestations
of language, that is, to how a proper written voice should look and sound” (Collins, 1996
as cited in Dyson, 2006, p. 9).
Adding to the findings discussed previously that peers played the role of audience
or addressees for participants’ utterances, their high consideration of producing good
quality texts also portrayed the socially situated nature of writing, particularly in meeting
the needs of the audience (Dyson, 2006; Lillis, 2013). In this case, the audience included
the instructor and the imagined readers of their writing. While individual writing may
also include learners’ awareness of audience, writing collaboratively offers additional
benefit in that peers could function as an immediate audience before the instructor, as
Vera reported:
It’s very good actually because when we want to write, we have to think first
what we want to write. And then when I am thinking, because I have friends
there, I can just say it first, and then the other friends may give their comments or
agree then we can start to write. If not, we just write or think again and if it’s not
good enough so we have to erase it and then write it again. (Vera, Interview
04/09/15)
134
Projecting a future audience, Vera highlighted that peers in the collaborative
writing group were valuable resources to receive immediate feedback for the
improvement of their collective work. She further showed that feedback and multiple
revisions were part of collaborative writing too. Revising the group text along with the
composing process showed the non-linear, transactive, and recursive nature of (Hayes,
2000; Kucer, 2009) all of which aimed at fulfilling the goals of their writing task and
audience’s expectation. As Vera suggested, peers in collaborative writing raised the
students’ awareness of audience and how to meet that audience’s expectations.
In contrast, in a classroom context in which students write individually in their
seat, opportunities for feedback and revision may be limited as learners rely merely on
their own knowledge. Although they can also resort to teacher feedback, not many
students are comfortable to do so, as evident in my research. Based on my observations in
the conventional sessions, the instructor mainly focused on delivering the materials and
assigning students with individual writing tasks in class. Once in a while, the students
were required to do peer review activities mostly with the peer sitting next to them (e.g.,
Field notes 03/23/15). They were also given opportunities to ask questions, but generally
they did not have as many interactions with their peers as they did in collaborative
writing activities. When they were not working collaboratively, the students sat quietly in
rows and paid attention to the instructor’s explanation. Only one or two students−and
these were usually the same students−raised their hands to ask questions or asked for
feedback on their work while the remainder of the class sat quietly (e.g., Field notes
02/18/15). While it could be misleading to say that learning does not take place in such a
135
situation, a mere emphasis on the discourse of writing as a solitary act may impede
learning as learners’ opportunities for interpersonal development was not encouraged. In
other words, learners, especially EFL learners, who are continuously required to write on
their own in class may not be able to learn in the same way as when they write
collaboratively. By all indications, participants in this study revealed that by writing
collaboratively with peers, they had the opportunities to explore ideas to an extent that
they could not perform had they been writing on their own.
In support of these findings from the participants’ descriptions, analyses of their
oral interactions during the collaborative writing activities revealed more vivid pictures
of their uses of various sources of knowledge and the ways these sources were used to
mediate their learning. These mediating means include the use of individuals’ prior
knowledge, members’ shared experiences, and external sources.
Using individuals’ prior knowledge. The most immediate and readily available
resources learners can access and use when writing collaboratively is their own prior
knowledge that they bring to the group. As they described it, participants benefitted from
their collaborative writing experiences in that they could pool more knowledge resources
for their group writing. To illustrate, the following excerpt shows how participants were
involved in the process of using their own and one another’s resources in order to decide
a topic for their group essay. In this excerpt, Raisya and Vera worked together with
another female peer, Shanti. The task was to write a four to five paragraph comparison
essay by choosing one of the following topics provided by the instructor: 1),Travelling by
sea vs. by air transportation, 2) Studying abroad vs. studying in the home country, 3)
136
Learning English in early years vs. learning English in adult (later) years, 4) Reading on
screen vs. reading printed sources, 5) Getting a college education vs. starting a career
early, or 6) Your own topic (Field notes, 04/01/15). Specifically, the excerpt below was
the early section of this group’s collaborative writing activities, in which members were
exploring choices of topics for their essay. When they did not reach agreement on the
first topic selection, they continued exploring other topics in order to move on with the
work.
Excerpt 5
55 Raisya: Or we could choose number five, like having college education and starting career.
56 Vera: Shanti, what do you think? 57 Raisya: When they graduated from senior high school, they started career. 58 Vera: But I think we should start our career while having college 59 Shanti: Yeah. 60 Vera: So I think number five is difficult. What about learning English? Early
years and then adult? So one of the considerations is the age. 61 Raisya: And then the effectiveness. If you start from earlier it will be more easier
for you to understand rather than start later because when you are too old for something, it’s hard for you to…
62 Shanti: difficult to memorize 63 Vera: I think number two is easier! Studying abroad and in the country is like
… 64 Raisya: Really different 65 Vera: Yeah. The place, the facility, 66 Raisya: The money 67 Shanti: The quality 68 Vera: Yeah, the quality, the money, what do you think? 69 Shanti: Yeah, number two has many points. 70 Vera: We can see it clearly. 71 Raisya: OK, let’s choose number two (Collaborative Writing, 04/01/15)
As they were to write a comparison essay collaboratively, participants were aware
that they firstly had to agree on a topic. In selecting the topic, they had to think about
137
supporting points that would enable them to develop their essay. As they described it in
the interviews, in collaborative writing participants had the opportunities to explore ideas
together by engaging their own pre-existing knowledge and also considering others’. In
the above excerpt, Raisya proposed another topic on the list followed by her argument
(turns 55, 57). Before responding to Raisya’s argument with a disagreement (turn 58),
Vera invited Shanti to share her opinion (turn 56) about Raisya’s ideas either because she
wanted to get more support for her disagreement or because she might have noticed
Shanti’s lack of engagement in the discussion. Then, Vera suggested choosing another
topic, and like Raisya, she provided possible points to use for their essay regarding the
topic (turn 60). Raisya and Shanti agreed with Vera’s proposed ideas to write about
another topic, that is “learning English in the early or later years.” Developing Vera’s
supporting idea about age, Raisya added “effectiveness” as another reason to develop
their topic, and Shanti completed Raisya’s idea by saying “difficult to memorize” (turn
62). However, despite Raisya and Shanti’s agreement and additional supporting ideas,
Vera changed her mind and recommended another topic that she thought was the easiest,
studying abroad and in the country (turn 63). Like before, the other peers agreed and took
turns giving more opinions to develop the topic. This time, all members finally shared
one voice to write a comparison essay on “Studying abroad vs. studying in the country.”
In the above oral interaction conducted primarily in English, participants explored
and negotiated ideas prior to composing their essay. Unlike solitary writing, in which
learners rely mainly on their own background knowledge, collaborative writing affords
learners larger knowledge resources from which they can pool, that is, their peers (Storch,
138
2013). Although learners also use their own background knowledge when they write
individually, the fact that they have others as additional sources of knowledge makes
collaborative writing potentially more beneficial to their learning than solitary writing.
Moreover, in relation to the use of individuals’ prior knowledge to address
linguistic aspects such as vocabulary and mechanics of writing, the following excerpt
from one of the participants’ collaborative writing activities could serve as a helpful
illustration.
Excerpt 6
72 Sandi: OK. The online education provides medias … 73 Fina: Media. Just media 74 Sandi: Just media or a media? 75 Fina: No! It’s already plural. 76 Sandi: …provides media for students…
(Collaborative Writing, 03/11/15)
In the excerpt, Sandi and Fina were involved in collaborative dialogue about the
term “media” that they would use in their writing. The dialogue was generated from
Sandi’s private speech while he was writing a sentence for the group. From his vocalized
speech, Fina noticed Sandi’s inaccurate use of the word “Media” (turn 72). She
immediately suggested a correction for the word “medias” to just “media” (turn 73).
Sandi, who was still unsure about the correct form of the word, asked further clarifying
questions by adding “a” before “media” (turn 74). Sandi’s question pushed Fina to
reexamine her knowledge about the word more carefully. After she felt assured, Fina
affirmed her answer by explaining that “a” was not needed because “media” was a plural
form (turn 75). Sandi accepted Fina’s correction by writing down the word “media”
139
instead of “medias” (turn 76). In such collaborative dialog about language (languaging),
participants learned from peer feedback (turn 73) and scaffolding (turn 74). Had Sandi
written alone, he would not have been able to identify his incorrect use of the word
“media” and would possibly continue making similar mistakes in the future. The excerpt
also displayed evidence of participants learning with and from each other through
exchanges of ideas and expertise in a group ZPD.
While the above excerpt shows how participants explored ideas by taking into
account their individual preexisting knowledge, some critical incidents in their
collaborative writing activities showed participants’ uses of common or shared prior
experiences to build upon their arguments, as presented next.
Employing members’ shared experiences. In their effort to find the best ideas
that could fit into their writing, participants also employed the group’s common
experiences and knowledge. One of these shared experiences related to the other course
they took with another lecturer, as illustrated in the following excerpt:
Excerpt 7
77 Shanti: Sharing maybe, the relation between one student and other student? How to say it?
78 Raisya: Get close… uh… decreasing… what is it? What did Mr. Surya say? 79 Shanti: Affectiveness, right? 80 Netty: Decrease? 81 Shanti: Increasing or decreasing? 82 Vera: Decrease… remember? Affective filter? 83 Raisya: Yeah! That! Affective filter.
(Collaborative Writing, 03/09/15)
In the above excerpt, Shanti, Raisya, Netty, and Vera were exploring possible supporting
ideas for their topic on the need for teachers to become their students’ friends on
140
Facebook. Shanti suggested the group should include the idea of sharing a relationship as
one of the points to use to develop their essay topic. When she suggested the idea, she
seemed to have difficulty in articulating what she meant by ‘‘the relation between one
student and other student” (turn 77); that is why she asked her peers about the correct
expression. Raisya, who seemed to understand what Shanti intended to say but was not
sure herself about the correct terms tried to elicit her peers’ memory about a related
course they took with another lecturer. Attempting to make herself clear with the
question, Raisya mentioned the word “decreasing” (turn 78) to refer to the term she was
trying to remember. Recalling her memory of the course based on Raisya’s scaffolding,
that is the mention of the word “decrease,” which was used in the related course, Shanti
finally used the word “affectiveness” (turn 79). Her response nearly answered Raisya’s
question despite its incorrect form. Shanti seemed to be influenced by the word
“effectiveness,” which perhaps sounded similar to her. Netty, who might also have
remembered the term, asked a clarifying question regarding the use of the word
“decrease” (turn 80). Adding clarification to Netty’s question, Shanti explicitly asked
whether the group should choose the word “increasing” or “decreasing” (turn 81). In
response to all her friends’ confusion, Vera joined the conversation by affirming the use
of “decrease” instead of “increase” and told others the correct terms they had been
discussing, namely “affective filter” (turn 82). Raisya spontaneously agreed with Vera’s
opinion, exclaiming “Yeah! That! Affective filter” (turn 83). This talk tells us that
writing collaboratively affords learners more alternatives from which to draw, in this
case, learners’ shared prior experiences. Participants used knowledge that they learned
141
together in a course as a strategy to solve their problem, that is, to find supporting ideas
for their essay topic. Referring to a specific term they learned in a course taught by a
different lecturer, Raisya knew that her peers would understand what she meant because
they all took the course together. In a way, the use of shared experience or knowledge
worked well in stimulating participants’ critical thinking in that they attempted to find out
what they knew and evaluate how this experience could be used to solve their problem.
Since it was a shared experience rather than belonging to one person, they did not take
much time to arrive at the term “affective filter.” This enabled them to move further in
their discussion and composing process.
Serving a similar purpose as the above illustration, the following excerpt
exemplifies more complex use of participants’ common background knowledge. As
Raisya, Vera, Shanti, and Netty moved further with their discussion about teachers,
students, and Facebook, they explored a virtual class as one of the beneficial features
Facebook offers. Together, they stretched their interlanguage (Swain, 2000) as well as
background knowledge to come to a strong justification for their idea about a virtual
class.
Excerpt 8
84 Raisya: How about Mr. Irvan’s group on Facebook? He shared so many knowledge of writing
85 Shanti: It can be one of the examples of virtual class but not… 86 Vera: Virtual class provides like the real class but by using the media. So we
have like question session, and then teaching learning session, not only… 87 Shanti: What’s the activity that we have done in our Techniques in TEFL class?
Is that virtual class too? 88 Vera: Yeah, because students give comments and then teachers give another
feedback. (Collaborative Writing, 03/11/15)
142
In connection to Facebook and virtual class, Raisya was the first to suggest that
her peers use their experiences in using Facebook in their Essay Writing class (turn 84).
My observation indicated that one of the weekly writing assignments for the students in
this class was to write a paragraph about what they had learned after each class and send
it to the inbox message of a Facebook group created and moderated by the instructor. The
instructor would then check and select students’ writing to be posted on the Facebook
group wall (Field notes 02/11/15). Reflecting upon such functions related to class
assignments and in addition to the instructor’s knowledge sharing about writing on that
particular Facebook page, Raisya proposed to use this experience as an example of why
teachers should make friends with their students on Facebook. Shanti responded that it
could be one of the possible examples; however, her next negative incomplete sentence,
“…but not” (turn 85) implied that they should think of another idea. She probably
thought that such uses of Facebook did not fit into the definition of virtual class. To
clarify and to generate further ideas from her peers, Vera explained the characteristics of
a virtual class by comparing it with the face-to-face mode of learning (turn 86). Based on
Vera’s explanation, Shanti asked if their experiences in another course, namely
Techniques in TEFL, could be considered a virtual class. Vera responded to Shanti
positively and justified her agreement by saying that it could be an example of a virtual
class as students posted their comments, and the teacher provided her feedback (turn 88).
Noticeable in the brief oral interaction above is that learners contributed ideas by
making connections with other courses. Since all of them took the courses together,
participants were able to relate to the course each was referring to without needing more
143
explanations or reminders about the details of the course content. Observable especially
in Excerpt 8 the participants’ uses of “fragments” which showed their “shared
knowledge” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 9). This way, deploying shared experience
benefitted participants in terms of time (everyone knew what they were talking about)
and ideas. Had they been writing alone, participants would not be likely to explore all
these possibilities. This is especially the case when they had to write individually within
restricted time during the conventional instruction. Next in the chapter, I address my
finding about the use of external sources in knowledge co-construction.
Utilizing external sources. Possibly due to the task instructions to include
experts’ opinions to support their arguments (Field notes 03/09/15) and the willingness to
co-construct good quality writing for their group, participants’ exploration and expansion
of ideas also included the use of external sources such as the Internet and some helpful
features in their electronic devices. While learners who write individually may also
employ these strategies, peers provide more valuable assistance in terms of finding,
evaluating, and using these external sources. In other words, learners who write
collaboratively have larger sources of knowledge than their individual counterparts in
incorporating external sources in the process of knowledge co-construction. In the
following excerpt, participants were arguing about the necessity, of including an expert’s
opinion in their writing.
Excerpt 9
89 Raisya: Find the expert 90 Vera: I think no expert in paragraph two. We don’t have expert’s opinion. 91 Raisya: No… no problem 92 Shanti: We don’t need to put expert’s voices in every paragraph.
144
93 Vera: But we want it better. 94 Raisya: Yeah, but don’t need. For this third paragraph it’s better if we use it
because it’s about communication, right? About relationship and social life, so there will be so many experts saying about this.
95 Vera: This one! 2011. 96 Shanti: Save it! Save it! 97 Raisya: Screen shoot it! What’s the point?
(Collaborative Writing, 03/11/15)
As seen, Raisya requested that her peers find a reference to support the third
paragraph of their essay. Checking back to their previous paragraph, Vera reminded the
others that they had not included any references to support their arguments. Raisya and
Shanti shared their agreement that it was not necessary to include an expert’s opinion in
every paragraph of their essay. Vera disagreed with her peers’ point of view, arguing that
expert opinion was important for the quality of their writing. Raisya agreed with Vera’s
point regarding the importance of finding valid support, but she insisted that they should
not include references for the second paragraph. However, she recommended having one
for their third paragraph, justifying that there would be many experts they could refer to
for issues related to “relationship and social life” (turn 94). Vera followed her peers’
decision and soon exclaimed that she found a source from the Internet that they could use
to support their argument, mentioning the year it was published. Perhaps due to the
common problems regarding the speed of the Internet connection in the class, Raisya and
Shanti responded excitedly and asked Vera to immediately save or secure the source.
After that, Raisya directed her peers’ focus to the content addressed in the source (turn
97). Noticeable in this finding is learners’ use of prior knowledge and the possible co-
construction of new knowledge regarding what constitutes useful external sources and
145
when and how to use them in their writing. This evidence of the use of external sources
such as scholarly articles or other types of texts also indicated the intertextual aspect of a
group-created text in that participants produced their text or writing by using elements
from other related texts (Fairclough, 1999; Widdowson, 2004). Unlike individual writing
in which the writer only counts on his or her own capability to find the supporting
sources, peers in the groups provide more sources for intertextual reference.
In this section on learning affordances related to writing, participants’ learning
through collaborative writing experiences was constitutive of various social activities
mediated by the use of language to interact with one another. Through speaking and
writing, participants’ learning about writing and how to write involved drawing on or re-
contextualization of their “experiential, linguistic, and textual resources that they deemed
relevant” (Dyson, 2006, p. 13) to meet the demands of EFL academic writing discourse
of which they are part. Such findings provided another piece of evidence that learning is
socially situated, inseparable of its social, cultural, and historical contexts.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented findings related to participants’ perspectives on the
language learning affordances of collaborative writing and the ways in which they
engaged in the leaning process. First, the findings revealed that collaborative writing
afforded learners opportunities to practice and improve their oral English skills.
Specifically, participants had the opportunity for extended use of English and language
learning through languaging, participating in multiple roles, creation of the ZPD, and
effective use of L1s. Second, the findings demonstrated the ways in which writing
146
collaboratively provided learners with large resources of knowledge that might enhance
their learning and writing experiences. In particular, participants explored and developed
ideas together for their writing through the use of their prior knowledge, shared
experiences, and external sources. Although participants viewed collaborative writing as
meaningful for their language learning in terms of two separate skills--speaking and
writing--the findings demonstrated that these two skills were interrelated and inseparable.
Both were used as mediational means in their collaborative participation that constituted
and were constitutive of their learning (Larson, 2002). In the next chapter, I present
findings related to issues and the learning of social values and skills that my participants
identified as parts of their collaborative writing experiences.
147
Chapter 6: Struggling and Learning Social Values
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
(Carl Jung)
In the previous chapter, I presented findings regarding language learning
affordances of collaborative writing. Specifically, I highlighted participants’ meaning
making of their collaborative writing experiences as providing them with opportunities
for target language learning. Evident in the findings discussed previously is that
collaborative writing allowed participants opportunities to practice their English through
languaging (i.e., private speech and collaborative dialogue) and the creation of the ZPD
through feedback and scaffolding. In addition, I presented the ways in which participants’
learning was constituted by their participation in social interaction and various uses of
mediational means. Through a view of learning as socially embedded activity,
participants’ collaborative writing experiences involved negotiations of roles through
participation in various language activities in order to attain the group goal, co-
constructing a written text. Unlike conventional instruction, in which the teacher holds
the most of the control of classroom interaction, peer interaction is more dynamic
(Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). Learning through social interaction in collaborative
writing requires learners to take their own responsibility in managing the group talk. In
doing that, they have to be able to cope with silences, to negotiate ideas, to take turns to
talk, and to assess the relevance of their use of artifacts or resources to enhance their
learning. Due to widely different opinions expressed during the interaction and
differences in members’ background knowledge, personal characteristics, and learning
148
preferences, the process of knowledge co-construction in collaborative writing activities
might be complex and challenging to learners.
As participation in social interactions constituted learning for these students
(Larson & Maier, 2000; Larson, 2002; Storch, 2004), it is important to highlight not only
the dynamic nature of these interactions but also what participants identified as
difficulties in writing collaboratively. Equally important is their identification of learning
that resulted from experiencing such a difficult time, namely social values and skills.
These themes are the focus of this chapter.
Having Hard Times
Previous research in L2 collaborative writing has identified various factors
affecting the patterns of interaction in collaborative writing, including, among other
things, L2 proficiency, goals or motives, types of tasks and group composition
(Fernández Dobao, 2012; Nasaji & Tian, 2010; Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Swain &
Lapkin, 1998). In this study, my participants identified that the type of peers they worked
with was the most important factor affecting their collaborative interaction. Specifically,
what appeared to be the most difficult situation according to them was when the group’s
members did not share equal responsibility for the group work; the reasons for this varied
around individuals’ attitudes and expectations toward group work.
Vera, Sandi, and Raisya shared the idea that the most important factor for
successful collaborative writing activities was the type of peers with whom they worked.
Contending that the type of peers mattered, Raisya stated that she would work with
friends “who can collaborate well, who like to depend on themselves not to the other
149
people in the group and friendly. Those who have the willingness to work together”
(Raisya, Interview 07/05/15). Raisya went on to say, “Because no matter hard the task is,
if all the members of the group work together, it will be so easy” (Raisya, Interview
07/05/15). Raisya’s statements revealed her positive attitude toward group work and her
strong agency to collaborate with others. She emphasized the need for peers who were
independent and willing to share the group’s responsibility. Reflecting on her experiences
in writing collaboratively with “less-talkative” peers, Raisya reported:
I feel that the collaborative writing is a bit harder than before because we changed
the group frequently and then once I have this new group which includes my
friends that really passive, it is so hard for me to ask them to do… give their
opinions and ask them to give suggestions about what I just give to them. It is
hard because they just accepted. I mean when I said: “Why don’t we do this this
this?” and then they just keep silent. No response whether it is good or bad. They
just keep silent. So when I asked again, they just said: “Okay, whatever. Do it”.
That’s why when that time the instructor asked us about how our group works, I
was saying that: “Don’t be passive!” That’s for my friends. (Raisya, Interview
07/05/15)
Raisya clearly described her struggles in changing groups quite often and she became
frustrated, especially when she worked with “really passive” peers. Working with peers
who were mostly hesitant to talk, Raisya had to make a strong effort to encourage her
peers’ engagement. Consequently, as she described it and as was evident in many of the
collaborative writing activities in which she was involved, Raisya seemed to dominate
150
the groups in that she led the group, asked questions, suggested ideas, and made decisions
about what was to be included in the group’s writing (Field notes 05/27/15; Field notes
06/10/15). When asked about her dominating role, Raisya explained:
We regret that this kind of people don’t want to be pushed and when I asked them
to do something, they keep silent and then when I push them they get more silent
than before. I think in the second group I feel a bit like, “Oh my god, I am so
dominating,” and then I said to myself that I pushed them too hard or something
like that. But when I see it again, I think that it is right to do because if I didn’t do
that, we won’t move on. (Raisya, Interview 07/05/15)
In her description, Raisya admitted that she sometimes dominated her groups and felt
uncomfortable to have pushed her friends too much to get them to participate. However,
she justified that her domineering behavior was needed at particular times to enable the
group to work. In other words, Raisya’s domination of the group was a result of her
interactions and relationships formed with her peers.
Likewise, Sandi also expressed having a hard time working with friends who
“kept silent” during the collaborative writing activities. When asked to explain what type
of peers he liked to work with and why it was important, he stated:
I love the active one. He gave something like an idea: “What about this? What
about that one?” And then something that I don’t like is when I met someone that
didn’t give anything, just keeps silent, that’s it. I tried to talk with him: “Work
together”, and then it’s the same again. I think the teammate factor affects more
than other things because let’s say that I don’t know certain kind of task and then
151
my friends know it, and they will tell me: “You should be like this,” “You should
be like this, and I said, “Yeah, I got it,” and then I will like that kind of task.
(Sandi, Interview 07/05/15)
Sandi’s statements showed that he liked to work with peers who wanted to share the
group’s responsibility especially by giving ideas rather than staying quiet. He felt
frustrated when his peers kept quiet especially after he attempted to encourage them to
speak. Sandi contended that being a “teammate” was the most important factor for a
group to work because good teammates or peers allowed for exchanges of expertise. He
added that such peers could motivate others to get interested in the discussion especially
when they worked on difficult tasks. Like Raisya, when he worked with passive friends
or those who did not focus on the group task, Sandi felt the need to take control of the
group. For example, he would continuously ask for his peers’ opinion or remind them to
go back to the main task whenever he found that they “laughed or went off topic” (Sandi,
Interview 07/05/15). Although he was sometimes worried that his peers would feel
uncomfortable because of his dominant role, he said, “I think it’s sometimes good
especially when I am surrounded by others who are not active” (Sandi, Interview
07/05/15). In other words, Sandi’s dominance in the group was an effort to make the
group functional.
In addition to his struggles working with passive peers, Sandi also described his
preference to work with someone who was open-minded and collaborative. Recalling his
experience working with a friend who preferred to work individually, Sandi reported:
152
Once, my friend tried to write by herself, and then I said, “What are you doing?”
She said, “I just put my idea here” and then I said, “No. We have to work
together. Just tell us your idea and we are going to construct it together.” “No!
This is the way I write. Let me do what I want.” And then, yeah…I just let her do
what she wants, then after that we put her ideas but we didn’t take all of her ideas.
We take the main point but we construct it again. But she was okay at that time.
(Sandi, Interview 04/06/15)
In the above description, Sandi and one of his peers appeared to have a little
disagreement about what the group should write and how they should approach the group
task. His peer preferred to write down her ideas directly on the paper while Sandi wanted
them to discuss it together in the first place, as they were supposed to write
collaboratively. Possibly because he wanted to avoid unnecessary conflict, Sandi did not
stop her from doing what she wanted. He mentioned that they included her idea in the
group work through the discussion and co-construction process. Though there was a little
tension between Sandi and one of his peers, it did not last long as all members finally
agreed to work together for their writing. Researchers argue that conflicts are
unavoidable in pair or group work, including in collaborative writing (Pathinathan &
Yong, 2012; Tocalli-Beller, 2003; Yong, 2011). In Sandi’s case, he and his peer seemed
to have cognitive conflict as it related to negotiation of ideas and how to approach the
group task. When they were able to solve the conflict, their collaboration continued
successfully (Tocalli-Beller, 2003).
153
Furthermore, feelings of frustration due to working with less talkative peers were
also part of Vera’s collaborative writing experiences. Vera also agreed with Sandi and
Raisya in that the types of peers they worked with in the group affected the flow of the
collaborative writing activities. Vera stated:
I think it’s about the people, the group. So when I met those people who kind of
hard to talk or maybe hard for them to talk, I felt like, “Oh, it’s hard… how to do
this?” It was like doing it myself. It’s not like collaborative writing anymore.
When we have the group of people who are talkers and have great idea… it’s
better when we have arguments over our ideas than we have to keep silent and
then, “Okay, just use my idea.” It’s not good. (Vera, Interview 07/05/15)
Vera’s statements revealed her frustration with being in a group with peers who were
reluctant to talk or share ideas. She indicated that she was more appreciative of and found
it better to have debates or arguments over different ideas than to let her own ideas flow
in the group without others’ response. While Raisya and Sandi used dominance and
control as strategies to overcome silence in the group, Vera chose to be quiet when she
failed to get her peers’ active participation. After attempting to ask her peers “to speak
and talk again” and when they “just agreed” with her ideas without giving further
opinion, Vera said, “It’s getting annoying so I just kept quiet” (Vera, Interview 07/05/15).
Vera’s description of her unpleasant experience seemed to relate to one particular group
she worked with. Based on my observations, Vera was among the participants who were
active and highly motivated in collaborative writing activities almost all through the
semester. However, there was one occasion when she worked with two other peers, Arya
154
(male) and Dini (female), that she looked reluctant and lacked enthusiasm (Field notes
04/27/15). Interestingly, my observation indicated that Arya was generally active and
even dominating when he was collaborating with other peers. Vera seemed to notice this,
and thus she blamed herself for her peers’ silence. She described further:
It’s hard. It’s back to the people again. It’s just, I felt like they‘re not talking to
me. It’s because of me, maybe, because when they are with other people maybe
they can talk. But why when we’re in that group, they just seemed silent, hard to
talk. It changed my mood. I want them to share their ideas, too. I mean it’s just
fun to have different idea and we just argue it to get the best one. But at least give
something, say something. I don’t know what’s wrong. If they don’t want to talk
to me, so just let it go. (Vera, Interview 07/05/15).
Vera’s case indicated that peers’ behavior in a group may influence learners’ affect or
emotion, which could inhibit participation (Arnold & Brown, 1999; Swain, Kinnear, &
Steinman, 2015). There were times in which Vera used her agency to encourage her peers
to participate actively, and there were also occasions when she felt annoyed and lost her
interest to collaborate in the group. From her reflection, she expected her peers to
contribute ideas or at least to “say something” instead of keeping silent. It was evident
that Vera’s source of frustration was her unfulfilled expectation in the group and its
impact on her emotion. Unlike Sandi’s experience with cognitive conflict, Vera’s case
pointed to affective conflict in that she seemed to have personal judgment about other
members (Pathinathan & Yong, 2012).
155
Furthermore, my analyses of the two audio recordings of Vera’s collaborative
writing activities with the group she referred to in the above accounts showed Vera’s
major role in the group work completion (Field notes 04/27/15; Field notes 05/06/15).
Vera was in a group with Arya and Dini for two meetings, and the task was to write an
introduction and the first body paragraphs of an argumentative essay based on the topic
“There should/should not be an English speaking zone in campus” (Field notes 04/27/15).
The group agreed to write on the need for an English speaking zone on campus. Since
most of the groups could not finish the assigned task in one meeting, the instructor
decided to have another collaborative writing session in the next meeting of the class
schedule. Playing a scribe role, Vera typed their group’s ideas on the laptop while she
continuously asked her peers’ opinion. Although there were turn takings that indicated
each member’s talk during the activities, silence filled most of the group work period.
Arya gave more responses than Dini although the responses were more of confirmation
questions than suggesting new ideas which Vera had expected. Dini was more of a
listener and joined the conversation mostly by simply rereading what had been written.
Unlike the other groups in which Vera and her peers worked more enthusiastically and
happily, this group seemed to be more serious and quiet. It is reasonable that in such
situations, Vera reflected on having a hard time in collaborative writing and especially
when they could not reach group cohesion even after working together in two meetings.
Likewise, Beni echoed his friends’ struggles and frustration in collaborative
writing activities. He also indicated that the type of peers with whom he worked in
collaborative writing activities affected his experiences the most. However, while his
156
friends claimed that they had a difficult time when they worked with passive or less
talkative peers, Beni indicated the contradictory point of view. Specifically, he found
collaborative writing activities difficult when he worked with peers who dominated the
group and ignored his ideas or opinion. Describing his experience when writing
collaboratively with three female peers, Beni reported:
In the last meeting, because Dahlia and Raisya just worked together, both of them.
Sometimes they need our opinion but it’s related to their ideas again. I tried to
defend my opinion, they wrote, but if they found some better opinion then mine,
they replaced it. So I was not happy working with them because two of them were
close friends and they tended to work together. I tried to blend myself with them
but they just worked together, both of them. We were four at that time. So both of
us were not passive but our voices were not heard and included in the writing. I
think it’s better to have three persons in collaborative writing because if three, we
can combine together but if there are four, they tend to be friends together and
can’t be separated from each other. (Beni, Interview 06/15/15)
Beni was concerned with the composition of his group. He especially complained about
working in a group with two peers who were best friends. According to Beni, peers with
such relationships would tend to work together and ignore other members. He mentioned
that although he and the other peer attempted to participate by suggesting their opinion,
the two close members did not consider including Beni and his other peer’s ideas into the
group writing. Beni seemed to feel excluded when he said, “our voices were not heard,”
and hence he found writing collaboratively difficult. He proposed having fewer group
157
members so that they could work together without excluding anybody in the group. Like
Vera, Beni seemed to experience affective conflict due to his interpretation of his peers’
behavior. Also, Beni’s hard time with collaborative writing seemed to relate more with
his personality, learning style, and preference. In the first interview after his experiences
with three collaborative writing activities, he contended that he disliked writing with
others and preferred to write alone. When asked about his ways of contributing to the
group, Beni explained:
Actually when I was in the group in the classroom, I’m not the first writer, I mean
the leader of the group who arranged the task. I prefer them to be the leader
because I prefer to do some writing by myself. So I asked them to be a leader. I
was just a follower. If I have my own idea, it can disturb them. I mean, sometimes
I got emotional when the writing is not suitable with my ideas. So usually, first I
write my idea on the paper. When they need my suggestion, I will just give the
paper to them and sometimes I discussed with them what’s the best, but back to
them again, they want to add my idea or not. If not, it’s not a problem. (Beni,
Interview 04/28/15)
Beni’s explanation showed that he seemed to have weak sense of responsibility for the
group, as he did not attempt to collaborate, especially when there were different ideas
among members. From the ways he reacted toward disagreement or different ideas, Beni
appeared to be much affected by his emotion. Instead of trying to negotiate ideas to reach
common understanding, he chose to leave the group responsibility to others. On another
occasion, although he affirmed that, “I am open-minded and I can work with everyone,
158
male or female, higher or lower English proficiency” (Beni, Interview 04/28/15), but he
also stated that working with “passive peers” is easier because “they just agreed with my
ideas. If they also have ideas, I can combine them with my idea and they don’t disturb”
(Beni, Interview 04/28/15). On the contrary, when he worked with “smart students,” he
said, “sometimes we have our own perception about one thing so when we combine those
ideas, it becomes noisy and there’s conflict about different arguments. It’s very hard to
combine ideas if we have debate in the group” (Beni, Interview 04/28/15). This
illuminates further evidence that collaborative writing was challenging to him partially
because he valued individual over collaborative writing.
Based on the participants’ descriptions of the types of peers they worked with and
the social characteristics that they displayed while writing collaboratively, the following
matrix shows the relationships between these two aspects:
Table 6.1.
Types of Peer and Social Characteristics
Type of peer Social characteristics Collaborative Sharing responsibility
Contributing/initiating ideas Encouraging/motivating others Engaging others Cooperative
Dominating Leading Controlling Directing Pushing others Making decision Silencing
Quiet Silent/less talkative Lack of responsibility
159
Self-oriented Submissive Emotional
It is important to note that the types of peer identified above were emergent in the
social relationships formed by the participants in the groups. One possible reason to
explain the changing and emergent nature of the types of peer and the social
characteristics that came with them was the unavoidable aspect of power dynamics in
social relationships. Berger (1994) argued that, in line with the reciprocal nature of
relationships, “persons can actualize power through their communicative conduct” (p.
451). He further claimed that “verbal and non-verbal behavior may serve as a basis for
making inferences about individuals’ abilities to exercise power” (p. 451). To relate this
argument to the current study, the participants’ struggles in navigating their social
relationships in collaborative writing and the strategies that they employed in order to
perform such navigation indicated the important dimension of power as characterizing
the interpersonal communication and interaction in collaborative writing activities. As
learning is viewed as a socially situated activity, it should also be regarded as “shaped by
and mired in power relations” (Moje & Lewis, 2007, p. 17). As described above, the
participants seemed to exercise power in different ways. For example, Raisya, Sandi, and
sometimes Vera chose to dominate the group, while Beni was mostly resistant or silent.
In the form of dominance, the participants enacted their power, for example by leading
the group discussion, providing more ideas for the group than other members, urging or
pushing others to participate, and taking the biggest role in making decisions for the
group work. On the other hand, when power was exercised through resistance,
160
participants tended to enact lack of responsibility toward the group, they participated less
than others, and they mostly kept silent during the group discussion.
Furthermore, participants’ descriptions of their struggles and the ways in which
power was exercised in the groups can be analyzed as evidence that power is productive
(Foucault, 1984). In this sense, participants such as Raisya and Sandi were able to
dominate the group because they gained the power to do so as “a result of interactions
and relationships, rather than an entity that is possessed by some and desired by others”
(Moje & Lewis, 2007, p. 17). They did not intentionally come to the group as people with
domineering behavior (although they might have had this as a personal trait), nor did they
attempt to gain the power to do so from their peers. Raisya and Sandi’s dominance was
formed due to the types of interactions and relationships that occurred in the group. In
this case, they played the dominant role because others chose to be “passive” or not
contribute. In other words, dominating the group was a strategy some students employed
to ensure that the group could attain its goal. Similarly, Beni’s resistance and silence
could also be seen as a way he exercised power in the group. He became resistant or
silent to protest his peers’ domineering behavior. On another occasion when he worked
with a quiet peer, and especially one whom he considered to have lower English
proficiency than he did, he would be collaborative and sometimes even dominating.
Power dynamics were also visible in the case of Vera and Arya. As I mentioned
previously, Arya was mostly active and dominating when he was in other groups, but he
seemed to perform the opposite when working with Vera. This could possibly be related
to the English language competence they had. In a group in which Arya perceived
161
himself as the most competent in English, he tended to dominate his peers. However,
perhaps because he realized that Vera had more competence than he did, he chose not to
dominate. These changes in the ways the participants exercised power in different groups
support the argument that power is context-bound. The power dynamics in the group
might have caused conflicts, and when they were not solved, the group would not
function effectively (Tocalli-Beller, 2003; Yong 2011).
Furthermore, referring to the above findings regarding the types of peers and their
social characteristics as well as some representative episodes of participants’ oral
interactions presented in the preceding chapter, a pattern of interaction can be generated
and is portrayed in the following diagram:
Figure 6.1.
Types of Peers and Patterns of Interaction
As the diagram illustrates, the arrows show the reciprocity of each peer type. When
dominating and quiet peers worked together, the dominating type would likely dominate
the interactions, as indicated by the greater number of arrows pointing to the quiet type.
162
Although there was a reciprocity between the two types, the quiet peer showed much less
response toward his/her dominating peer. An example of this was the interaction between
Raisya, Beni, and two other peers. As Raisya and her close friend dominated the group,
Beni and his other peer, who was also quiet, chose to keep silent rather than participating
in the group discussion. In another case, when the quiet peer worked with a collaborative
counterpart, he/she would likely become more cooperative than in the interaction
between the dominating-quiet types. This was the case when Beni worked with Vera. In
this group, Beni appeared to be more cooperative than in his previous group with Raisya.
In terms of the interaction between the dominating and the collaborative types of peer,
there seems to be a balanced reciprocity, which shows that both parties are cooperative
and is demonstrated by the balance of the arrows in the diagram. The interactions
between Raisya and Vera or Sandi with his other collaborative peers are represented in
this category. From these types of peer, their social characteristics, and the patterns of
interactions that occur during the collaborative writing activities, it can be seen that when
three learners of dominating, collaborative, and quiet types work together, the group will
likely function well because each party is likely willing to contribute to the group.
Likewise, when two students of the dominant and quiet types work in a pair, it is likely
the pair will not form a collaborative relationship since one will tend to dominate the
other and the quiet peer will likely be silent or contribute little. Nevertheless, as explained
previously, these types of peer and thus their social characteristics are not fixed entities as
they depend on many factors such as power dynamics in the group and their ability in
resolving conflicts, as will be elaborated below.
163
In the above sections, I elaborated difficulties faced by the participants as they
experienced collaborative writing. The findings revealed that group composition,
including the characteristics of individual members and the ways they contributed to the
group, affected the participants’ collaborative writing experiences. As they described it,
the participants found collaborative writing activities challenging when they worked with
other peers who they thought were not sharing the same responsibility for the group work
and when there were domination and exclusion. While these difficulties could be
impediments to learning, they could also lead to affordances of learning when learners
attempt to deal with them and learn from them in positive ways. This leads to another
important finding in this study, namely affordances of learning social values and skills to
write or work with others.
Learning Social Values and Skills
Writing as a socially constructed activity requires that writers appropriate their
meaning making with the common practices of the communities of which they are or
wish to become members (Kostouli, 2005; Kucer, 2009). In this study, learners had to be
able to play their role appropriately by following the consensus of the Essay Writing class
as a whole and the collaborative writing groups as a smaller part of the class community.
As the instructor implemented conventional and collaborative writing instruction
interchangeably, students’ participation in the construction of knowledge in both of these
types of instruction might differ yet influence each other. For example, when the students
were in the conventional instruction, the appropriate way of participating in such
classroom discourse might be to listen attentively when the instructor delivered the
164
materials, to ask and answer questions when they were required to do so, and to work on
the assigned task such as to write a paragraph individually. In such a class or community,
it was likely that not all members participated equally as the instructor held the sole
authority and played the central role in the knowledge construction and distribution.
On the contrary, in collaborative writing groups, every member was expected to
share equal responsibility so that the group could function effectively. This required that
the members participated according to the group norms and values to attain the common
goal. As the group activities were situated in an EFL Essay Writing class, the goals
varied depending on the instructional objectives. One of the intended goals of
collaborative writing activities could be writing certain kinds of paragraphs or essays
together. Implicit in this goal was producing a good quality text that fulfills the criteria
determined by the instructor and suggested in the discourses of English academic writing.
The other goal was to participate actively in the group discussions. These required not
only sufficient linguistic knowledge but also skills in collaborating or working together
with others. Situated in such a context, an equally important finding of this study includes
participants’ meaning making of their collaborative writing experiences as opportunities
to learn social values and skills. Specifically, participants identified some social values
they learned when working with their peers, namely respect, understanding, open-
mindedness, empowerment, and empathy.
Respect, understanding, and open-mindedness. Participants pointed out that
writing together was challenging in that they had to be able to manage different ideas
while at the same time avoid conflicts that might lead to group disharmony. Hence,
165
participants saw the importance of maintaining respect and a sense of understanding with
one another. To illustrate, when facing different ideas among members in the group, Vera
recognized the importance of being respectful and open-minded toward differences.
When she and her peers encountered differing arguments, Vera pointed out:
The main problem about collaborative writing activities is accepting others’ idea.
We may feel like “their idea is not really good, I have a better way. Why do not
use my way?” We just give the reasons. Like we just need to convince the others
to accept our ideas. But sometimes we just have to realize that “Oh, other has
better idea, so take that idea,” trying to be open-minded. We try to respect each
other. Oh…you are like that so I have to accept you and then myself is like this,
you have to try to accept me too. (Vera, Interview 04/09/15)
Vera emphasized the need to be critical in reasoning and convincing others of any
arguments put forward in the group. At the same time, she argued that being open-
minded and respectful were crucial to keep the group moving. As much as her friends
wanted her to accept them, she demanded the same attitude. Vera was also concerned
with the ways they should react to and express their differing arguments in the group,
saying:
Try to give our ideas without giving them hard feeling like how to choose our
words. When I talk to myself I will use other words, but when I talk to my friends,
I have to use like, in a more polite way, more understandable way because I want
them to understand me too. Of course when I use like harsh words, they kind of,
166
won’t accept it, they will get offended. They will like “Oh this girl speak harshly.
Why should we take her idea?” (Vera, Interview 04/09/15)
Vera claimed that politeness was essential to maintain the good flow of communication
among peers in the group. She contended that using polite words and saying things
appropriately in order not to hurt each other’s feeling was something that everyone
should take into account when working with others. She further stressed that using “harsh
words” might result in distrust, doubt, and even rejection of the speakers’ dependability
because “politeness or the lack thereof (violations of politeness norms) can affect
impression formation and evaluation of speakers” (Bradac & Giles, 2005, p. 211). In
other words, Vera emphasized that a student’s act of politeness or otherwise would
determine how others see or behave toward him/her.
Likewise, Beni, who struggled working collaboratively with his friends at the
beginning of the semester, later admitted that being open-minded and respectful were
helpful to gain the most benefit from collaborative writing experiences. He stated:
I already think about myself because maybe sometimes I become very selfish,
snobbish person because I cannot accept my friends’ opinion. Then I tried to
accept my friends’ opinions… so after that it’s more easier for me to do
collaborative writing activities. I feel more comfortable and then I find some
advantages when I learned with my friends. (Beni, Interview 06/15/15)
From his statements, we can see that Beni realized that his feeling of superiority and his
close-mindedness prevented him from learning through writing collaboratively. This is
also evident in my early observations that Beni seemed to be mostly quiet and looked
167
reluctant to join his group discussions. In the first interview, he strongly affirmed that he
disliked writing in group, arguing
I actually prefer to work by myself because sometimes we have different thoughts
about some problems. So I prefer to solve the problem by myself. I sometimes
don’t feel interested with others’ opinion because I have different perceptions. So
I prefer to write individually. (Beni, Interview 04/28/15)
Beni clearly displayed his preference for individual over collaborative writing because he
usually was not interested in others’ opinions. The fact that he changed his perception
and attempted to be more open-minded in his later collaborative writing activities
indicates the dynamic and evolving process of learning in collaborative writing over time
and across groups. In similar fashion, Sandi, who liked to write individually admitted that
his collaborative writing experiences were meaningful in that they taught him about
“teamwork” (Sandi, Interview 07/05/15), that is, working together in all the writing
processes. Recalling his experiences when acting toward different ideas, Sandi stated:
Sometimes when others gave their ideas then I said, “That’s not good. Forget it!”
Yeah, I didn’t try to accept it. I just refused it. “No, that’s not good! We talk about
this one! That’s the main rule or main way.” But sometimes my friends will not
feel fine with me. (Sandi, Interview 07/05/15)
In his recounting, Sandi exemplified giving disrespectful responses to his peers’ words.
Instead of asking further, he tended to reject ideas immediately and imposed his own.
This attitude could inevitably be intimidating and demotivating to others and might lead
to conflicts. Reflecting on such experiences, Sandi then realized that he also had to accept
168
others’ ideas and work with others in appropriate ways. He asserted that experiencing
more collaborative writing activities allowed him to learn about teamwork, to listen
attentively to others’ ideas, and to prevent himself from dominating the group discussions
(Sandi, Interview 07/05/15). In one of the collaborative writing groups in which he
worked with two female peers later in the semester, my observation showed that Sandi
attempted very hard not to dominate the group discussion. Although he still initiated and
guided his peers to the next steps they should do for the group writing, Sandi asked more
questions rather than suggesting his own opinion to the group. He was aware that his
peers would mostly respond to him with agreement leading to his dominant role in the
group. Thus, he asked them more questions in order to give wider opportunities for his
peers to get engaged and contribute (Field notes 05/27/15).
Furthermore, Raisya indicated that spending more time writing collaboratively
with her peers enabled her to know about them more and better. She stated:
It [collaborative writing] helps me to understand my friends more and how to face
people. Because by doing this, I understand that some of my friends are active and
some of my friends just don’t work with me, and some of my friends have to be
pushed so they want to give their opinion. I learned how to deal with all of that.
(Raisya, Interview 07/05/15)
Raisya claimed that she could understand her peers’ various characteristics and how they
could or could not fit each other during the collaborative writing activities. Interestingly,
Raisya seemed to position herself as being as a leader of the group and this appeared to
form her perception of having the most responsibility to lead, to deal with, and to push
169
her peers to participate in the group. That is to say, her sense of leadership and possibly
of caring had resulted in domineering behavior in most of her collaborative writing
groups, especially when she worked with lower proficiency and less active peers (e.g.,
Field notes 05/27/15; Field notes 06/10/15). Nevertheless, it was observable that when
she was in a group with similar or more proficient others and with those who were
willing to collaborate, Raisya demonstrated her abilities to argue appropriately and to
accept others’ ideas (e.g., Field notes 03/11/15; Field notes 03/30/15). This is more
evidence of learning, one facet of which is through participation in social interaction in a
socially situated activity. In brief, the findings confirmed that social values such as
respect, understanding, and open-mindedness were part of the participants’ meaningful
experiences in collaborative writing and constituted their learning.
Empowerment and empathy. In addition to learning to be more respectful,
understanding, and open-minded, this study also showed evidence of participants’
learning of other important social values in group interaction, namely empowerment and
empathy. Participants in this study indicated that when they worked with peers whom
they considered less talkative in the group, they felt obligated to encourage them to
participate. Partially because they considered themselves having better or higher
language proficiency than their peers or due to their caring personality, Raisya, Sandi,
Vera, and Beni continuously attempted to help their peers, especially by encouraging and
even pushing (in Raisya and Sandi’s cases) them to talk. For example, when asked what
type of peers she preferred to work with, Raisya stated:
170
I will choose one with lower proficiency in English because then I have the
opportunity to help him or her, to encourage him to speak English more. I can
push my friends who are not willing to give their opinion. I just want to push
them because I know that all of my friends have that abilities to write an opinion
but they cannot say it because they think that they don’t have proficient English.
So I want to encourage them. (Raisya, Interview 07/05/15)
Raisya’s statement indicated that working with lower proficiency peers gave her chances
to empower not only herself but also others to perform better. In a way, she gained a
sense of self-empowerment in that she saw opportunities to be helpful to her peers and
therefore made an effort to assist them. When she considered her peers as having low
English proficiency, she would encourage them to practice more. In another case, when
she knew that her peers had problems with self-confidence despite their good capabilities,
she would push them to express their opinion. In this way, Raisya’s sense of self-
empowerment could also be empowering to others because they would feel motivated to
contribute to the group by expressing their opinion in the best way they could.
Vera revealed similar evidence showing affordances of learning social values in
collaborative writing. For instance, with regard to her other peers who were hesitant to
practice their English, she reported:
I will try to encourage them but you know there are just some people who didn’t
really want to use English even though they can. Even though their English is
actually good but they just don’t want to use it. So I just have to trigger them to
use English. (Vera, Interview 04/09/15)
171
Knowing that her peers were actually capable learners, Vera’s sense of empowerment
grew, and she would urge them to use English during the collaborative writing activities.
On another occasion, although she did not consider herself as a sufficiently proficient
English learner, Vera explained that she always felt the need to help her peers whom she
considered to have low English proficiency. She went on to say
It always gives me a feeling that I always have to help them. I mean, I am not
good enough to help them but I have the feeling that I have to help them. So it’s
kind of …I don’t know…a dilemma. I thought that I am not good enough. I feel
bad but you seem to need my help. (Vera, Interview 04/09/15)
Vera seemed to feel empathy with her peers in that she always wanted to help them
regardless of her own feeling of inferiority or lack of confidence. Empathy as an
important social value afforded in collaborative writing is also evident in Beni’s case.
Having positive perceptions toward his peers, Beni explained that he had no issues
working with anyone because he saw learning opportunities in writing collaboratively
with all his peers regardless of sex or English capability. He stated:
Everyone is okay. Male or female, higher or lower English proficiency because I
think we learn together and sometimes it’s out of our perception. Sometimes for
example, friends who are poor in ability in learning are actually very diligent.
They don’t show their ability in front of us. Sometimes they are diligent to do any
work but sometimes they are ignored by other friends. I don’t underestimate them
so I just want them to join me. No problem. It’s better if they are smart but if they
are not smart, it’s also best for me. I think I can learn from both the poor or
172
smarter students. When I work in a group with the lower [proficiency] students,
they also have their ideas that cannot be expressed in English. I just ask them to
tell me personally and then I will write what they talk about. With the higher
[proficiency] group, we can discuss more about the topic. (Beni, Interview
04/28/15)
Based on his description, Beni showed his empathy, especially to his peers who were
usually ignored by others due to their perceived lack of English ability. Using a personal
approach, Beni tried to be accommodative to his friends by listening to them, accepting,
and including their ideas in the group writing. He believed that his peers were equally
good learners if they were given opportunities to talk and to be appreciated. Beni’s
empathy seemed to relate to his own experiences when he struggled with collaborative
writing due to peer domination and exclusion as presented in the previous section.
Finally, in addition to similar strategies that his peers demonstrated in motivating
others to participate, Sandi noted that he used jokes to encourage his peers to talk, stating:
For the passive friends in the group, my trick is I just make a joke (laughing). I
love making a joke so I tried to make a joke about something. And then he or she
laughed, and that’s it. I just tried to speak something and then I said, “Try to
work! Don’t just be silent!” And then he or she will say, “Yeah, yeah… I’ll do it”
(laughing). That’s the way I made him or her to speak up. (Sandi, Interview
04/06/15)
Considering the importance of everyone’s engagement during the collaborative writing
activities, Sandi attempted to employ one of his communicative resources, that is making
173
jokes to encourage his passive or less talkative peers to participate. In this sense, he used
laughter as a contextual cue (Matsumoto, 2014) to overcome communicative problems in
the group. As humor, including jokes is embedded in a specific collaborative writing
group in an EFL class, it is part of a “situated sociocultural context” (Davies, 2003, p.
1362). Hence, it could be viewed as an artifact (Davies, 2015) and function as a
mediational means, as it was utilized to enhance learning. The use of jokes during the
collaborative writing activities by participants in this study was visible in almost all
groups in every collaborative writing session. This may be attributed to the flexible and
enjoyable atmosphere created under collaborative writing instruction. I will elaborate on
this idea in more detail in the next chapter.
The above findings showed the ways in which participants viewed and
experienced collaborative writing as opportunities to learn social values and skills needed
to work collaboratively with others. Taking the perspectives of SCT and writing as social
practice theory, these participants’ experiences cannot be separated from the larger
context that shaped and situated the activities, in this case, the Indonesian social and
cultural norms and values. Specifically, the collectivistic cultures of Indonesian society
that emphasize affiliation, cooperation, interpersonal harmony, and high self-control in
social interactions (Chen, 2000; Chen, French, & Schneider, 2006; Hofstede, 1994;
Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002) might have affected the participants’
experiences. As presented above, the participants’ interactions were characterized by
their attempts to maintain the group harmony, for example by respecting others’ opinions,
being open-minded and understanding toward different ideas, and often being submissive
174
or silent instead of assertive when dealing with conflicts. They also exhibited acts of
empathy and empowerment to enable the group to function effectively. On one hand,
these cultural values and norms might be useful in enriching a group atmosphere
conducive to collaboration, in that each member would feel safe and comfortable to
express his or her opinion without fear of being embarrassed by others. In such a
situation, learners could also increase their “social acceptance” of each other, including
peer competence (Eisenberg, Zhou, Liew, Champion, & Pidada, 2006, p. 183). On the
other hand, putting too much concern on maintaining the group harmony may impede
learning, especially in a context wherein active participation is key, as is the case with L2
collaborative writing. This might be one of the reasons for the students’ silence in their
collaborative writing activities.
Nevertheless, these student participants’ perspectives and experiences seemed to
meet the instructor’s expectation in incorporating collaborative writing instruction in his
class. In connection to the social nature of writing and how it was fostered through
collaborative writing instruction, Mr. Irvan explained:
It is good in terms of giving the language the social setting of real life. We cannot
live individually. We have to support each other; we have to do mutual
cooperation. So by writing a product together with friends, meaning that the
students have an opportunity to contribute the idea and they have to adapt to the
others’ idea. They have to be able to make balance in saying, in producing
something. So the way how to work together will support the students to be able
to adapt themselves among the others. This is good too in social life, that we are
175
using the language not for the individual performance but for social activities and
we have to appreciate others. By doing the collaborative activities, the students
will be able to socialize what they have already learnt and then also to confirm
that they have already learnt. At the end, they will be able to think together. If
they’re able to think, they will be able to talk, to discuss something rather than
throwing stone. (Mr. Irvan, Interview 03/08/15)
Noticeable in the above account is the instructor’s belief about the relationship
between learning English, learning to write in English, and participation in social
activities. He pointed out that learning in class should reflect real life situations and
should be aimed at helping students to adapt with real world demands. To put it
differently, he considered the importance of providing learners with an authentic and
contextual learning environment in which they could not only practice using the target
language to communicate orally or in written form, but also to learn about social values
and skills. He highlighted that social skills such as respecting others, contributing or
taking part in any social activities, as well as sharing equal responsibility that the students
were supposed to develop during the collaborative writing activities would be useful for
their real life. Also, implied in his statements was the expectation that students participate
actively by taking responsibility and getting involved in the group work. With these
pedagogical perspectives in mind, the instructor was also aware of his own role in
making sure that the students were ready to become “members of the group” (Mr. Irvan,
Interview 03/08/15). The instructor’s consideration to include the learning of social
values and skills in his class could also be linked to these values as Indonesian cultural
176
norms. These norms are stated in the country’s explicit ideology, namely Pancasila which
consists of five main principles: “Belief in the One and Only God, just and civilized
humanity, the unity of Indonesia, democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the
unanimity arising of deliberations among representatives, and social justice for all the
Indonesian people” (Nishimura, 1995, p. 303). It might also relate to the Indonesian
government policy in education regarding character education. Exemplified in the most
current curriculum, namely Kurikulum 2013 (Curriculum 2013), character education is
stressed in the Indonesian secondary education. Consequently, teacher education
institutions, such as the site of this research, need to prepare their students to become
competent users and assessors of character education, especially in the field of EFL.
Among the values mandated in the curriculum are respectful, appreciative, friendly,
communicative, helpful, honest, tolerance, and responsible (Mambu, 2015).
Furthermore, the above findings on participants’ awareness and learning of social
values as constituting their collaborative writing experiences are also evidence of the
creation of ZPD and the learning afforded within such a zone. It is evident that
participants learned through the mediation of others and that this mediation takes
different forms such as social interaction and appropriation of language. As the
participants described it, when writing collaboratively in groups, they learned some social
values and employed certain social skills or strategies for the sake of their own as well as
others’ learning. Interestingly, taking into account their uses of descriptive words such as
“assist”, “help”, “encourage”, “push”, “lower proficiency peers”, most of these
participants seemed to position themselves as “expert” or “more capable others”
177
(Vygotsky, 1978) in the learning process through collaborative writing. On the one hand,
this self-perceived role as expert may positively affect learning in that it gives the
students a strong sense of agency to regulate themselves and others in the process of
knowledge co-construction (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). On the other hand, these learners
might view others with perceived lower proficiency as a hindrance to their learning as
they see themselves as the main sources of learning and did not feel the mutual
relationship of working with such peers. This participants’ point of view could be
observed as being shaped by the expectation and the practices contextualizing their
collaborative writing activities, one of which is the deficit view of learners (Curry, 2003;
Lea & Street, 1998), including L2 learners (Jenkins, 2006; Keck & Ortega, 2011; Tung,
2013). For example, their perception about “passive peers” was likely shaped by
discourses and practices of what counts as “active participation”. For the teacher and
students, being active participants in collaborative writing activities means being
outspoken, not silent. This socioculturally constructed meaning of active participation led
participants to associate silence with having low English language proficiency and thus
“needing help”. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in the findings in chapter five, the
participants’ expertise was fluid, and everyone had his or her own part in the co-
construction of knowledge during the collaborative writing activities.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented issues that the participants identified as pertinent in
their collaborative writing experiences. As they described it, participants found that the
main factor that influenced their collaborative writing experience was the type of peers
178
they worked with and the relationships that were formed during the group interactions. I
highlighted the ways in which power dynamics might have resulted in conflicts in their
collaborative writing activities. Reflecting on the difficult times they encountered,
participants further acknowledged that learning social values such as respect,
empowerment, and open-mindedness as well as developing skills relating to these values
were part of their collaborative writing experiences. These experiences, to some extent,
were likely influenced by the Indonesian cultural norms and values that shaped their
perceptions and attitudes toward social interactions. In the next chapter, I present findings
related to the sociocultural and historical aspects of learners and learning that influenced
participants’ collaborative writing experiences.
179
Chapter 7: Factors Influencing Collaborative Writing Experiences
Participants’ meaning making of their collaborative writing experiences and their
engagement in the collaborative writing activities as well as tensions and the learning of
social skills with which they acted upon the tensions, all presented in the previous
chapters, did not come in a vacuum. They were embedded in the participants’ social,
cultural, and historical contexts, including different practices and discourses (Barton &
Hamilton, 2000; Chala & Chapetón, 2012; Gee, 2004). Understanding participants’
collaborative writing experiences requires consideration of these contexts that situated
and shaped their knowledge construction through participation in social practice.
In this chapter, I present findings related to the personal, social, cultural, and
historical elements of the learners and the context that might partially influence their
collaborative writing experiences and the ways in which they made meaning of these
experiences. It is important to note that it is not possible for me to draw causal
relationships between the participants’ collaborative writing experiences and these
elements due to the limitation of my research methods. However, using SCT and writing
as social practice as my theoretical lenses, I was able to see the ways in which
participants’ collaborative writing experiences and their sense making could be
associated in some ways with those elements. Viewing learning as socially situated and
writing as social practice allowed me to take into account the ways in which my
participants’ prior experiences, social identities, memberships, and practices in specific
communities of practice outside school might affect their classroom learning through
collaborative writing. In other words, both SCT and especially writing as social practice
180
theories enabled me to see the relevance of what “students already know in their
everyday communicative practices” to their learning in an educational institution (Street,
2005, p. 7).
In the following section, I present findings related to the influence of the
teacher’s roles, his instructional design, and the established learning atmosphere on
participants’ collaborative writing experiences. Following that section, I highlight
participants’ significant people and their L2 background knowledge and experiences. In
the last section, I present the aspects of participants’ social identities and memberships. I
end the chapter with a conclusion that attempts to summarize the findings related to
factors that influenced participants’ collaborative writing experiences and what these
experiences meant to them.
Teacher’s Roles, Instructional Design, and Learning Atmosphere
Among many important factors affecting student learning and their participation
in class are teacher role, instructional design and the classroom atmosphere generated
from the instruction (Donato, 2000). Instructional design that could create a classroom
atmosphere in which the students and the teacher can interact in meaningful ways will
likely result in positive learning in class. Accordingly, Echevarria and Graves (2007)
emphasize that
Effective language learning takes place in well-organized classrooms where there
are opportunities for interaction with the teacher and peers and adequate practice
in the target language. Interactive instruction allows students to use elaborated
181
language around relevant topics, building English skills while at the same time
developing content knowledge. (p. 50)
Thus said, understanding participants’ experiences and meaning making in a
highly interactive situation such as collaborative writing should take into account these
teacher and instructional factors. As mentioned previously, participants’ collaborative
writing experiences were embedded in the whole semester period of the Essay Writing
class. This means that it also included the instructor’s role and his teaching instructions
outside or apart from the collaborative writing sessions. In this class, the instructor
implemented collaborative writing interchangeably with the conventional instruction.
Conventional teaching instruction in this case refers to teacher-centered sessions in which
the teacher mostly delivered materials to the whole class and students were frequently
required to practice writing individually in their seats. As this research explored
participants’ collaborative writing experiences in its natural setting, it is therefore
important to include an examination of the classroom situation in which conventional
instruction was implemented in parallel with collaborative writing instruction. As both
conventional and collaborative writing instructions constituted the class, their roles are
complimentary to each other. In the conventional sessions, the students learned about
essay writing mostly by listening to the instructor’s explanations, asking questions, and
practicing to write individually, whereas in collaborative writing sessions, students were
given opportunities to learn to write with one another. While learning inevitably also
takes place in conventional classes (Alal, Lopez, Lehraus, & Forget, 2005; Kumpulainen
& Wray, 2002), I argue that collaborative writing instruction enhanced students’
182
opportunities to learn to write especially by providing them with a more supporting
atmosphere conducive to learning as revealed in the findings I present below.
Participants in this study confirmed that collaborative writing provided them with
a non-threatening atmosphere conducive to their learning. Within such an atmosphere and
learning environment, the participants felt comfortable and confident using English
during the process of collaborative writing. Comparing the conventional and
collaborative writing sessions, Raisya, for example, stated that the classroom atmosphere
in the latter session was more fun. She even observed that some of her friends who were
usually passive participated more actively in collaborative writing activities (Raisya,
Interview 04/08/15).
In a similar vein, Sandi also expressed his pleasant experience in collaborative
writing as it gave him feelings of comfort and enjoyment and it allowed him to learn new
things from his friends. Since he had just experienced collaborative writing for the first
time, he was so excited and felt that he enjoyed collaborative writing more from time to
time: “I feel so comfortable, this morning and then a little bit in the first time. But I feel
so comfortable, enjoyable, and I got something new so much” (Sandi, Interview
04/06/15). Additionally, Beni described the flexibility in terms of interacting both with
the instructor and his peers during the collaborative writing activities:
I like to write in the group because it’s more enjoyable. I can ask the lecturer
whether this idea is good or not. In the individual or classical session, it’s more
formal and I cannot walk in the classroom. In groups, I can walk to ask other
groups about their ideas. (Beni, Interview 04/28/15)
183
Beni’s description portrayed a relaxed and less stressful atmosphere during the
collaborative writing activities that motivated him to be more active in the construction of
knowledge, for example by asking questions or exchanging ideas with the instructor and
peers. In Vera’s case, she reported that she was in a good mood during collaborative
writing and that she felt like she wanted to share more ideas. To her, collaborative writing
gave her “a kind of support” that motivated her to write more (Vera, Interview 07/05/15).
Briefly stated, participants perceived collaborative writing as a meaningful site for
learning.
The ways in which participants made meaning of their collaborative writing
experiences and were afforded language learning opportunities seemed to match the
instructor’s instructional goals. When asked why he implemented collaborative writing
instruction, Mr. Irvan said:
I think collaborative technique will be very important in preparing or providing
the area or atmosphere for practicing the language. By performing before or
among the students, they will have the opportunity to measure themselves. “I can
speak, I can discuss, I have an idea, and I have to listen”, something like this. It’s
a good process. (Mr. Irvan, Interview 03/18/15)
It can be seen that the instructor implemented collaborative writing instruction as
part of his writing class because of its potential to provide an enjoyable atmosphere for
the students to practice communicating in English. He also thought that peer interactions
in which students shared ideas, discussed, and listened to each other during the
collaborative writing activities might enable them to recognize and develop their own
184
communicative skills and ability. Mr. Irvan pointed out the important role of peers more
than the sole role of a teacher in the process of knowledge construction during the
collaborative writing activities. Moreover, acknowledging the youth’s tendency to be
seen by peers as capable of doing something, Mr. Irvan viewed collaborative writing as a
good opportunity to motivate his students to participate actively in the group:
To the students I think it’s very good for them because being active in the group
will be an opportunity for telling that in some cases he is also able to do
something. This is very important in terms of, at the level of their age, they will
be creative in showing off in the group. They will say, “Oh, I can do that!” And
then the other will say, “I am also able to do that!” So this will be very influential
situation and motivating because it’s like, “If she can do that, why I cannot?” (Mr.
Irvan, Interview 08/13/15)
As Mr. Irvan argued, when students worked together in groups, they would feel
challenged by their peers’ actions and thus encouraged to act similarly or even better in
order to show their own capability. In this sense, students’ engagement in collaborative
writing activities by interacting with other members in the group is a way “to get
recognized by others (and themselves) as enacting a specific socially-situated identity”
(Gee, 2004, p. 13, emphasis in original). They participate because they want to be
regarded as “active and equally-capable participants,” an identity that members expect to
be formed in the group. Additionally, as the group norms required that each member
participate actively, students’ oral interactions in the group demonstrated their
engagement “in a specific socially-situated activity” (Gee, 2004, p. 13, emphasis in
185
original). In this sense, being “silent”, for instance, is an unexpected behavior in the
group as it does not comply with the group norms. These teacher’s expectation and
instructional goals affected the ways he designed the class in that it allowed for wide
opportunities to learn through peer interaction and other social activities involved in
collaborative writing activities, as participants described previously.
Furthermore, my observations showed that in conventional sessions, the instructor
mainly focused on delivering the materials, which was mostly through lecturing, and
assigning students with individual writing tasks in class. Once in a while, the students
were required to do peer review activities, mostly with the peers sitting next to them
(Field notes 03/23/15). They were also given opportunities to ask questions, but generally
they did not have as many interactions with their peers as they did in collaborative
writing activities. The students sat quietly in rows (see Figure 7.1) and paid attention to
the instructor’s explanation. In such seating arrangement, students were not able to move
or interact flexibly with one another. Although a few participants who preferred to write
individually mentioned that such a quiet atmosphere helped them “to concentrate and
write” (Raisya, Interview 04/05/15), in some of the informal conversation or interviews I
had with them, the majority of these participants told me that they sometimes felt the
pressure of having had to write alone within such a situation.
186
Figure 7.1
Classroom Setting in Conventional Sessions
On the contrary, my observations showed that in most of the collaborative writing
sessions, the classroom atmosphere looked more alive than in the conventional sessions.
The students were mostly cheerful, and most of them seemed to focus on working with
their peers in the group. They did not seem to be much affected by the noise coming from
some construction work taking place outside the building as well as students’ loud talk
outside the class (Field notes 03/09/15). In other observations when collaborative writing
sessions were held, I could see that some students laughed at each other, walked around
and asked questions even to members of other groups, and used their mobile phones or
laptops to browse the Internet for resources. Many of them also typed their work on the
laptop instead of writing on a piece of paper (e.g., Field notes 03/11/15; Field notes
187
04/01/15; Field notes 05/25/15). In terms of the classroom setting, chairs were arranged
in such a way that students had the flexibility to interact with their peers in groups
(Figure 7.2). While simply changing the physical space including the seating arrangement
is not sufficient to change the ideology of “teacher-directed learning,” it is a way “to open
the possibility to a less hierarchical communication” wherein power is decentralized in
the classroom community (Boxer & Cortés-Conde, 2000, p. 205).
Figure 7.2
Classroom Setting in Collaborative Writing Sessions
Moreover, in one of the sessions in which students worked on collaborative
writing tasks, the following excerpt from my observation might also explain the
participants’ positive collaborative writing experiences especially related to language
learning affordances:
The instructor tells the students that they will write collaboratively in groups. He
reminds them to participate actively so that everyone can really learn from each
188
other. No one should “throw stone,” he said. He then instructs the students to sit
in groups of three or four. Like before, they do the grouping by counting off and
sitting with friends with the same number. Today, most students change the
friends they work with. Only one or two students work with one or two similar
friends from their previous groups. The students are asked to choose one of the
provided topics or to decide their own topic and develop it into a thesis statement
and three body paragraphs. It is only half an hour left for the class, so the
students are expected to finish their tasks by the time the class dismisses. During
the collaborative writing activities, the instructor walks around and encourages
students to ask him if they need assistance or have questions related to their
group work. On the whiteboard, the instructor writes the following topics: 1)
Technology changes the way we relate to each other in positive/negative ways,
2) Drug dealers deserve/do not deserve capital punishment, 3) Teachers
should/should not become their students’ Facebook friends, 4) On line education
is better than traditional (face-to-face) education, 5) Students’ own topic. There
are seven groups all together: five groups of three and two groups of four. Two
groups consist of female students only and the rest of the groups are mixes of
male and female students. (Field notes 03/09/15)
Taking into consideration the immediate context situating their collaborative
writing experiences as described above, I would argue that participants might find such a
learning environment and atmosphere conducive to their learning for three reasons.
Firstly, the instructor informed the students about the need to participate actively in the
189
collaborative writing activity. No one was expected to leave their responsibility to the rest
of the group. In this sense, the students knew from the beginning what they were
expected to do regarding the group work. Moreover, knowing that each member was
asked to share the same responsibility might give a sense of ease and comfort to the
students, as they would have fewer burdens than when they had to write alone.
Secondly, the instructor provided a range of authentic and contextual topics for
the students to choose from, as shown in Figure 7.3 below.
Figure 7.3
List of Topics for Collaborative Argumentative Essay Writing
As seen in the above figure, the topics derived from current issues with which
students were familiar. For example, the first, third, and fourth topics on the list were on
education and technology, areas related directly to their field of study, whereas the
190
second topic was more linked to current issues in society. In addition to providing
authentic and contextual topics, the instructor also allowed the students to choose and use
their own topic, which meant giving them opportunities to make their own decision
regarding their learning. The instructor always encouraged the students to write on
something they knew best so that they would be able to write with good arguments. This
is aligned with Kucer’s (2009) claim about the impact of background knowledge on a
writer’s ability “to manipulate and translate ideas into written language” (p. 130). Kucer
argues that writing on something about which we have the background knowledge and
experiences is relatively easy because “Both the meanings and their organization are
already ordered in a time-sequenced structure” (2009, p. 130). In this sense, it would be
easier for the students to recall or retrieve their memory about a topic with which they
were familiar than to think and write about something completely new or unknown to
them.
Next, in terms of learning devices, the students could either use paper or laptops
to work, and they were allowed to use their electronic devices such as laptops or mobile
phones for the group work purposes such as to find sources, to read electronic files, and
to utilize some useful features for writing like Translation tools or Grammar Checker.
This option is usually not common in traditional classes, in which the use of electronic
devices is considered a hindrance to student learning due to their possible distractions
(Collins & Halverson, 2009). In this study, the instructor gave the students freedom to
use any tools they had, particularly their electronic devices, followed by a shared
understanding that they should be used in responsible ways. The responsibility that
191
comes with the use of electronic devices increased students’ motivation to learn and
minimized the distracting effects of such devices in class (Erwin, 2004). My observations
showed that participants enthusiastically used their mobile phones or laptops to browse
the Internet to find relevant sources to support their writing (e.g., Field notes 02/16/15).
As learning is socially constructed and thus mediated through the use of tools or artifacts
(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978), the instructor’s support of the use of
electronic devices in class showed his important role in providing students with more
opportunities to enhance their learning.
Finally, the instructor considered the importance of having a common agreement
with the students regarding grouping by asking in advance the ways they would prefer to
be grouped. The students agreed to be grouped by the instructor; hence they presumably
would accept the instructor’s choices and attempt to work with any peers selected for
them. Nevertheless, possibly due to the large number of students and the fact that it was
the instructor’s first time teaching these students in this class, it was hard for him to
group students ideally, for example by mixing students in terms of L2 proficiency or
personality differences. As a result, he employed random techniques of grouping instead
of selectively grouping the students. Consequently, participants often encountered
difficulties in writing collaboratively due to group disharmony as described in chapter
six.
To minimize problems with disharmonious relationship in groups and to ensure
students could learn from each other through collaborative writing in the rest of the
semester, the instructor talked with the class about their experiences after conducting
192
several collaborative writing sessions. Specifically, he asked students to recall their
previous collaborative writing experiences and share with the class what they viewed as
advantageous or disadvantageous about writing collaboratively. Mr. Irvan also asked the
students about the ways in which they thought they could improve their next
collaborative writing experiences (Field notes 05/06/15). The figure below recorded the
result of the class discussion about collaborative writing:
Figure 7.4
Class Discussion on Collaborative Writing
As shown, students elicited sharing burdens (ideas or thoughts), learning others’ ways of
thinking and writing, and increasing speaking skills as among the advantages they viewed
of collaborative writing. In relation to the disadvantages of or difficulties in writing
collaboratively, they cited the fact that it was time consuming, having passive peers, and
personality problems, among other things. After considering these strengths and
193
weaknesses of collaborative writing, the students mentioned that they would need to be
more respectful to others and to be more responsible in order for the group to benefit
from collaborative writing. Right after the discussion, Mr. Irvan asked the students to pay
attention to the results of their discussion so that their next collaborative writing
experiences would be more meaningful.
Furthermore, while in conventional instruction the teacher functions as the main
source of knowledge and expertise (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002), during collaborative
writing activities, the teacher plays the role of a facilitator. In addition to providing
choices for topic selection, the facilitative roles of the instructor in this study was evident
in the ways he monitored students’ progress and assisted them during the collaborative
writing activities. In support of this finding, the following excerpts from students’
collaborative writing activities illustrate the instructor’s facilitating roles during the
collaborative writing sessions:
Excerpt 10
98 Mr. Irvan: Is this kind of article? 99 Vera: Yeah, article. Can we use this, Sir? 100 Mr. Irvan: Make sure you do not use the exact words 101 Vera: No, we just paraphrase it.
(Collaborative Writing, 03/11/15)
In the above excerpt, Mr. Irvan noticed the group’s use of certain resources to support
their group writing. To prevent students from conducting plagiarism, he reminded the
students not to take the author’s exact words directly when using them in the text.
Knowing the rule about appropriately using references, Vera, the student, confirmed that
194
they would paraphrase the source. In another case, Mr. Irvan checked the progress of
students’ work in a group:
Excerpt 11
102 Mr. Irvan: What did you write in your conclusion? 103 Sandi: We say something that it is important, why the topic is important. And
then we restate the points, and then we restate the thesis statement. 104 Mr. Irvan: Try to use different words, OK? Remember not to tell or talk about
new things. 105 Sandi: Yes, Sir.
(Collaborative Writing, 03/30/15)
In Excerpt 11, Mr. Irvan ensured that the students knew what they were supposed to do
for their collaborative writing task. In particular, he asked about the content of the
group’s concluding paragraph. After listening to the student’s response, he reminded the
group about rules in writing a conclusion to avoid using the same words and including
new ideas. From these two excerpts, it is apparent that the instructor did not interfere with
the content or ideas of the students’ writing. Instead, he focused more on ensuring that
the students did the task correctly based on the instructional goals he set up in advance
and the materials they had discussed previously. Due to such emphases by the instructor,
it is likely that the participants’ main motive in writing collaboratively was to get the task
completed based on the instructions. Observable in many of the participants’
collaborative writing activities were their efforts to approach the tasks in the ways they
were “taught” to do. For example, they would follow the writing strategies that included
brainstorming, outlining, and developing ideas. They paid attention to and reminded each
other in the group of “do’s” and “don’t”’ rules that they were told. They even focused on
making sure that they had reached the number of sentences required for each task.
195
As described above, when collaborative writing was implemented, students had
authority to make decisions, for example in selecting the group and topic, in approaching
the tasks, and in utilizing sources to help them learn and write. Additionally, the
facilitating rather than controlling role of the instructor allowed for some flexibility and a
relaxed atmosphere that could enhance student learning. In such a context, factors such as
teacher role, instructional design, and the established atmosphere thereof intertwined and
allowed for the construction of a learning environment that was open to the student
voices and personal experiences (Brown & Lee, 2015). Briefly stated, the teacher’s roles,
his instructional design and the learning atmosphere he created were among the factors
influencing the participants’ collaborative writing experiences.
Next, the findings of this study pointed to aspects such as people important to the
participants, prior L2 experiences, and social membership and identities as partially
influencing the participants’ experiences in collaborative writing.
People Significant to the Learners and Prior L2 Knowledge and Experiences
As my study attempted to explore the EFL learners’ collaborative writing
experiences in which English has been the knowledge to be learned or constructed and
the main semiotic symbol used to mediate learning (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Storch,
2013), investigating their experiences also requires examination of their prior knowledge
and experiences related to the English language. Additionally, collaborative writing
entails learners’ ability to “appropriate” their ways of using language to navigate their
social relationships. Thus, their prior experiences related to communicating with others,
or in other words, their prior literacy practices, are worth considerable attention. This
196
emphasis on the significant role of learners’ background knowledge and experiences to
their learning is in line with Lantolf and Thorne’s (2006) claim that “Participation in
culturally organized practices, life-long involvement in a variety of institutions, and
humans’ ubiquitous use of tools and artifacts (including language) strongly and
qualitatively impact cognitive development and functioning” (p. 1). In short, SCT and
writing as social practice theories lent me critical lenses to see the ways in which
participants’ history (including interactions with people important to them) with English
language might affect their collaborative writing experiences. I present this below.
In Raisya’s case, she had English language exposure when she was quite young.
As a fifth grader at that time, she read her uncle’s diary, which was written in English.
Her uncle worked for the World Health Organization (WHO) under the United Nations
and travelled a lot. Being a frequent traveler, Raisya’s uncle told her about the
importance of the English language and encouraged her to master the language. She
explained:
I never take courses for English. I started learning English from fifth grade and
actually one of my uncles worked in WHO. I read his diary when I was five and
that diary encouraged me to learn English because I actually don’t know anything
about English at that time. And then he said when you can master this language,
you can go abroad like me, like I did. And then he encouraged me to learn English
and I like English since then. (Raisya, Interview 04/8/2015)
Raisya’s description indicated how her uncle played a crucial role in growing her interest
toward English by motivating her and giving her early English language exposure.
197
Language exposure, especially at an early age is a very important element in language
learning and acquisition (Ortega, 2009a), and it becomes especially crucial in a context
where the language being learned is not the primary medium of communication, such as
in an EFL context. Raisya’s uncle and his experiences with the English language became
a model for Raisya and helped construct her idea about the empowering benefit of
English language mastery. Additionally, the fact that Raisya was exposed to a diary
written in English showed that writing has been part of her early literacy learning and
practices. This seemed to had affected her later writing practices in that she liked writing
stories in English and posted them on a blog. Swain, Kinnear, and Steinman (2015) argue
that people important to the participants can be a meditational means when their roles
enhance learning. Due to his significant role in shaping Raisya’s positive perception
about English and in motivating her to learn the language, Raisya’s uncle could be
regarded as her significant person and mediational means to her English language
learning.
Another significant person to Raisya was her Junior High School English teacher.
Favoring her teacher’s ways of teaching and caring personality, Raisya promised herself
that she would also become an English teacher. Soon after she finished senior high
school, Raisya continued her study in an English education program. Her experiences and
interactions with her junior high school English teacher seemed to have shaped Raisya’s
constructed belief about teacher identity. In one of the interviews, Raisya described an
incident that upset her, and this added to her perceptions about what a good teacher
should look like. She described:
198
When I was in junior high school, I have English teacher who really loved her
students without comparing all of us. Then one day someone made her cry in the
class because he slept and ignored the teacher. And at that time I feel disappointed
with the teacher because I thought at that time, when you teach someone, you
cannot influence your class with your own emotion. I mean, if you show your
emotion at that time by crying, it means that it shows that you are weak. So that’s
why I want to be a teacher like her but not as weak as her. (Raisya, Interview
04/8/2015)
As her recounting illuminates, Raisya believed that a teacher should be emotionally
strong and act wisely in front of her students. Although the stories that Raisya narrated
above happened when she was a teenager, they seemed to be significant for Raisya in that
they influenced her perception of an ideal teacher. In her mind, an ideal teacher, as
exemplified by her junior high English teacher, must be resourceful, helpful, open-
minded, patient, and capable of working with anyone regardless of his or her different
background. The stories and Raisya’s impression about them seemed also to shape her
attitudes toward learning, including her ways of participating in collaborative writing
activities. As described in the previous findings chapters, during the collaborative writing
activities, Raisya was often observed to be the most dominant and active member who
cared about the group’s cohesiveness, continuity, and quality of the group work. She kept
encouraging and sometimes pushing her quiet friends to speak up and to contribute more.
Being a self-regulated and proficient English language learner, Raisya encouraged herself
as well as her friends to perform better. This is more evidence that persons important to
199
the participants and prior experiences related to English language learning influenced the
participants’ collaborative writing experiences.
The role of people important to the participants and prior L2 experiences were
also present in Vera’s case. As a Chinese Indonesian, with its generally associated-
collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1994; Hu, 2002), Vera’s parents, friends, and teachers
within this social and cultural context played an essential role in mediating her English
language learning. An emphasis on the importance of education to their children seemed
to be the underlining reason for Vera’s parents to support her English language learning
not only at school but also outside school. Living in a small town, it rarely happens that
parents would spend a large amount of money for their child’s foreign language
education if they do not perceive its importance for their child’s future. With her parents’
support, Vera took English language courses for five years. Vera also admitted that her
decision to take an English language course was influenced by her other Chinese friends,
stating:
Because at that time, actually… you know we all Chinese, like to gather. When I
was in junior high school and all of my Chinese friends took that course. And then
I took like longer than them to come to that place but I feel like I am the only one
that didn’t join that course. So gradually I also joined that course. (Vera,
Interview 04/09/15)
Vera explained that among her Chinese friends with whom she used to gather, she was
the only one who did not immediately join an English course. When she finally did, it
200
was likely done as a way to maintain her relationship with her friends and membership in
that particular group.
In addition to her friends at school, Vera’s English language instructor also
mediated her English language learning by giving her the opportunity to learn as well as
to teach English to other lower level students in the course. Vera stated, “After a year or
two I want to stop but the teacher there told me to help her to teach their students, so I
stayed” (Vera, Interview 04/09/15). Due to her considerable experience in learning and
teaching English, it is understandable that Vera was one of a few fluent English speakers
in her Essay Writing class. As described in chapter five, Vera was also one of the most
active and knowledgeable students in the collaborative writing groups. Moreover, Vera’s
previous experiences in teaching and working with others might have influenced her
social skills, for example in sharing ideas genuinely and collaborating with others. As
described in chapter six, Vera was concerned with the importance of politeness and open-
mindedness. She mentioned that she used to “share ideas with partners” at her workplace
and always “had to be careful” when talking to or exchanging ideas with them (Vera,
Interview 04/09/15). In terms of writing, Vera also shared that she had been writing her
diary in English for a year, as suggested by her academic advisor. This indicates that
writing, especially in English had been part of her everyday practices and to some extent
it influenced her writing skills and ability in general. As described in chapter five, during
the collaborative writing activities, Vera’s broad knowledge about writing and how to
write in English were observable, for example, from the ideas she contributed to the
group.
201
Similar to Raisya and Vera’s experiences, Sandi and Beni’s interests in learning
English were also affected by their parents or family, friends and English teacher during
their junior high school years. Recalling his experiences when he was a teenager and after
he finished his high school, Sandi expressed:
Ok, when I was a student of junior high school, I also have a kind of an English
private teacher. She was a student here also. And then she taught me well. Start
from that, I think I love it but I just didn’t realize it. So when I graduated from my
senior high school, my mom said that you have to be a teacher (laughing).
Actually I didn’t want it but since my mom...then I need to choose the subjects
that I love. Mathematics? No. So then I chose English because I think I know it
and I love it. Yeah, I love English. (Sandi, Interview 04/06/15)
Based on his recounting, Sandi had a private tutor in English when he was in junior high
school. This means that he had additional English exposure besides what he had at
school. This also shows his parents’ support toward Sandi’s English language learning
because hiring a private English tutor means extra expense. Moreover, Sandi’s interest in
English grew because he was impressed by the ways his female private tutor taught him.
Although Sandi said that becoming a teacher was not a career he initially wanted to
pursue, his love for his mother and for English made him decide to study in an English
education program. In addition to having private English tutorials, Sandi also studied in
an English language education program in another institution for a year prior to moving
to his current university. He moved because he wanted to get a better quality education in
the present college. That said, Sandi had more English exposure and learning experience
202
than his other peers in class. All this background and experiences related to English
might have partially influenced Sandi’s English language mastery and performance
during the collaborative writing activities. As presented previously, he was also among a
few active and dominant students in collaborative writing groups.
Likewise, Beni’s previous experiences with English seemed to have shaped his
confidence and determination in learning English. To illustrate, he described his
experience joining an English club in his junior high school:
I began to learn English in junior high school but I was still a stupid English
student, I think. I cannot count to a hundred, I cannot fill out the blank, I cannot
talk at all in English. But when I entered the seventh grade, I met my beautiful
former friend, so it motivated me to join English club in my school. I just learned
from her how to speak fluently like her. So in my school, there’s time for the
students to speak English. That was in a flag ceremony every Monday morning.
So it motivated me to know about pronunciation, vocabulary, and also speaking.
So it’s like an extracurricular activity and I joined it until I finished junior high
school. And then after that I really like English. My first competition is English
story telling but I didn’t win the competition because I was still a very beginner.
(Beni, Interview 04/28/15)
Like others, Beni started to like English when he was a junior high school student. His
“beautiful former friend” seemed to be an important person to Beni as she motivated him
to join her in an English club they had at school and to improve their English skills
together. In addition to joining this English club, Beni’s English language exposure came
203
from his school program in which a certain amount of time was allocated for its students
to speak English. Not all schools had such programs, and thus it was a great support for
students such as Beni who especially favored English. Furthermore, Beni’s interest in
English was also evident in the ways he attempted to improve his skills, one of which
was by joining an English story telling competition. He further added that he used to take
part in essay writing competition in Indonesian language, stating:
I love to join writing competition in Bahasa Indonesia. I think Bahasa Indonesia
and English are related. So when I write in English, I will use the strategies in
Bahasa Indonesia so it’s not difficult for me to arrange the words in English.
(Beni, Interview 04/28/15)
Beni believed that writing in English and in Indonesian language had a positive
correlation in that writing strategies in Indonesian were applicable to writing in English.
Last but not least, Beni’s strong determination toward English was also derived from his
ambition to become an Indonesian ambassador abroad (Beni, Interview 04/28/15). From
these experiences, Beni seemed to have gained his self-confidence and determination
especially in terms of his English skills and ability. On one occasion, when asked how he
thought about his writing ability, Beni mentioned, “I think I am good at writing” (Beni,
Interview 04/28/15). On another occasion, when he felt excluded by others whom he
considered smart students, Beni expressed:
When I first entered this faculty and began the subjects, I’ve never been in the
smart group. Also they preferred to choose another, so I think if I am also good
and our quality is the same and we are in the same class, it’s not a problem if they
204
want to choose the smart students for their group than me. So I never joined that
group. (Beni, Interview 04/28/15).
Beni was likely confident in seeing his own strength or quality and did not find it
problematic not to work with the “smart” group in his class. As discussed previously,
Beni was strongly determined to help his friends whom he considered as having low
English language proficiency to participate in their collaborative writing activities. This
shows his confidence in perceiving his own capability in helping others.
While Beni’s L2 prior experiences appeared to shape his self-confidence and
determination, they also seemed to affect his attitude toward collaboration. The fact that
he previously joined individual competitions might have influenced his learning
preference in that he “preferred to write alone” rather than writing with others (Beni,
Interview 06/15/15). He might have been used to doing everything alone; hence, he often
found it difficult to work with others with conflicting ideas.
The findings in this section revealed that factors such as people important to the
learners as well as their prior L2 knowledge and experiences seemed to affect their
classroom collaborative writing experiences and meaning making. To the participants,
people significant to the them such as parents, relatives, teachers, and friends provided
support (material or psychological) that aroused their interest and shaped their attitudes
toward English. In this sense, significant people around learners are social supports that
may boost one’s motivation in L2 learning (Ortega, 2009a). Through provision of early
L2 exposure, be it in the family, at school, or private courses, participants in this study
grew their interest in studying English, formed their own ideas of what a teacher should
205
be like, obtained some L2 competence and gained self-confidence to communicate or
interact with others using English. Recognizing all these aspects that participants brought
to class is crucial to our understanding and interpretation of their collaborative writing
experiences and what these experiences meant to them.
Social Identities and Membership in Specific Communities
Equally important factors that should not be overlooked as they might affect
learning are learners’ social identities and the practices that count in their membership of
particular communities (Kucer, 2009; Street, 2005). The findings in this research indicate
that participants’ membership in various communities, and therefore their identities
formed as the result of this membership, might influence the ways they viewed
collaborative writing, engaged in the collaborative writing activities, and made meaning
of their collaborative writing experiences. The communities include fanfiction, creepy
blogs, angklung groups, and bands.
In one of the interviews, Vera mentioned that writing in English was part of her
daily activities outside school. In addition to writing her diary in English, she also shared
her experience joining a fanfiction site and posting her stories on the website. When
asked what attracted her to join that community, Vera explained:
Because I really love Korean, you know (laughing). Because this fanfiction is all
about Korean, so I felt like my imagination is coming real. I wrote in English, but
the story is about Korean. Anything is about Korean, but we write in English.
(Vera, Interview 04/09/15)
206
Based on Vera’s description, she joined a specific fanfiction group in which the members
wrote Korean-related stories. She chose this specific group because she loved everything
Korean, and her membership and practices in the group seemed to have invigorated her
imagination. Vera is part of the majority of youth in Indonesia who follow the current
trends of popular culture related to Korean such as music, drama series, movies, fashion,
and comics. She went on to say, “At that time I was so happy to write because every time
I posted my fanfic, so many people came and liked and commented” (Vera, Interview
04/09/15). Vera contended that another reason for her to like fanfiction was people’s
appreciation of her work. She also asserted that her fanfiction experiences helped her a
lot in learning, especially in expressing her opinion.
Unfortunately, due to the high workload of courses and assignments in her current
study, Vera stated that she presently did not have time to write and post her stories. Yet,
she still visited the site to give comments. She said, “Maybe in the future when I have
time, I really like to continue posting” (Vera, Interview 04/09/15). Moreover, Vera’s
membership in the fanfiction community showed her passion for writing in English and
her attitude toward working or being in a group with other people. Having grown
accustomed to giving and receiving comments or feedback, Vera had learned
considerably about social values and skills needed to work with others. This seemed to
have transferred into her collaborative writing experiences and meaning making in that
she valued writing collaboratively. As described in chapters five and six, she also
appreciated her peers’ ideas and had a high sense of group responsibility and belonging.
Vera’s reasons to join the fanfiction community were in agreement with Black’s (2005)
207
claims that fanfiction offered a sense of authority in that members could post stories of
their own creation or modification. Additionally, it allowed opportunities to establish an
“expert” identity, as members could contribute, for example by giving feedback or
reviews to stories posted by other members. Vera’s case affirmed Black’s argument that
affiliation in fanfiction contributed to L2 learning in that it provided access to writing and
interacting in English.
Another finding that indicates the possible relationship between learners’
collaborative writing experiences and their memberships in social activities is also visible
in the case of Raisya. While Vera was affiliated with a fanfiction community, Raisya was
more into blogging. When asked to describe more about her blogging experience, Raisya
reported:
I used to write short stories. I really like to write short stories because I like to not
only imagining things but also I wanted it to be real. By writing my imagination,
at least I make it real in a story and for most of the stories I am using English than
Indonesian. I put that in my hard disk and sometimes I publish it but that one
especially for horror genre, “creepy pasta”. It’s a kind of blog that consists of
creepy pasta thing like horror story, legend story. I am one of the authors there. I
chose horror genre because it is not a common genre that people into. Actually I
don’t like love story in short stories especially in Indonesia. (Raisya, Interview
04/08/15)
Like Vera, Raisya chose to become a member of an online community because of her
interest in writing short stories especially of horror genre. To Raisya, writing was a way
208
to put her imagination into reality. As she reported, Raisya chose a genre that she thought
uncommon to many people around her. This statement seemed to affirm her strong and
highly determined personality in the same way as when she stated that she wanted “to
become a teacher like her [junior high English teacher] but not as weak as her” (Raisya,
Interview 04/08/15). Similarly, this could also be related to her perception about
collaborative writing as “challenging and interesting” in that “when you give your
opinion, there will be someone tackle it and saying that something is better than your
opinion” (Raisya, Interview 04/08/15). In this sense, Raisya responded to different ideas
in positive ways in that the differences might call for her own ability in defending her
own argument or to accept others’. As described in chapters five and six, Raisya’s strong
characteristic was visible in the ways she dominated and encouraged her peers in the
groups. Furthermore, when asked to explain what she found useful about her blogging
experiences, she stated:
I write because I like it. So at first I thought it will not have any effects on my
study. Then I met a subject this semester, about literature and I think my
experience in writing short stories will help me through this. (Raisya, Interview
04/08/15)
Raisya indicated that her interest was the biggest motivation for her to write. She was
also able to identify the usefulness of her out of school writing experiences for a course
she was taking. This would likely motivate her to participate more in the blogging
community. Moreover, in addition to writing and posting stories, Raisya explained that
giving comments and receiving feedback were also parts of her practices in the blogging
209
community. These experiences gave her a familiar sense of participation in writing as
social practice and were inevitably useful for her collaborative writing experiences.
The findings of this study also pointed to the ways in which learners’ social
identities might affect their collaborative writing experiences. This is evident in Sandi’s
case, being a leader and a perceived expert in the class and in Beni’s case being a coach
of angklung groups. As stated previously, Sandi started studying in the English education
program one year earlier than his other friends in class. Because he had more experience
in studying English, and supported by his English language performance in class, Sandi’s
friends appeared to perceive him as being more expert than they were. Moreover, he was
appointed as the class leader by his friends and thus carried with him a leader role and
responsibility. These identities as a class leader and expert in English language might
have partially affected Sandi’s ways of collaborating with his peers and also the ways in
which others viewed his roles in the group. This was visible in almost all collaborative
writing groups in which Sandi was involved.
As described in previous finding chapters, Sandi used to play a leading and often
dominating roles in his groups in that he initiated ideas and often made decisions
regarding what to include in the group writing. Playing his leadership and expert roles,
Sandi was also keen on encouraging his peers to participate in the group discussions.
Additionally, Sandi’s peers seemed also to observe his roles as a leader and expert in the
group; they always asked for Sandi’s approval or agreement, for example in the revision
process. The following excerpt illustrated this finding:
210
Excerpt 12
106 Sandi: OK, check it. 107 Eri: I am low in grammar. 108 Fina: (Reading the group’s text) Spend more money or spend the money? Spend
more money… 109 Eri: Ask Sandi. 110 Fina: Sandi, is it better to use to spend the money or to spend more money? 111 Sandi: Uh… don’t have to spend the money. Yeah. 112 Eri: There is or there are? 113 Sandi: There is… There is much material. Because we can’t count the material. 114 Eri: Which one is better, Sandi? 115 Fina: In the other way or the other ways? 116 Sandi: In the other way. 117 Fina: It’s better to use and or because? (Collaborative Writing, 03/11/15)
The above triad was part of Sandi’s collaborative writing activities in which he worked
with two female peers. At this stage, they had completed the task but were required by
the instructor to recheck the text, for example in terms of its grammar and mechanics.
Sandi, who probably felt he had done a lot for the group’s work already, tried to
encourage his peers to do the checking work. One of his peers, Eri, admitted that she was
bad in grammar, and this could be the reason why she did not trust her own ability in
checking and making revision on their work. Therefore, she kept asking Sandi’s opinion
and suggested Fina, her other peer, should do the same. It was observable in the triad that
both Eri and Fina repeatedly asked Sandi for help, especially when they felt unsure about
certain language aspects or correct ways of expressing ideas in the writing. In short,
Sandi’s case provides evidence that a learner’s social identity, in this case as a class
leader and an expert, might influence the ways he experienced and made meaning of his
collaborative writing experiences.
211
Similar evidence was also observed in Beni’s case in that his identity as an
angklung coach might have affected his collaborative writing experiences and meaning
making. As he described it, Beni started to have an interest in angklung when he was in
junior high school. He mentioned that he learned to play the instrument on his own and
began coaching when he entered senior high school. At the time of the study, he had been
coaching five angklung groups of different ages and school levels, from elementary to
senior high school students. They regularly had public performances and joined angklung
competition. When asked whether or not he found his experience as an angklung coach
helpful for his study, Beni explained:
Actually, I have learnt more about teaching and learning process when I teach
them. I can apply my knowledge to see what students need, what should I do as a
teacher, and what should I prepare. My research proposal is about angklung, how
song and music notation or rhythm can help student to learn English vocabularies,
pronunciation, and tenses. Through angklung as education tools the focus is on
the English songs. I still search for many books that relate to my topic but still
hard to find. (Beni, Interview 04/28/15)
From his description, Beni affirmed that he found his experience as an angklung coach
helpful for his study in the teacher education program. According to Beni, being a teacher
of angklung allowed him to learn about the teaching and learning process and some of a
teacher’s responsibilities, for example in understanding and fulfilling his students’ needs.
Moreover, with regards to a research proposal subject, Beni planned to do research on a
topic that connects angklung, music, song, and English language learning. Though he
212
found it hard to find supporting references, Beni seemed to be enthusiastic about the topic
as it related to something he enjoyed doing. As stated earlier, Beni used to join various
competition including English storytelling, essay writing, and angklung competition. All
of these proved that he had rich experiences with various forms of literacies related
directly or indirectly to his formal education. In the previous section I showed how these
experiences might have shaped Beni’s confidence in perceiving his English capability
and in performing the language. In this sense, Beni’s identity as an angklung coach and
his practices in various communities might be seen as mediational means for his learning.
Furthermore, Beni’s identity as a coach of angklung seemed to also influence his
collaborative writing experiences. Being a coach or teacher and thinking that he was the
main source of expertise, Beni might have positioned himself in the higher hierarchical
order in that he always wanted his angklung students to follow his instruction when they
were learning or practicing the instruments. He would find it annoying if a student
disregarded his authority. When working with his peers in collaborative writing groups,
Beni might have continued to carry out this identity and attitude. Consequently, he
disliked working with peers whom he considered not wanting to listen to his opinion.
Instead of trying to negotiate ideas, Beni often remained silent or retreated from
participating (Beni, Interview 04/28/15). From another perspective, Beni’s role as an
angklung coach also meant that he had more responsibilities than his other peers, who
were mainly students. In the beginning of the semester, Beni missed several class
meetings due to angklung competitions. Having problem with class attendance, Beni
stated:
213
I felt afraid because my attendance is low. So I have emotional problem in my
mind to enjoy the class. So if I follow the rules, I come to the class properly and if
all of my attendance is full, maybe I will enjoy and I can be more confident in the
class. Because I joined the competition outside the university, so it affected my
academic study. (Beni, Interview 04/28/15)
Beni was worried about his low attendance in the class, and this likely affected his
classroom participation and engagement, including in the collaborative writing activities.
In this case, Beni’s identity and the responsibilities that came with it appeared to have
clashed with his main responsibility as a student. Specifically, Beni’s social identity and
practices might have become constraining factors to his formal education because of his
inability to maintain the balance of all these roles.
The findings above showed that the participants’ prior knowledge and experiences
related to the English language and the literacy practices outside their college study
environment seemed to have shaped the participants’ identities, personality types, and the
social characteristics they displayed in the groups. The participants’ early exposure with
the English language, for example by having private English tutors or joining an English
study club, affected their linguistic resources and skills in that they were resourceful
when they interacted with their peers. In terms of the literacy practices in specific
communities in which the participants had been members, those who previously
experienced literacies that were collaborative in nature, tended to be collaborative as well
during their collaborative writing activities in class. Raisya and Vera’s experiences in
blogging and fanfiction illustrated this connection. On the other hand, participants who
214
had experienced literacy practices with a competitive orientation tended to be more self-
oriented and thus lacked collaboration during the collaborative writing sessions. An
example of this is Beni with his experiences in writing and angklung competitions.
Briefly stated, the findings suggested that the prior cultural practices and experiences the
participants brought to class seemed to affect their classroom collaborative writing
experiences and sense making.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented learners’ personal, social, cultural, and historical
aspects that might be associated with the ways in which participants experienced,
engaged in, and made meaning of their collaborative writing experiences. I described the
role of the teacher and his instructional design in creating an enjoyable atmosphere
conducive to learning. I elaborated the ways in which people important to the participants
and their prior L2 knowledge and experience might be associated with their collaborative
writing experiences. I also demonstrated the ways in which participants’ social identities
and memberships in other communities outside school might have influenced their
learning, especially their classroom collaborative writing experiences and meaning
making. What all these findings suggest is that my participants did not come to school
empty-handed. They were active members of various communities in which they
practiced different ways of communicating and interacting with others. To some extent,
these out-of-school experiences must have influenced their learning experiences at
school, as I presented above through my theoretical frameworks of SCT and writing as
social practice.
215
Chapter 8: Discussions and Conclusion
In this final chapter of my dissertation, I present discussions of my major findings
in light of the existing literature and research in L2 collaborative writing. Then, I provide
implications of the study. Finally, I conclude the dissertation with the study limitations
and recommendations for further research.
Summary of Findings and Discussions
This study investigated Indonesian EFL undergraduate students’ collaborative
writing experiences in an English essay writing class. It specifically aimed at
understanding the ways in which these learners experienced, engaged with, and made
meaning of their collaborative writing activities. The research was conducted as a
qualitative case study investigating the fourth semester students of an English education
program enrolled in an essay writing class at one of the state universities in Indonesia.
Data for the study were drawn from the results of in-depth individual interviews,
participant observations, and document/artifact analysis. The study was specifically
aimed at answering these three questions: 1) How do Indonesian EFL undergraduate
students describe their collaborative writing experiences? 2) In what ways do Indonesian
EFL undergraduate students learn in collaborative writing, and what mediates their
learning? 3) What are the influencing elements of their collaborative writing experiences?
Exploring the participants’ collaborative writing experiences as they occurred in the
natural setting presents a unique case and findings which are insightful for research and
practice in collaborative writing, especially in EFL settings.
216
L2 learning affordances. Participants in this study described having positive
perceptions of their collaborative writing experiences. They reported that collaborative
writing provided them with opportunities for authentic use of English and helped them
learn about writing and how to write in English. Through languaging, be it private speech
or collaborative dialogue (Swain, 2006), giving and processing feedback, as well as
scaffolding, they learned within the group ZPD (Vygotsky, 1981) in and through which
learning took place. Specifically, this study revealed that the written tasks during the
group work generated the students’ engagement in participating in the social activities of
knowledge co-construction.
First, through their oral interaction in the group, participants had opportunities to
use English for various language functions such as asking questions or giving opinions,
expressing agreement or disagreement, and confirming or clarifying ideas. In doing so,
participants were involved in dynamic and fluid participation roles such as tutor, leader,
scribe, and critical peer. For example, one member played a tutor role when he or she
provided feedback and explanation of that feedback to others in the group. Playing a
critical peer, participants demonstrated asking critical questions that required further
thoughts and sometimes reevaluation and revision of ideas for the group writing. Peers
also functioned as an immediate audience to one another because of whom participants
would carefully use their English during oral interaction. For instance, they immediately
corrected their own pronunciation or word forms when they realized that they made
mistakes. Also, when they noticed incorrect use of words or incoherent ideas, they would
involve themselves in the languaging process to collaboratively solve the problems.
217
Moreover, my participants exhibited relatively little use of L1s during their collaborative
writing activities. They used L1s either unconsciously or mostly because they did not
possess sufficient linguistic resources in the target language. To keep the flow of the
conversation, they sometimes codeswitched to Indonesian or Malay when they did not
know specific terms in English. However, they quickly codeswitched back to English
when they had determined the unknown word. In other words, the participants used L1s
as a strategy to enhance their learning; thus it also functioned as their mediational means.
These findings echoed the results of previous studies about the positive
perceptions of learners who participated in collaborative writing (e.g., Fernández Dobao
& Blum, 2013; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005). Specifically, this study confirmed that
collaborative writing extended learners’ opportunities to use English while at the same
time afforded L2 learning through languaging and the creation of group ZPD. This study
also corroborated the claims made in the previous research regarding the use of L1 in
collaborative writing as mediating tool for L2 learning especially in the context in which
learners shared the same L1s or cultural background (Antón & DiCamilla, 1999; Storch
& Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2000).
Furthermore, this study unpacked the multiple roles that each learner played in the
collective production of a text. These differing participation roles showed that expertise
was distributed among learners rather than residing in, for instance, an individual with
high English language proficiency (Storch, 2002). This finding enriched the previous
research, which claimed that students learned by providing feedback and scaffolding to
218
each other regardless of their level of language proficiency (Abadikhah & Mosleh, 2011;
Neumann & McDonough, 2015; Watanabe & Swain, 2007).
In addition, this finding is an important contribution to the field of L2
collaborative writing in that it challenged the view that success in collaborative writing
was merely determined by the quantity of correctly resolved LREs or the final outcome.
Viewing writing as a social practice, my study suggests that learners’ success could also
be defined by the responsibilities that they developed in the composing process based on
their own capabilities. As my participants’ collaborative writing experiences were
characterized by frequent changes of groups and peers, the ways in which they were able
to navigate their roles and appropriate meanings in these changing contexts should be
considered to be part of their learning endeavor. Viewing the students as active agents in
knowledge construction during the collaborative writing activities provided sound
evidence that could challenge the generalized idea of passive learners that has been
directed toward Asian (including Indonesian) learners and which has been perpetuated by
scholars, teachers, and even the students themselves (Camani, 2014; Kumaravadivelu,
2008; Littlewood, 2000).
Another interrelated area that my participants identified as an affordance of
English language learning was related to the written texts such as paragraphs or essay that
they had to produce in the groups. My study revealed that writing collaboratively
provided learners with a large pool of knowledge from which they could draw. Unlike
solitary writing, in which learners could only count on their own knowledge, the presence
of peers in collaborative writing allowed for more references from which to draw.
219
Previous research (e.g., Fernández Dobao, 2012; Mutwarasibo, 2013; Shehadeh, 2011)
claimed that writing in small groups of three or four members provided more
opportunities for language learning than writing individually or in pairs. However, the
findings of this body of research included mainly the linguistic resources that learners
shared with each other. On the other hand, my study revealed that participants’
composing process also included making connections among their personal and shared
knowledge and experiences. For example, the participants demonstrated the ways in
which knowledge that they gained from a course that they took together could be used to
enhance their group writing. Additionally, this study also exhibited learners’ uses of
external sources such as journal articles and specific website contents to enhance their
joint texts. In short, my study revealed that collaborative writing allowed learners to
utilize various resources not only to deal with the linguistic aspects of their texts but also
the content, organization, and writing strategies.
Viewing writing as social practice, my study contributed to the current research
and literature in L2 collaborative writing by providing evidence that writing is not only
about applying the grammatical rules of the target language correctly or accurately.
Through their collaboratively produced texts and composing acts, my participants were
engaged in “dialogic negotiations” (Kostouli, 2005, p. 1) to construct meaning. In this
process of meaning making, my participants were aware that their writing should meet
the needs and expectations of the readers. In other words, their collective efforts not only
in using the correct form of English but also in supporting their ideas with experts’
opinions showed their awareness of the audience for their writing. The fact that my
220
participants projected their peers as the immediate audience to whom they directed their
purposes of writing suggested that collaborative writing afforded learners an
understanding of audience. Moreover, my study revealed that the participants cared about
the intertextual aspect of writing as social practice as evidenced in their attempts to
incorporate various relevant references to add to the depth and breadth of their texts.
These important aspects of writing such as intertextuality and sense of audience (Bakhtin,
1986; Canagarajah, 2006; Fairclough, 1999; Widdowson, 2004) were often overlooked in
the previous L2 collaborative writing research. Thus, my study is significant in
addressing these issues.
Constraints and affordances of learning the social values and skills. The next
major findings in my study relate to learners’ described experiences of their collaborative
writing as involving struggles in navigating their social relations and their learning of
social values and skills. Participants in my study indicated that their collaborative writing
experiences included experiencing difficult times and frustration in their social relations
as they negotiated their roles and attempted to solve problems in the group. In particular,
they contended that the types of peers they worked with in the group affected their
collaborative writing experiences. In these cases, participants’ collaborative writing
experiences were characterized by interrelated elements, such as conflicts, power
dynamics, domination, resistance, exclusion, and silence or silencing. To some extent,
my study suggested that the participants exercised power in the group as a strategy to
enable the group to function well. In the case of domination, for instance, participants
indicated that they played a dominant role in a group when they worked with peers whom
221
they thought of as lacking contribution. They argued that to some extent, such
domineering behavior was timely and appropriate as a way to attain the group’s goal,
which was to complete the task. The findings also revealed that one student’s dominance
in the group might result in another’s resistance, which was then followed by silence or
lack of contribution. In this sense, silence in the group might also indicate a strategy
through which participants either displayed their compromising stance or found ways to
protest peer domination and was not necessarily an indication of lack of English language
competence (Bao, 2014).
Furthermore, previous studies (Storch, 2002, 2004) have identified that not all
groups in collaborative writing formed similar patterns of collaboration; the reason for
this has been attributed to the learners’ goals or motives. However, my study suggested
that the perceptions of peers’ type, especially related to the personal characteristics and
preferences, seemed to affect the relationship formed. Specifically, the findings pointed
to three types of peers in collaborative writing, namely collaborative, dominating, and
quiet. Additionally, each type that was identified by the participants displayed certain
social characteristics (See Table 6.1 in chapter six). For example, the collaborative type
shared responsibility, encourage or motivate others, be cooperative, initiate ideas, and
engage others in the group discussions. On the other hand, the dominating type tended to
control or direct the ways the group operated and make decisions for the group. Finally,
the quiet type was often silent, lacked contribution, and often submissive in that they
simply accepted others’ ideas without arguing or objecting. Based on these types of peers
and their social characteristics in the group, my study added insights to the previous
222
research in terms of factors that might affect the patterns of interactions formed during
collaborative writing activities. While previous studies have identified L2 proficiency,
gender differences, and cultural background as factors affecting the patterns of
relationships in collaborative writing (e.g., Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Watanabe & Swain,
2007; Yong, 2006), my study suggested that the types of peers the students work with
should also be taken into account in understanding their collaborative writing
experiences.
The next findings relate to the participants’ learning of social values and skills.
Due to the hardship in maintaining their social relationship and group harmony and the
different strategies they employed to enable the group to function well, participants
indicated that learning social values such as respect, open-mindedness, empowerment,
and empathy and the ability to perform them constituted their collaborative writing
experiences. As described in chapter six, the Indonesian collectivistic cultures that
emphasize group harmony and cooperation might have influenced the participants’
performance of their social skills to some extent. For example, some participants would
choose to accept others’ ideas or to keep silent rather than challenging their peers to
avoid conflicts or group disharmony. Additionally, silence in this sense could sometimes
be an indication of one’s cooperation; that is, it could be a way to provide others with
opportunities to talk or to be heard (Bao, 2014).
My theoretical frameworks, SCT and writing as social practice, enabled me to
analyze and interpret my participants’ learning not merely in terms of the linguistic
competence or performance, but as participation in social practice. This guided me to
223
focus on the ways in which the participants made meaning (learned) from and through
participation rather than focusing on the outcome (for instance, the writing product).
Aligned with this idea, my participants’ descriptions of their collaborative writing
experiences as including learning social values and skills, such as respect, empathy, and
understanding showed that they transformed their collaboration into learning to navigate
social relationships. This indicates that my participants “gained cultural capital and
discourses of power they may not otherwise have acquired” (Larson, 2005, p. 98). It is
evidence of learning as it is defined in SCT, as the “transformation of participation in
culturally valued activity” (Rogoff, 2003 cited in Larson, 2005, p. 98).
Furthermore, researchers argued that conflicts and the ways they should be
resolved were inherent issues in any group interaction including in collaborative writing;
however, they have received little attention in the previous research, especially in L2
settings (Bremner, Peison-Smith, Jones, & Bhatia, 2014; Rentz, Arduser, Meloncon, &
Debs, 2009; Tocalli-Beller, 2003). Thus, this study contributed to this field by providing
descriptions of the participants’ emotional struggles and the ways in which they learned
as the result of dealing with conflicts in collaborative writing. In short, my study
suggested that learning in collaborative writing went beyond the cognitive aspects.
Rather, it also included the social and affective aspects of social interactions.
Factors influencing student collaborative writing experiences. My findings
revealed that participants’ collaborative writing experiences and their meaning making
were influenced by factors such as the teacher’s role, his instructional design, classroom
atmosphere, and learners’ existing knowledge and experiences related to English and
224
other literacy practices. Of important note is that although my study did not directly
investigate my participants’ activities outside the classroom, the in-depth individual
interviews and the follow-up conversations generated significant data regarding their
background knowledge and experiences. Referring to Vygotsky’s (1978, 1981) work,
Swain, Kinnear, and Steinman (2015) argue that SCT attempts “to understand mental
development and learning by considering not only the contextual specifics but also the
process over time, rather than focusing only on a particular moment of spoken or written
production” (p. xiii). In this sense, understanding my participants’ learning in
collaborative writing required that I also considered their background knowledge and
experience that might shape their current experiences. Additionally, writing (or literacy in
general) as social practice theory emphasizes the important and interrelated roles of
learners’ literacy practices both in and outside school. Therefore, while being cautious in
drawing connections between these relationships, I argue that the stories that my
participants shared regarding their prior knowledge and current or past experiences were
essential and deserved consideration in understanding my participants’ collaborative
writing experiences and their meaning making.
First, my study suggested that collaborative writing instruction provided learners
with opportunities to learn enjoyably in a non-threatening environment and atmosphere
conducive to learning. Within such an environment, learners had the flexibility to interact
with their peers due to the seating arrangement, and they had the authority to take control
of their own learning during the collaborative writing activities. Additionally, they felt
motivated to work on the written task as the topics were closely connected to their life
225
and prior knowledge. Moreover, unlike in the conventional sessions in which the
participants felt stressed about writing alone, they reported enjoying collaborative writing
sessions since they had their peer support to work together to accomplish the written
tasks.
The next factors that seemed to have influenced the participants’ collaborative
writing experiences were their L2 prior knowledge and experiences, including the people
important to them. As described in chapter seven, all my participants had considerable
English language exposure that seemed to have influenced their learning through
collaborative writing. Some of them reported that in addition to formal learning at school,
they learned English by hiring private English tutors or by taking an English course. They
also shared information about the support they received from family, relative, English
teacher, and friends that grew their interest and motivation to learn English. Due to this
exposure and support from these significant people to them, most of the participants were
among the most knowledgeable learners in the class, as was evident from their ways of
interacting and contributing to the group. They played important roles in the groups,
especially in helping and encouraging other peers to participate in the group discussions.
Finally, unlike the previous L2 collaborative writing research that focused its
investigation on the final written product, my main purpose to understand students’
experiences when writing collaboratively has led me to discover that they have
participated in various literacy practices outside school. Most importantly, I have found
that these experiences with various literacy practices seemed to influence their learning in
collaborative writing. As presented in chapter seven, my participants had been involved
226
in various communities that entailed numerous and diverse literacy practices, such as
teaching and tutoring English, writing fanfiction, blogging, online gaming, and angklung
coaching. With these practices, they carried different identities that might also affect the
ways they viewed and engaged in collaborative writing activities. For example, Raisya
and Vera, who had experiences in blogging and writing fanfiction, revealed that these
experiences helped their learning in class, for instance in expressing their opinion and in
interacting with others. Moreover, the study also showed the ways in which the type of
literacy practices that the participants had engaged in appeared to shape their social
characteristics in the group. For example, Vera’s experience with the collaborative nature
of fanfiction seemed to have helped her to be collaborative, open minded, and respectful
during her collaborative writing activities. On the contrary, Beni, who used to join
various competitions, either individually (e.g., an essay writing competition) or in group
(e.g., angklung competition) appeared to be self-oriented and often lacked responsibility
when writing collaboratively with his peers. While the patterns of interactions in
collaborative writing were dynamic in that they changed depending on factors such as the
types of peers the participants worked with, these findings were important to my
understanding of the ways in which learners’ background knowledge, identities, and
social practices that they bring to school might enhance or constrain learner’s
collaborative writing experiences. These findings also suggested that learners came to
class with rich knowledge and experiences. Although these resources might not
necessarily relate to English, parts of them might be useful to help learners with low
English proficiency to learn in class, for example by participating in collaborative writing
227
activities based on their own capability. Thus, these findings added new insights to the
existing L2 collaborative writing literature and research in terms of the importance of
learners’ resources other than linguistic competence for their learning through
collaborative writing activities.
EFL collaborative writing model. Based on the overall findings and analyses
presented in the preceding sections, I proposed an EFL collaborative writing model as
shown in the diagram below:
Figure 8.1
EFL Collaborative Writing Model
As the model shows, learning (of the English language, about writing and how to
write in English, and of social values and skills) in face-to-face collaborative writing was
228
situated in the contexts of EFL education, the community, the discourses of L2 academic
writing in higher education, and the particular higher educational institution where the
research was located. These situating contexts affected the ways in which
participants/students learned literacies in general, and writing in particular. To elaborate,
the EFL teacher education context shaped the ways learners viewed the significance of
their English language learning, for example in setting up the goals and expectations that
they must accomplish in learning and writing in English as pre-service English teachers.
The academic writing discourses additionally situated learners’ writing practices at the
university, for example by establishing standards that determined the quality of student
writing and performance of other related language skills (Lillis, 2013). Moreover, the
community outside the learners’ academic environment situated and shaped the learners’
literacy practices as they participated in the meaning making and knowledge construction
in various specific communities. Next, through their policies and supporting facilities and
infrastructures, the institution afforded learners opportunities to learn and socialize within
the formal context of higher education. Briefly stated, all these factors constituted
learners’ knowledge and experiences, which further affected the ways in which they co-
constructed knowledge and meaning through collaborative writing.
Furthermore, learners’ collaborative writing experiences and the ways they made
meaning out of these experiences were comprised of three interrelated aspects, namely
individual, social, and instructional aspects. The first category, the individual aspect,
consisted of various elements of the individual learners. These elements included, among
other things, learner’s personality or types, affect or emotions, learning preferences, L2
229
proficiency, social identities, and social skills in navigating their roles and managing
conflicts and power dynamics. Next, the social dimension or aspects were related to
resources or entities that the learners carried with them to their in-class collaborative
writing experiences. These social dimensions constituted and were constitutive of
learners’ selves as members of a larger community. In this study, these social dimensions
included the social and cultural norms and values, relationships with people significant to
the learners, English language exposure, knowledge, and experiences, as well as learners’
literacy practices as part of their memberships in various communities. Finally, the
instructional category was comprised of teacher roles, course assessment and evaluation,
teaching and learning materials, class management, and the conventional EFL teaching
instructions. These factors constituted learners’ knowledge about writing and how to
write in English and were available for them to utilize during the collaborative writing
instruction. In short, these three aspects intertwined and constituted learners’
collaborative writing experiences and their sense making.
This model provides important elements that should be taken into account in
understanding students’ collaborative writing experiences. It shows that individual factors
as well as social, cultural, and historical aspects of the learners are interrelated and affect
the learners’ practices when they collaboratively construct a joint text. It strongly
suggests that ignoring these influencing factors, for example by focusing mainly on the
produced text or outcome, will prevent researchers and teachers from seeing the ways in
which learners carry out their collaborative writing activities and what influences their
decisions and participation in such learning events. This model brings to the fore
230
important implications for theories, pedagogy, and policy regarding research and
implementation of collaborative writing, especially in EFL settings. I present these
implications in the next sections.
Theoretical Contribution
This study was guided by SCT and writing as social practice theory. It offered
significant theoretical contributions, especially to the use of both theories as an
theoretical frameworks to investigate learning in L2 collaborative writing. First, the
findings of the study confirmed the claims made in SCT that learning is a socially
situated activity (Vygotsky, 1981) by providing evidence of the ways in which learners
learned through interactions with their peers. Important constructs in SCT such as
mediation, internalization, the ZPD, agency, and participation provided analytical lenses
to see the ways in which students learned English and how to write in English by using
the language to interact with each other. Validating the concept of the ZPD, for instance,
my study provided evidence that both novice and expert learners collaboratively
constructed the group ZPD through languaging, i.e., private speech or collaborative
dialogue (Swain, 2006), scaffolding, and providing feedback to one another. Worthy of
note, the study confirmed the SCT perspective of the fluidity of expert/novice roles
(Donato, 2004; Van Lier, 2004) by showing the ways in which participants took turn in
performing these roles. In addition, the findings of this study also supported the SCT
viewpoint of the importance of various mediational means that learners used to enhance
their learning (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Evidenced in this study were the ways in which
participants used their linguistic resources, personal knowledge, and shared experiences
231
to negotiate ideas and solve problems that occurred during the collaborative construction
of their texts.
Furthermore, as surveyed in the literature review chapter, previous L2
collaborative writing research has used SCT mostly to analyze the sociocognitive and
skill aspects of L2 learning and L2 writing. For example, these studies investigated L2
collaborative writing in terms of the learners’ ability to solve language-related problems
(e.g., Kim, 2008; Nasaji & Tian, 2010) or the quality of the texts produced (Mutwarasibo,
2013; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth &
Storch, 2009, 2012; Youhanaee, Tehrani, & Piri, 2012). Looking at the effects of
collaborative writing on L2 learning and outcomes is useful to inform pedagogical
practice and because language mastery and skill development are also part of students’
acts of writing (Chala & Chapetón, 2012). However, Vygotsky (1981) also emphasized
the interrelatedness of cognition and affect or emotion in learning. Therefore, it is also
crucial to recognize how emotions, as “socially and discursively constructed acts of
communication” (Imai, 2010, p. 288) could mediate learning and development. As such,
my study added to the very few studies (e.g., Imai, 2010; Storch, 2002; Tocabelli-Beller,
2003) that employed SCT to analyze learning as involving learners’ ability to manage
their affect or emotions in response to conflicts and power dynamics in the social
relationships. In other words, I added insights to the use of SCT to understand learning in
collaborative writing as not only involving cognitive aspects but also affective and social
aspects of learners.
232
Another theoretical contribution that my study offered is the use of writing as
social practice theory which is still scant in the field of L2 collaborative writing,
especially in an EFL setting (Bejarano & Chapetón, 2013; Chala & Chapetón, 2012).
Based on this theoretical perspective, the focus of analysis shifts from the linguistic and
textual feature of writing to “the way writing is embedded within activities of everyday
life” (Lillis, 2013, p. 74). In my study, writing (and reading) activities in classes were
considered part of and recruited resources from students’ everyday practices as they were
routinely involved in such practices (Lillis, 2013). My findings, which showed the ways
in which participants focused their collaborative writing activities on the dialogical,
intertextual, and readership (sense of audience) aspects of writing in EFL academic
writing discourses, confirmed the socially situated nature of writing as is pointed out in
the writing as social practice theory.
Finally, my findings indicated the potential connections between the participants’
collaborative writing experiences in the classroom and their prior experiences with
English and literacy practices outside of school. Specifically, the participants’
background knowledge and experiences with English and their literacy practices in
specific communities such as fanfiction, blogging, angklung musical teams, and youth
band seemed to have affected the type of peers they became and the social characteristics
they displayed during the collaborative writing activities. These findings confirmed a
central claim made in SCT and writing as social practice theory; that is, learning is
embedded in the social, cultural, and historical contexts of the learners. Thus said, this
study contributed to the field of L2 collaborative writing by offering more to think about
233
in using writing as social practice theory as a lens to investigate learning in L2
collaborative writing.
To summarize, this study took a fresh look at the experiences of EFL learners
who participated in face-to-face collaborative writing activities in class. It added insights
to the use of SCT and writing as social practice theory in understanding EFL students’
learning in collaborative writing as involving cognitive, affective, and social aspects of
individual learning and development. Additionally, it uncovered the potential links
between learners’ existing experiences with English and outside school literacy practices
to their collaborative writing experiences in the classroom. In short, this study shed
theoretical light into the field of face-to-face collaborative writing in EFL higher
education settings.
Pedagogical Implications
The findings of this study provided important pedagogical implications for the
implementation of collaborative writing in an EFL setting. The study provided evidence
that collaborative writing afforded learners opportunities not only to learn English and
how to write in English, but also to learn about and develop social skills and values
needed during the collaborative construction of their texts. The study also revealed
factors that influenced learners’ collaborative writing experiences and the ways they
made meaning out of these experiences, namely teacher role and instructional designs,
the social and cultural norms and values, L1s, group dynamics, prior L2 knowledge and
experiences, and outside school (everyday) literacy practices in specific communities.
These findings have some pedagogical implications for the implementation of
234
collaborative writing in EFL higher education setting. I provide these implications under
the following interrelated categories: group formation and teacher role and instructional
designs.
Group formation. This study suggested a few things about group formation and
composition that are worthy of consideration. First, the participants contended that the
type of peers they worked with in a group primarily affected their collaborative writing
experiences. Specifically, they found collaborative writing meaningful when every
member shared the same responsibility, that is by participating actively in attaining the
group goal. They emphasized that as long as each member was willing to talk or engage
in the group discussion, other factors such as language proficiency, the type of task, or
gender or ethnic differences would not matter a lot. In this case, a teacher should take into
account his or her students’ individual characteristics and learning preferences when
forming the groups. If the students agree that the teacher should decide upon the group
members, applying a careful selection technique would be better than randomly selecting
the group members, as the instructor in this study did. This strategy will minimize
learners’ reservation to work with peers who are either passive or too dominating.
Second, asking the students to work in groups of two or three members may be more
effective than assigning them to work in bigger groups. As the findings suggested, in a
group of four, one member often tended to have little participation and contribution due
to peer domination or lack of motivation. Finally, because it is not always possible for the
students to work with peers who can perfectly fit their preferences, the most important
thing for them to understand is to keep practicing to the development of their social skills
235
along with changes of peers and groups. This leads to the next pedagogical implications,
related to the teacher role and instructional designs.
Teacher role and instructional designs. In this study, the collaborative writing
tasks assigned to the students were mostly open in nature in that the students were
required to write various types of essays based on the topics provided by the teacher or of
their own choice. In some cases, the students were to write a five-paragraph essay, which
usually ended up with giving them additional or extra time to complete the tasks.
Assigning students with open-ended tasks also seemed to have resulted in the use of L1s
in off topic discussions in the groups. In order to assist learners in using their time and
relevant resources efficiently and effectively for the group task completion, it is advisable
that the tasks be well-structured and presented gradually in terms of the quantity and the
level of difficulty and complexity by considering factors such as the students’ level of
English proficiency and their familiarity with collaborative writing. In addition, the
findings of this study revealed that some participants seemed to have little experience in
collaborative writing. As a result, they had difficulties in solving the affective conflicts
occurring in the groups. These findings suggested that a teacher should be more
facilitative not only in addressing task-related issues (as shown in the findings) but also in
helping students to solve problems related to power dynamics and relationships formed in
the group. For early collaborative writing tasks, for instance, teachers can assign students
specific roles and emphasize the importance of shared responsibility for the group to
work. Teachers also need to ensure that the students understand the equally significant
role each member has in the group. Moreover, while collaborative writing requires that
236
learners share the group responsibility and ownership of the joint text, the fact that the
instructor in this study still emphasized the solitary nature of writing and individual skill
performance as the basis for assessment might also have impeded students’ learning in
and through collaborative writing. Because of these emphases on individual’s
performance and assessment, the students might not see the importance and the potential
benefits of writing collaboratively with their peers thus decreasing their motivation to do
the collaborative writing tasks. I would suggest that teachers assign some portion of the
course grade to student participation in collaborative writing activities in addition to the
assessment through individual projects and performance.
Last, the findings showed that participants had considerable existing knowledge
of English and had been involved in various literacy-related practices in communities
outside their academic environment. The participants were familiar with different types
of texts and various practices related to these texts, such as online writing (fanfiction and
blogging), musical notations, and gaming rules or manuals. The study also indicated that
these experiences partially shaped the participants’ identities, personalities or types and
the social characteristics they displayed when writing collaboratively. An important
pedagogical implication based on these findings is that teachers should recognize the
various resources that students bring to class and incorporate them into their teaching
instructions. For example, rather than solely using standardized English writing textbooks
or essay models, as the teacher in this study did, teachers can integrate students’
resources into collaborative writing in terms of the mode of the collaboration (e.g., an
online or hybrid mode) and the supplemental materials for the writing tasks (e.g., using
237
popular or youth culture as a topic that students should develop into their argumentative
essay). Such variations can increase students’ motivation toward writing collaboratively
because they are involved in something that interests them or with which they are
familiar. Additionally, to help learners’ adjustment into the discourses of academic
writing and EFL demands, teachers can bring topics that connect social issues in society
to the EFL education in Indonesia. Issues such as social class, race or ethnicity, and
gender differences are mostly absent in classroom discussions, as the EFL instructions
and the instructors have exclusively focused on EFL teaching methodology and language
standards that the students have to meet. Having conversations and writing around such
social issues in their connections to EFL education, for instance, will encourage students’
critical thinking and improve the ways they see the world. Most importantly, the
integration of students’ existing resources and authentic social issues around them into
their academic study means providing access for all learners, including those who do not
necessarily possess high English proficiency and skills, to contribute to the knowledge
co-construction through social interactions in their collaborative writing groups.
Policy Implications
Student learning, teacher roles, and instructional designs are inevitably connected
to the educational institution and its policies in which these “particular literacies have
been created by and are structured and sustained” (Barton & Hamilton, 2000, p. 12). On
this matter, the study has some policy implications regarding learning in collaborative
writing, including institutional support for EFL literacy practices in and outside
classrooms, student assessment, and course integration in the curriculum.
238
First, the study revealed that the students in the English department did not spend
considerable time using English with each other, especially outside the class, for various
reasons. For example, they cited that not everyone felt comfortable and confident
speaking English with their friends. One of the reasons for this problem could be
attributed to the status of English as a foreign language in this social context. According
to Barton and Hamilton (2000), “literacy practices are patterned by social institutions
and power relationships, and some literacies are more dominant, visible and influential
than others” (p. 12, emphasis in the original). In this sense, English education in a foreign
language context could be seen as “vernacular literacies” (Barton & Hamilton, 2000, p.
12) as opposed to the dominant literacies in which Indonesian language and other social,
cultural, and historical related resources are used. Therefore, one of the ways to support
student EFL learning is by recognizing, facilitating, or even regulating EFL-related social
practices within the institution. A practical example would be the establishment of an
“English speaking zone” in which student literacy practices related to English are urged
and legitimized. In such an environment, EFL students as well as teachers will feel
comfortable and confident communicating with each other in English, and EFL-related
literacies and practices can be nurtured. As such, students and other members in this
context or community of practice will have access and resources to participate together
with other domains of literacy practices in the knowledge construction within the
institution.
The next policy implication relates to the curriculum design in the EFL education
program, especially in terms of student assessment. The findings in this study showed
239
that the participants learned through various yet dynamic roles of participation in
negotiating ideas and solving problems during the collaborative writing activities. The
participants indicated that their collaborative writing experiences were meaningful, as
collaborative writing afforded them not only opportunities to learn English and how to
write in English but also the chance to develop their social skills and values in working
with their peers. As the study unpacked what really happened when students learned and
wrote with their peers, it offered perspectives indicating that assessing the students
exclusively based on their final product without considering the process of producing the
texts would cause unnecessary and even false judgment that could be a further detriment
to student learning. Aligned with the idea of assessing student writing, Massa (1997)
argues:
There is a need to redefine the objectives of writing assessment, moving it from a
punitive, gatekeeping tool that measures deficits, to a facilitative tool that informs
novice academic writers of the characteristics of clear expression of thought,
informs teachers of students’ potential, and informs the classroom curriculum.
The definition of writing development needs to be extended from the indication of
increasing proficiency in editing mechanical errors to the increasing ability to
successfully complete a wide variety of tasks. (p. 87)
Therefore, the curriculum should provide space for various ways of assessing
student learning and writing. Alternative assessments such as student portfolios,
individual reflections, and multimodal group or individual projects can be part of this
assessment.
240
Finally, I propose integration of courses in the EFL curriculum designs. The
findings showed that collaborative writing involved students’ oral use of English to
interact with peers, and reading and evaluating relevant texts to support their writing.
This evidence indicated that writing was a social practice that involved other skills such
as listening, speaking, and reading and knowledge of linguistic elements such as grammar
and vocabulary. Rather than teaching each of these skills and units as separate entities, as
was the case of the curriculum used in the research site, I suggest that the teaching and
learning of these language skills and units are integrative in that each supports one
another. For example, grammar and vocabulary courses can be incorporated in skill
subjects within purposeful activities. Additionally, collaborative learning can be
implemented not only in the writing course but also in speaking and reading courses. In
each of these courses, students can learn and develop their communication and
collaborative skills while engaging in various literacy activities.
Overall, this study suggested some policy implications in order to support student
learning through collaboration. Student learning should not only be limited to the
classroom context, but it requires support and facilitation outside the class too. Finally, it
is important that the institution recognizes and acknowledges the resources that the
students bring to class, and as suggested, this requires changes or adaptation in the
current institutional policy including the EFL curriculum being used.
241
Study Limitations
While this study suggests important findings and implications, it cannot escape
limitations. My study could suffer from at least three limitations: transferability,
researcher role, and the use of English, translation, and interpretation. First, I only
focused on the experiences of four students and an instructor in one essay writing class
thus the results might not be transferable beyond these participants and context. Although
I intended to provide in-depth descriptions of my participants’ own voices and to
document their lived collaborative writing experiences, the small scale of this research
might not sufficiently reveal the uniqueness and the complexities of EFL learners’
collaborative writing experiences in general. Nevertheless, my study could be
transferrable to other similar contexts and set a point of departure for further research
exploring collaborative writing.
The next study limitation relates to my role as a researcher as well as one of the
faculty members in the research site. To some extent, my role as one of the teacher
educators might have affected the ways my participants went about writing
collaboratively. My insider perspectives might also have affected my data analysis and
interpretation due to my familiarity with the research site. To address this limitation and
to avoid bias, I did member checking with the participants and remained reflective on my
own roles.
Finally, my participants chose to use English in the interviews. As English is not
their native or first language, their English language proficiency might have affected their
interpretation of my questions and the ways in which they responded to those questions.
242
Although we often code-switched and used translation from English to Indonesian and
vice versa, this could also affect the meaning and the message being conveyed because of
differences in both languages. To avoid misunderstanding and biased interpretation of the
data, I maintained member checking and consulted with my critical peers.
Areas for Further Research
Despite the limitations described above, this study can point to possible areas of
further research in collaborative writing. First, longitudinal qualitative case studies may
be employed to investigate all members working in specific collaborative writing groups.
For example, the participants in this study were among the most noticeable and proficient
learners of English. The fact that this study did not involve the perceptions and
experiences of peers who were perceived to be passive and/or of low English proficiency
that the focal students worked with opens an opportunity for further research
investigating these groups of learners. This future study could use in-depth individual as
well as focus group interviews to elicit participants’ perceptions and attitudes toward
collaborative writing, especially after they experience prolonged collaborative writing
activities. Additionally, both video and audio recordings of the collaborative writing
activities could be very helpful in providing rich data of the ways in which participants
interact with one another in the group. They could also be analyzed to generate patterns
of collaboration that afford (or do not afford) learning.
Next, future qualitative case studies could explore participants’ collaborative
writing experiences in terms of their use of certain strategies to produce a good quality
text. For example, such studies could analyze participants’ knowledge co-construction in
243
evaluating and utilizing certain sources or strategies for their joint texts. Moreover, as
suggested in the findings, my participants were involved in various literacy practices in
social communities outside school. A qualitative case study could investigate
participants’ collaboration in writing a text together by blending different modes of
learning, for example face-to-face and online collaborative writing activities. Such
research could also explore the possible connections between collaborative writing,
learner beliefs, and motivation.
Finally, future research could also investigate collaborative writing from the
perspectives of the teacher. For example, a researcher could focus on teachers’ ways of
designing collaborative writing instruction, their decision making process regarding the
instructional design, or their evaluation of the student learning resulting from
collaborative writing instruction.
Conclusion
In this last chapter of my dissertation, I have summarized my major findings and
analyzed them in light of the surveyed literature review and research in L2 collaborative
writing. I have also suggested implications of the study for the theory, pedagogy, and
policy related to research and implementation of EFL collaborative writing. I outlined the
study limitations and finally recommended areas for further research. While the findings
of this study cannot be considered conclusive and generalizable, they offered some useful
insights for researchers and practitioners (teachers, teacher educators, and curriculum
makers) who are interested in collaborative writing, especially in EFL settings.
244
References
Abadikhah, S., & Mosleh, Z. (2011). EFL learners’ proficiency level and attention to
linguistic features during collaborative output activities. Iranian EFL Journal, 7,
179-198.
Alal, L., Lopez, L. M., Lehraus, K., & Forget, L. (2005). Whole-class and peer
interaction in an activity of writing and revision. In T. Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in
context(s): Textual practices and learning processes in sociocultural settings (pp.
69-91). New York: Springer.
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative
interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233-247.
Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in
language learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing
group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 421-
448.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. A selection of essays from
the Russian original “Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva” [1979]. (V. McGee,
Trans., C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds)). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bao, D. (2014). Understanding silence and reticence: Ways of participating in second
language acquisition. Sydney: Bloomsbury.
245
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R.
Ivanić (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in contexts (pp. 7-15). New
York: Routledge.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry
and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University
Press/SRHE.
Bejarano, P. A. C., & Chapetón, C. M. (2013). The role of genre-based activities in the
writing of argumentative essays in EFL. PROFILE, 15(2), 127-147.
Black, R. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of
English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 118-128.
Berger, C. R. (1994). Power, dominance, and social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & G. R.
Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 450-507).
London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
246
Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (2000). Identity and ideology: Culture and pragmatics in
content-based ESL. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign
language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 203-219). Marwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bradac, J. J., & Giles, H. (2005). Language and social psychology: Conceptual niceties,
complexities, curiosities, monstrosities, and how it all works. In K. L. Fitch & R.
E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 201-230).
New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bremner, S. (2010). Collaborative writing: Bridging the gap between the textbook and
the workplace. English for Specific Purposes, 29(2), 121-132.
Bremner, S., Peirson-Smith, A., Jones, R., & Bhatia, V. (2014). Task design and
interaction in collaborative writing: The students’ story. Business and
Professional Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 150-168.
Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation and
response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on
interaction in SLA (pp. 58-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to
language and pedagogy (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Publishers.
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and
the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). London: The John Hopkins University
Press.
247
BSNP (2014). Permendikbud tentang kurikulum 2013. Retrieved from
http://bsnp-indonesia.org/id/?p=1239
Camani, F. (2014). Iranian students’ attitudes toward the existing stereotypes about Asian
learner. International Journal of English and Education, 3(3), 195-205.
Canagarajah, A., S. (2006). Understanding critical writing. In H. Luria, D. M. Seymour,
& T. Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context: Readings and
applications for teachers (pp. 307-314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Carless, D. (2008). Students’ use of mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT
Journal 62(4), pp. 331-338.
Casanave, C. P. (2007). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and
decisions in research and instructions. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd Ed.).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chala, P. A., & Chapetón, C. M. (2012). EFL argumentative essay writing as a situated-
social practice: A review of concepts. FOLIOS, 36, 23-36.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Chen, X., French, D. C., & Schneider, B. (2006). Culture and peer relationships. In X.
Chen, D. C. French, & B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural
context (pp. 3-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
248
Chen, X. (2000). Social and emotional development in Chinese children and adolescents:
A contextual cross-cultural perspective. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in
psychology research (Vol. I, pp. 229-251). Huntington, NY: Nova Science
Publishers.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T. M., & Swan, J. (2003).
Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The
digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
Craig, J. L. (2013). Integrating strategies in EFL/ESL university contexts: A writing-
across-the curriculum approach. New York: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Curry, M. J. (2003). Skills, access, and “basic writing”: A community college case study
from the United States. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35(1), 5-18.
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2000). English teaching in Indonesia. EA journal, 18(1), 22-30.
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2003). English teaching: Where and how do we begin? In K.E.
Sukamto (Ed), Rampai bahasa, pendidikan, dan budaya: Kumpulan esai
Soenjono Dardjowidjojo (pp. 29-40). Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
249
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional
sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361-1385.
Davies, C. E. (2015). Humor in intercultural interaction as both content and process in the
classroom. Humor, 28(3), 375-395.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Pourbaix, R. (2000). Emergent literacy practices in an electronic community. In D.
Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing
in context (pp. 125-148). New York: Routledge.
de St Léger & Storch, N. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: implications for
willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37(2), 269-285.
Dirjen DIKTI (2012). Publikasi karya ilmiah. Retrieved from
http://www.dikti.go.id/files/atur/SKDirjen152-E-T-2012KaryaIlmiah.pdf
Dirjen DIKTI (2015). Rekap jumlah mahasiswa. Retrived from
http://forlap.dikti.go.id/mahasiswa/homerekap/MDAxMDIy/0/1
Djiwandono, M.S., Rambadeta A.H., Rahayu, L. (2001). Kurikulum nasional program
studi sarjana pendidikan bahasa Inggris (The National Curriculum for the
bachelor degree of English or KURNAS PSS-BI). Malang: Tim Pengembang.
250
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second
language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 27-50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 284-302.
Dyson, A. H. (2006). On saying it right (write): “Fix-its” in the foundations of learning to
write. Research in Teaching of English, 41(1), 8-42.
Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (2007). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching students
with diverse abilities (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Edgington, A. (2012). Bringing new perspectives to a common practice: A plan for peer
review. In K. M. Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on
using small groups in teaching English and composition (pp. 17-29). Jefferson,
NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and
writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51-
71. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2010/elolaoskoz.pdf
251
Erwin, J. C. (2004). The classroom of choice: Giving students what they need and getting
what you want. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Liew, J., Champion, C., & Pidada, S. U. (2006). Emotion,
emotion-related regulation, and social functioning. In X. Chen, D. C. French, &
B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 170-197).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1999). Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. In
Jaworski, N & N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (pp. 183-212). London:
Routledge.
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing
group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-
58.
Fernández Dobao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small
groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378.
Foucault, M. (1984). Truth and power. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 51-
75). New York: Pantheon.
Gebhard, J. G. (2006). Teaching English as a foreign or a second language: A teacher
self-development and methodology guide (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). New
York: Falmer Press.
252
Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning language as a matter of learning social languages within
discourses. In M. R. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A
sociocultural theory approach (pp. 13-31). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters
Ltd.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers.
Guangwei Hu. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: the case of
communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture, and Curriculum
15(2), 93–105.
Guk, H., & Kellog, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and
student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11(3),
281-299.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading
Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.
Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenkova, L. (Eds.) (2005). Dialogue with Bakhtin on
second and foreign language learning: New perspectives. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, I. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert
problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332-347.
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329-350.
253
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex, England:
Pearson Education.
Harris, J. (1994). Toward a working definition of collaborative writing. In J. S. Leonard,
C. E. Wharton, R. M. Davis, & J. Harris (Eds.), Author-ity and textuality: Current
views of collaborative writing (pp. 72-84). West Cornwall, CT: Locust Hill Press.
Hayes, J. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In
R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and
practice (pp. 6-44). Newark, DE: IRA.
Hendayana, S. (2010). Development of lesson study in Indonesia: Prospect and its
challenges. In T. Hidayat, I. Kaniawati, I. Suwarma, A. Setiabudi, & Suhendra
(Eds.), Theory, paradigm, principle and approach of mathematics and science
learning in Indonesian context (pp. 11-40). Bandung: FPMIPA UPI.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hofstede, G. H. (1994). Cultures and organizations, software of the mind: Intercultural
cooperation and its importance for survival. London: HarperCollins.
Howard, R. M. (2001). Collaborative pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick
(Eds.), Composition pedagogies: A bibliographic guide (pp. 54-70). New York:
Oxford University Press.
254
Huda, N. (2000). Kedudukan dan fungsi bahasa asing (The position and function of
foreign languages). In H. Alwi & D. Sugono (Eds.), Politik bahasa: Risalah
seminar politik bahasa (Language politics: Proceedings of the seminar on
language politics) (pp. 59-78). Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa dan Departemen Pendidikan
Nasional.
Hunzer, K. M. (Ed.). (2012). Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small
groups in teaching English and composition. Jefferson, NC: Mcfarland & Co.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social actions in academic writing. London:
Longman.
Hyland, K. (2009). English for professional academic purposes: Writing for scholarly
publication. In D. Belcher (Ed.), English for specific purposes in theory and
practice (pp. 83–105). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 278-292.
Jafari, N., & Ansari, D. N. (2012). The effect of collaboration on Iranian EFL learners’
writing accuracy. International Education Studies, 5(2), 125-131.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London and New
York: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137-162.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (4th ed.). London: Sage.
255
Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating complexities of qualitative
research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York:
Routledge.
Kachru, B.B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Kast, R. (2008). Foreign language input: Initial processing. New York: Multilingual
Matters.
Keck, C., & Ortega, L. (2011). Deficit views of language learners in applied linguistic
discourses: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. American Association for
Corpus Linguistics. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/casey_keck/9/
Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Herrington, J., & Okely, T. (2006). Research for educators. South
Melbourne Victoria, Australia: Thomson Social Science Press.
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second
language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning and
Technology, 16(1), 91-109.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition
of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114-130.
Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative
wiki projects. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 606-620.
Kostouli, T. (Ed.). (2005). Writing in context(s): Textual practices and learning
processes in sociocultural settings. New York: Springer.
256
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kucer, B. S. (2009). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and
writing in school settings (3rd. ed.). New York: Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (Eds.). (2002). Classroom interaction and social learning:
From theory to practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Collaboration: A literature review. Retrieved from
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/tmrs/Collaboration-Review.pdf
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: “Letting all the flowers bloom!”. Language
Learning, 46(4), 713-749.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larson, J., & Maier, M. (2000). Co-authoring classroom texts: “Shifting participant roles
in writing activity”. Research in the Teaching of English, 34(4), 468-497.
Larson, J. (2002). Packaging process: Consequences of commodified pedagogy on
students’ participation in literacy events. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy
2(1), 65-95.
257
Larson, J., & Marsh, J. (2015). Making literacy real: Theories and practices for learning
and teaching. London: Sage Publications.
Larson, J. (2005). Breaching the classroom wall: Literacy learning across time and space
in an elementary school in the United States. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Literacies
across educational contexts: Mediating learning and teaching (pp. 84-101).
Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing
Lauder, A. (2008). The status and function of English in Indonesia: A review of key
factors. Makara, Social Humaniora, 12(1), 9-20.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M. R., & Stierer, B. (2000). Editor’s introduction. In M. R. Lea & B. Stierer (Eds.),
Student writing in higher education: New contexts (pp. 1-13). Philadelphia: The
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B.V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-72.
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an
elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260-276.
Lillis, T. (2013). The sociolinguistics of writing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Reframing notions of competence in scholarly writing:
From individual to networked activity. Revista Canaria De Estudios Inglesses,
53, 63-78.
258
Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: the politics
and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.
Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal,
54(1), 31-36.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
In R. William & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.
413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lowenberg, P. H. (1991). English as an additional language in Indonesia. World
Englishes, 10(2), 127-138.
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). “A case of exercising”: Effects of immediate task
repetition on learner’s performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds),
Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing
(pp. 141-162). London: Longman.
Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namy, E. (2005). Qualitative
research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Family Health International.
Mambu, J. E. (2015). Challenges in assessing character education in ELT: Implications
from a case study in a Christian university. TEFLIN Journal, 26(2), 183-208.
259
Manchón, R. M. (2009). Introduction: Broadening the perspective of L2 writing
scholarship: The contribution of research in foreign language writing. In R.
Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and
research (pp. 1-22). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In
R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to- learn in an additional
language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marcellino, M. (2008). English language teaching in Indonesia: A continuous challenge
in education and cultural diversity. TEFLIN Journal, 19(1), 57-69.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). London:
Sage.
Masduqi, H. (2011). Critical thinking skills and meaning in English language teaching.
TEFLIN Journal, 22(2), 185-200.
Massa, J. (1997). Alternative assessment of second-language writing: A developmental
model. In S. Tchudi (Ed.), Alternatives to grading student writing (pp. 77-89).
Urbana: NCTE.
Matsumoto, Y. (2014). Collaborative co-construction of humorous interaction among
ELF speakers. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1). 81–107.
McAllister, C. H. (2005). Collaborative writing groups in the college classroom. In T.
Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in context(s): Textual practices and learning processes in
sociocultural settings (pp. 207-228). New York: Springer.
260
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities
in a Thai EFL context. System, 23(2), 207-224.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based
inquiry (7th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Megaiab, M. M. A. (2014). The English writing competence of the students of Indonesian
senior high school. Proceedings of the West East Institute (WEI) Academic
Conference, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://www.westeastinstitute.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Machalla-M.A.-Megaiab-Full-Paper.pdf
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, R. (2011). Vygotsky in perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mistar, J., Zuhairi, A., & Parlindungan, F. (2014). Strategies of learning English writing
skill by Indonesian senior high school students. Arab World English Journal,
5(1), 290-303.
Moje, E. B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of
critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje
(Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power
(pp. 15-48). London: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mukminin, A., Ali, R. M., & Ashari, M. J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’
experiences in academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training
program. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1394-1407. Retrieved from
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2280&context=tqr
261
Mutwarasibo, F. (2013). Promoting university students’ collaborative learning through
instructor-guided writing groups. International Journal of Higher Education,
2(3), 1-11.
Nasaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects
on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.
Neumann, H., & McDonough, K. (2015). Exploring student interaction during
collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 27, 84-104.
Nishimura, S. (1995). The development of Pancasila moral education in Indonesia.
Southeast Asian Studies, 33(3), 303-316.
Nunan, D. (Ed.). (1992). Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2009a). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder
Education, an Hachette UK Company.
Ortega, L. (2009b). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving
forward. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning,
teaching, and research (pp. 232-255). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivitism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulettin, 128(1), 3-72.
262
Pardoe, S. (2000). Respect and the pursuit of ‘symmetry’ in researching literacy and
student writing. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated
literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 149-166). New York: Routledge
Pathinathan, S., & Yong, M. F. (2012). Intragroup conflicts during collaborative writing
in an ESL/EFL preparatory programme. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics & English Literature, 1(7). Retrieved from
http://www.ijalel.org/pdf/173.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language
learning. New York: Routledge.
Population Reference Bureau. (2014). World population data sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.prb.org/pdf14/2014-world-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf
Renandya, W A. (2000). Indonesia. In Wah Kam Ho and Y. L. Ruth Wong (Eds),
Language Policies and Language Education: The Impact in East Asian Countries
in the Next Decade (pp. 113-137). Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Rentz, K., Arduser, L., Meloncon, L., & Debs, M. B. (2009). Designing a successful
group-report experience. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 79-84.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An
anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, P. (2009). Shifts in beliefs about second language learning. RELC Journal 40(1),
102-124.
263
Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: strategies and goals. In E.
Heinkel (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning
(pp. 635-651). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging Internet.
London: Routledge.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin Books.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286-305.
Shields, M. (2010). Essay writing: A student’s guide. London: Sage Publications.
Soedjatmiko, W., & Widiati, A. S. (2002). Foreign language writing and translation.
TEFLIN Journal, 13(1), 82-105.
Speck, B. W., Johnson, T. R., Dice, C. P., & Heaton, L. B. (1999). Collaborative writing:
An annotated bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-
158.
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic
interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457-
480.
264
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflection.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future
directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: New perspective on language
and education. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in
an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355-375.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language
Teaching Research, 17(1), 31-48.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and
collaborative writing. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal
language learning (pp. 157-177). London: Multilingual Matters.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development,
ethnography, and education. London: Longman.
Street, B. V. (2005). Introduction: New literacy studies and literacies across educational
contexts. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Literacies across educational contexts: Mediating
learning and teaching (pp. 1-21). Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.
265
Suratno, T. (2010). Teacher learning through lesson study: Lessons learnt from a School
Improvement Program in an Indonesian primary school. Paper presented at AARE
(Australian Association for Research in Education) International Conference.
Melbourne, November 28-December 2, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.aare.edu.au/10pap/2507Suratno.pdf
Suratno, T., & Cock, K. (2009). A school-university partnership in Indonesia: Lessons
learnt from lesson study. In C. P. Lim, K. Cock, G. Lock, & C. Brook (Eds.),
Innovative practices in pre-service teacher education: An Asia-Pacific
perspectives (pp. 69-90). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158-164.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency, and collaboration in advanced second language
learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: Contributions of
Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two
adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language
Journal, 82, 320-337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the
first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274.
266
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language
education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge: CUP.
Tang, R. (Ed.). (2012). Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and
challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts.
London: Continuum International Pub.
Tocalli-Beller, A. (2003). Cognitive conflict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative
groups: Affective and social dimensions from an insider’s perspective. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(2), 143-171.
Tung, R. (2013). Innovations in educational equity for English language learners. Voices
in Urban Education, 2-5. Available at
http://vue.annenberginstitute.org/sites/default/files/issues/VUE37.pdf
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural
perspective. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Jones, A. (2008). The discourse of collaborative
writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 3, 192-202.
Vygotsky, L., S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V.
Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp.134-
144). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
267
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair
interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult
ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.
Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking and writing. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, UK.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on
fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445-466.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and
writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374.
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321-331.
Wirtz, J. (2012). Writing courses live and die by the quality of peer review. In K. M.
Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small groups
in teaching English and composition (pp. 5-16). Jefferson, NC: McFarland &
Company, Inc., Publishers.
Yin, R. (2014). The case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
CA. Sage Publications, Inc.
268
Yong, M. F. (2006). The nature and dynamics of collaborative writing in a Malaysian
tertiary ESL setting. (Doctoral Dissertation, Massey University, New Zealand).
Retrieved from
http://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/1467/02_whole.pdf?sequence=1&
isAllowed=y
Yong, M. F. (2010). Collaborative writing features. RELC Journal, 4(1), 18-30.
Yong, M. F. (2011). Improving ESL learners’ academic text construction through a
collaborative task. Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Humanities, 19(2), 475-
485.
Youhanaee, M., Tehrani, A. R., & Piri, F. (2012). The effect of negotiation of meaning
on the accuracy in EFL writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(5),
972-979.
Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a
computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434-
446.
Zulkifly, E., Suratno, T., & Nur’aini (2009). Implementasi Lesson Study untuk
meningkatkan kemitraan dan pengembangan profesional pendidik: Studi kasus di
Upi Kampus Serang. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, 11, 54-60. Retrieved from
http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/JURNAL/PENDIDIKAN_DASAR/Nomor_11-
April_2009/April_2009.pdf
269
Appendix A Student Information Letter
270
271
Appendix B Teacher Information Letter
272
273
Appendix C
Sample Student First Interview Protocol
Study Title: Indonesian English as A Foreign Language (EFL) Learners’ Experiences in
Collaborative Writing.
Principal Investigator: Yanti Sri Rezeki, a PhD candidate at Warner School of
Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
Co-Principal Investigator: Joanne Larson, PhD. Associate Professor at Warner School
of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
Introduction:
The PI starts saying, “Let me first introduce myself to you. I am also an English teacher
like your instructor. This is my twelfth year working for Tanjungpura University. I am
also a doctoral student at the University of Rochester, U.S.A. This study is for my
dissertation. As I mentioned the first time I came to your class, your participation is
completely voluntary. Your name will not be identified in any paper or presentation.
Everything that you have been sharing with me will remain confidential, and only the Co-
Investigator and I will have access to the data. I will be also audio recording this
interview. Would you like to choose a pseudonym? Do you prefer using Indonesian or
English during the interview?”
Major Questions:
1. First of all, would you tell me about yourself, for example your age, family, and
education background?
2. Would you describe your history of learning English?
274
3. How would you describe your level of English proficiency?
4. Would you describe your ability in writing in English?
5. Could you describe your experiences of collaborative writing in your English
classrooms before coming to this university, if any?
6. Would you describe your preferences or learning styles related to working with
others?
7. Could you describe your experiences of collaborative writing in the course now
that the semester is almost halfway?
275
Appendix D
Sample Student Second Interview Protocol
Study Title: Indonesian English as A Foreign Language (EFL) Learners’ Experiences in
Collaborative Writing.
Principal Investigator: Yanti Sri Rezeki, a PhD candidate at Warner School of
Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
Co-Principal Investigator: Joanne Larson, PhD. Associate Professor at Warner School
of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
Introduction:
The PI researcher Yanti Sri Rezeki introduces herself and says, “Thank you again for
continuing to participate in this study. I would like to remind you that participating in this
study in voluntary, and you may withdraw from the study at any time. I would also like to
tell you that I will be audio recording this interview. In this second interview, I would
like to ask you about your collaborative writing experiences in the Essay Writing class”.
Major Questions:
1. Could you describe your experiences of collaborative writing in the course now that
the semester has ended? What perceptions about that change? What can you learn
from your collaborative writing experiences?
2. What kind of collaborative writing tasks did you enjoy more? Why? What kind of
collaborative writing tasks did you enjoy less? Why?
3. What incidents during collaborative writing activities gave you a sense of
accomplishment or feel most frustrated? Why?
276
4. What kind of groups did you find most enjoyable and effective? Why? In what sense
was it enjoyable and effective?
5. How engaged did you think you were in your collaborative writing groups? Why?
How do you think your engagement or contribution differed across different groups?
6. What does collaborative writing mean to you? How do you think it helps or hinders
your learning? How do you think it helps or hinders your writing ability?
7. From your experiences in collaborative writing, how would you like it to improve?
From yourself? From your peers? From your instructor?
277
Appendix E
Sample Teacher First Interview Protocol
Study Title: Indonesian English as A Foreign Language (EFL) Learners’ Experiences in
Collaborative Writing.
Principal Investigator: Yanti Sri Rezeki, a PhD candidate at Warner School of
Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
Co-Principal Investigator: Joanne Larson, PhD. Associate Professor at Warner School
of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
Introduction:
The PI starts saying, “Hello, thank you for participating in this study for my PhD
dissertation at the University of Rochester, U.S.A. As I mentioned, your name will not be
identified in any paper or presentation. Everything that you have been sharing with me
will remain confidential, and only the Co-Investigator and I will have access to the data.
I will be also audio recording this interview. Would you like to choose a pseudonym? In
this first interview, I would like to ask you about your background as an English teacher,
your experiences of working with the students in Essay Writing, and your experiences of
using collaborative writing activities in general.”
Major Questions:
1. Could you describe your education background, especially your training in
teaching English to speakers of other languages?
2. What other languages do you speak or have studied?
278
3. Could you describe your ideas about collaborative writing? What do you expect
your students to get out of collaborative writing activities?
4. How long have you been teaching the students in Essay Writing? What is your
impression of them as English learners? How would you describe your
experiences of working with the students in the course?
5. What incidents, if any, that left you a deep impression during collaborative
writing activities in your experiences of working with the class?
6. How often do you plan to use collaborative writing activities in the course of
Essay Writing? How much time do you plan to be spent on collaborative writing
activities in the course?
7. In your experiences of teaching in Indonesia, how prepared are your students to
work together as a pair/group? How much time do they usually need to adjust, if
adjustment is needed?
8. How engaged are your students in collaborative writing activities so far from your
observations?
9. What kinds of challenges in using collaborative writing activities in class in
Indonesia have you experienced?
279
Appendix F
Sample Teacher Second Interview Protocol
Study Title: Indonesian English as A Foreign Language (EFL) Learners’ Experiences in
Collaborative Writing.
Principal Investigator: Yanti Sri Rezeki, a PhD candidate at Warner School of
Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
Co-Principal Investigator: Joanne Larson, PhD. Associate Professor at Warner School
of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
Introduction:
The PI researcher Yanti Sri Rezeki introduces herself and says, “Thank you again for
continuing to participate in this study. I would like to tell you that I will be audio
recording this interview. In this second interview, I would like to ask you some questions
and confirm some information regarding the students’ collaborative writing activities in
your class.”
Major Questions:
1. How do you think the class performed this semester? Could you talk about a
couple of students who performed especially well and your observation of them?
Could you talk about some students who did not perform well and your
observation of them?
2. What challenges did you face when giving collaborative writing instructions?
280
3. How do you see the students’ engagement and participation during the
collaborative writing activities?
4. What factors do you think affected the students’ engagement or participation?
5. What incidents during collaborative writing activities in the semester made you
feel most rewarded or frustrated?
6. What aspect(s) of collaborative writing instruction do you see successful (how did
it help or hinder students’ learning?). What aspects would you improve?