SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2019 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

One Hand Washes the Other and Both Wash the Face: Individuality versus Collaboration in L2 Writing

Merve SAVASCİ
Seval KAYGISIZ
Pages
131–151
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As the findingsindicated, when the participants wrote in groups they outperformed those who worked individually or inpairs regarding the (a) fluency, (b) accuracy, (c) complexity, (d) length, and (e) overall score of theparagraphs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this pre-experimental study is twofold: (1) to investigate the comparative effectiveness ofindividual, pair, and group writing conditions in L2 writing classes, and (2) to explore students’perceptions about each of these conditions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on the findings, somepedagogical implications and suggestions for further research are presented.© 2019 EJAL & the Authors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As the findingsindicated, when the participants wrote in groups they outperformed those who worked individually or inpairs regarding the (a) fluency, (b) accuracy, (c) complexity, (d) length, and (e) overall score of theparagraphs.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this pre-experimental study is twofold: (1) to investigate the comparative effectiveness ofindividual, pair, and group writing conditions in L2 writing classes, and (2) to explore students’perceptions about each of these conditions. The participants were university-level Turkish EFL learnersstudying in the English Preparatory Program of a state university. The data for investigating theeffectiveness of these writing conditions came from in-class paragraph writing tasks whereas students’perceptions were investigated through an open-ended questionnaire and semi-structured focus groupinterviews. The quantitative data were analyzed by running descriptive statistics analysis, Wilcoxonsigned-rank test, and the Friedman test, and the qualitative data were content analyzed. As the findingsindicated, when the participants wrote in groups they outperformed those who worked individually or inpairs regarding the (a) fluency, (b) accuracy, (c) complexity, (d) length, and (e) overall score of theparagraphs. Besides, perceived advantages and disadvantages of both collaborative writing (i.e., pair andgroup writing) and individual writing were pointed out by the participants. Based on the findings, somepedagogical implications and suggestions for further research are presented.© 2019 EJAL & the Authors. Published by Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics (EJAL). This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

🔖

Cite This Article

SAVASCİ, M., KAYGISIZ, S. (2022). One Hand Washes the Other and Both Wash the Face: Individuality versus Collaboration in L2 Writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 131–151. https://ajindex.com/articles/507021

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson. Boardman, C. A., & Frydenberg, J. (2010). Writing to communicate 2: Paragraphs and essays (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Longman. Bruffee, K. A. (l983). Writing and reading as collaborative or social acts. In J. N. Hayes et al. (Eds.), The writer’s mind: Writing as a mode of thinking (pp. 159-169).
  2. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Ede, L. S., & Lunsford, A. A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002 Fernández Dobao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.002
  4. Folse, K., Muchmore-Vokoun, A., & Solomon, E. V. (2010). Great writing 2: Great paragraphs. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning. Folse, K., Muchmore-Vokoun, A., & Solomon, E. V. (2010). Great Writing 3: From great paragraphs to great essays (4th ed.). Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1986). Assessing second language writing in academic settings (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241–278).
  5. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2016). Farewell to holistic scoring?. Assessing Writing, 27, A1-A2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.12.002
  6. Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00169.x
  7. Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED113735). Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0040584990