KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / 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
Sayfa
131–151
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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/).

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez: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.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Based on the findings, somepedagogical implications and suggestions for further research are presented.© 2019 EJAL & the Authors.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı: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/).
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

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/).

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

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

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (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