Implementing Collaborative Process Based Writing in the EFL College Classroom: [1]

Abstract

This article reviews the application of collaboration, which is very rarely implemented in the EFL process based writing classroom in Indonesia. It also tries to expand the scope of collaboration in all aspects of the EFL college writing process. First, this article addresses the operational definition of collaboration in process based EFL writing instruction. In what follows, the article sheds light on the benefits of collaborative process based writing in the EFL classroom. The remaining section of the article discusses step-by-step procedures for collaborative process based writing in the classroom. Anchored in this collaborative process based writing framework, a teacher enables students to engage in collaborative and dialogic activities through the process of writing. The ultimate goal is to help EFL college students write academic pieces better and more easily as they go through the writing process from pre-writing to post-writing. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

This article reviews the application of collaboration, which is very rarely implemented in the EFL process based writing classroom in Indonesia. It also tries to expand the scope of collaboration in all aspects of the EFL college writing process. First, this article addresses the operational definition of collaboration in process based EFL writing instruction. In what follows, the article sheds light on the benefits of collaborative process based writing in the EFL classroom. The remaining section of the article discusses step-by-step procedures for collaborative process based writing in the classroom. Anchored in this collaborative process based writing framework, a teacher enables students to engage in collaborative and dialogic activities through the process of writing. The ultimate goal is to help EFL college students write academic pieces better and more easily as they go through the writing process from pre-writing to post-writing.

Key words: Collaboration, college students, process based writing, the EFL classroom

1. Introduction

Collaborative learning has been widely implemented in the language classroom. The term, 'collaborative learning,' is generally perceived as joint intellectual effort by individual members of each group or students and a teacher, and it is the mutual engagement of group members in a coordinated effort to complete a particular learning task (Lai, 2011). Commonly, in collaborative learning, students work in groups of two or more students in which they mutually share knowledge and linguistic resources, negotiate with others, and create a joint product. In other words, collaborative learning involves knowledge and linguistic resource sharing, mutual engagement, negotiation, and a jointly completed product.

Ample empirical findings and literature have discussed the benefit and efficacy of collaborative learning (e.g., group work activities and collaborative dialogs) in the ESL/EFL classroom (e.g., Sert, 2005; Storch, 2011; Wanatabe & Swain, 2007). Particularly in the ESL writing classroom, there are ample literature and research on the implementation of collaborative learning (e.g., Nelson & Murphy, 1992; Storch, 2005; Storch, 2011). However, there is little attention to the integration of collaboration into process based writing instruction, particularly in the EFL context (e.g., in Indonesia). To fill these practical and contextual gaps, this article attempts to review the integration of collaboration into the process based EFL college writing classroom where writing is perceived as a process and as a product.

This article is structured into three main parts: (1) the operational definition of collaboration in the process based EFL college writing classroom, (2) the benefits of this writing instruction, and (3) step-by-step procedures for such instruction. Overall, this article attempts to expand the scope of collaboration in all aspects of the EFL writing process at college level.

1.1. Collaboration In the process based EFL college writing classroom

According to Jacobs (2006), collaborative work can be defined as pair or group work. In a process based writing activity, collaboration in writing means that two or more students write together. They are encouraged to collaborate throughout the process of writing. Such collaboration means that students are jointly responsible for composing a text (Storch, 2005). This joint text production by two or more student writers paves the way for "the joint ownership of the document produced" (Storch, 2011, p. 275). In integrating collaboration into the process based writing classroom, teachers need to consider two main issues, as briefly described below.

The first issue is forming groups. This is the first step that a teacher needs to negotiate with students. Ideally, small groups of two members are preferred in order to allow for greater participation (Jacobs, 2006). Two options are possible for forming groups: teacher chosen or student chosen (Widodo, 2006). The former rests on the teacher's decision. Groups can contain mixed ability levels (e.g., a low achiever and a high achiever work together). It is crucial to keep in mind that the group members should assume equal participation during the writing process if the mixed ability group is chosen. On the other hand, the latter rests on the students' choice to work with their group mates. In this regard, a teacher affords students the opportunity to choose their own group mates so that they feel comfortable to work with each other.

The second issue relates to when collaboration is implemented in the process based writing classroom. In this article, students work collaboratively throughout the entire process of writing (from pre-writing to post-writing stages). The same groups with the same members are assigned to produce a particular piece of writing until a writing process cycle is completed. In another writing process cycle, a teacher may assign students to write with other peers so that they gain different experience. Thus, as Nelson and Murphy (1992) point out, shifting or rotating group membership periodically allows students the opportunity to work with different peers in different writing cycles, thereby interacting with different readers. The group membership rotation can be decided based on (1) the initial preferences of students, (2) a mixture of genders (males and females), (3) a mixture of student proficiency level in language and writing, and (4) a shared or similar writing topic.

1.2. Benefits of integrating collaboration into the process based writing classroom

In process based writing, collaboration provides students with some benefits throughout the process of writing. First, unlike solitary writing, when students generate ideas, they can pool ideas together, and they receive immediate feedback from their peers within the group. This social interaction in the classroom "promote[s] a sense of co-ownership and hence encourage students to the decision making on all aspects of writings: content, structure, and language" (Storch, 2005, p. 154). In this way, at the beginning phase of writing, students can make shared decisions on and negotiate what to write and how to pool ideas together.

Second, in a drafting process, students can share both knowledge and linguistic resources, and more importantly, they can assume shared responsibility for completing particular writing tasks. As a result, collaborative writing may enlighten student workload. Dissimilar to writing solo, writing collaboratively allows students to do personal and interpersonal negotiations for meaning to turn ideas into cohesive and coherent pieces of writing without waiting for a peer or teacher feedback session. Third, by writing collaboratively, if a peer feedback or response session is implemented in pairs, more students are involved in responding to each other's writing. Students may receive more feedback or response from their peers if a peer feedback session is well managed, or training in peer feedback is intensively provided.

Fourth, collaborative process based writing allows students to coordinate writing activities as they collaborate on an assigned essay (Widodo, 2006). It also builds on student sense of shared responsibility for completing a certain assigned writing task, thereby assisting students in gaining group pride in work accomplishment (Harmer, 2007). Fifth, collaboration in process based writing promotes social support. For example, low achieving students can benefit from their high achieving peers. The low achieving students may learn the way the high achieving students use different writing strategies that the former students may want to adopt. For high achievers, collaborative process based writing encourages them to have an awareness of social responsibility for scaffolding or supporting others, so they can help one another develop ideas into completed essays through collaboration. This is known as collective scaffolding, as Donato (1994) pinpoints.

The last benefit that students may gain from collaborative process based writing is that they can build and develop their critical thinking skills. In groups, students are expected to collaboratively evaluate strengths and weaknesses of drafts written. Students may be unable to automatically evaluate the drafts critically, but through a step-by-step process, they will learn how to evaluate their drafts and critique their peers' pieces of writing (Nelson & Murphy, 1992). As Stapleton (2001) maintains, critical thinking can be promoted through content familiarity and schemata (prior knowledge) because these shape the range and depth of argumentation. For example, if students are familiar with content, they have a greater chance of refining their ideas and provide critical feedback on their peers' pieces of writing. Through the gradual process of writing and teacher scaffolding (e.g., showing students the way to evaluate and critique a piece of writing), students will be able to become engaged writers who have competence in explaining, clarifying, and defending their arguments with each other. In turn, this can promote interpersonal negotiation for meaning through group discussions in the classroom so that the intended meanings can be successfully achieved.

To conclude, collaboration in process based writing may be used to build a supportive learning atmosphere for students and provide them with an opportunity to experience the process of writing collaboratively. Writing collaboratively can optimize mutual benefits in a stress reduced classroom atmosphere (Gaith, 2002).

2. Implementing collaborative process based writing in the EFL classroom

2.1. ? re-writing activity

Forming groups

This activity is the first step for implementing a collaborative process based writing activity. As earlier mentioned, groups can be formed based on a teacher decision, a student preference, a mixture of genders, a mixture of student proficiency level in language and writing, or a shared writing topic or interest. More importantly, a teacher facilitates students to form groups so that the mutual agreement about composing together can be reached through negotiation between teacher and students or between individual members of each group.

Teacher scaffolding

This refers to providing support to students; teachers act as facilitators who try to make a writing task itself easier and make it possible for students to complete the task with support (Hammond, 2002).

In both solitary writing and collaborative process based writing, there are different types of scaffolding or support that teachers can provide to students. Such types of scaffolding include (1) writing prompts/clues- e.g., statements, questions, or pictures that provide students with informational input; (2) noticing activities- e.g., asking students to look at typical features of essays; (3) modeling essay writing through text co-construction with students; and (4) information on literacy in academic writing- e.g., providing how to cope with plagiarism and use sources appropriately and ethically.

Other types of teacher scaffolding are (a) the use of graphic organizers- e.g., listing or outlining ideas using semantic maps or mind mapping, (b) peer response and reflection guides, (c) peer feedback modeling- e.g., showing students how to respond to each others' drafts, and (d) teacher feedback- commenting on students' drafts before a teacher grades the drafts. Through the process of writing, teachers can provide such scaffolding to students to do writing tasks more easily (e.g., by generating ideas, drafting, and responding to each others' drafts).

Collaborative idea generating

Before students get started to write, it is a good idea to give them the opportunity to activate their prior knowledge and find out information they need to obtain (Rao, 2007). For this reason, teachers allow students to generate ideas; this activity can be done through brainstorming. In groups, students can brainstorm any ideas that they have in mind and share such ideas with one another. Students may use possible brainstorming techniques (e.g., listing, outlining, clustering, or free writing). At this stage, students assume responsibility for choosing a topic that interests them, narrowing down the topic that fits with an assigned writing task, and collecting as much information as possible and developing ideas. In short, this phase gives the students a chance to stimulate their thinking and allow them to create and organize ideas in a clear order collaboratively (Rao, 2007).

2.2. While-writing activity

Collaborative drafting

Once students have produced clear idea outlines, they proceed to a drafting activity. In this activity, there are two options for teachers: asking students to sit together and compose a piece of writing collaboratively using handwriting or asking them to sit together at the computer, and they type a piece of writing on a word processor. If the second option is chosen, teachers should ensure that students are familiar with the functions of a word processor (e.g., Microsoft Word), which can facilitate students' process of writing. Moreover, the decision of whether the second option is chosen or not depends on the availability of instructional resources (e.g., computers), student and teacher competence in their use of computer and program applications, and students' preferences (e.g., some students may write using handwriting, or others may feel at ease in writing on a word processor). Regardless of the option chosen, teachers will ask students to sit together and compose a text together until one writing process cycle is completed.

Similar to solitary drafting, in collaborative drafting, students need to develop ideas into rough drafts without considering language accuracy first. In other words, rough drafts are not supposed to be perfect in that process based writing is a continuous process of meaning discovery, and promotes the fluency of ideas so that students can complete a certain writing task gradually. During the drafting process, students may use different strategies for expressing their ideas collaboratively. For example, some may express ideas in their native language, and then translate such ideas into English. Others may express ideas in English directly. Considering these composing strategies, a teacher needs to give students sufficient time to complete their drafts. Moreover, in the drafting process, teachers have to allow students to write multiple drafts (second, third, or fourth drafts) after they receive feedback from their peers and teachers. The number of drafts that students can produce depends on that of groups, time allotment, and students' proficiency levels in language and writing. Through collaboration, students can share unique resources (e.g., language and content) when developing ideas into completed drafts.

Giving feedback collaboratively

Feedback is believed to lead to student writing development, and it is given by teachers or by students. Feedback is commonly focused on content (e.g., ideas), rhetorical organization, and form (e.g., vocabulary and grammar). Balancing these aspects is crucial in student writing development. Although teacher feedback is more highly valued by students than is peer feedback, peer feedback offers some advantages (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006; Rollinson, 2005; Tsui & Ng, 2000). Here are some advantages of peer feedback:

* Peer feedback or comment can help students enhance a sense of audience because their peers are potential readers who can help increase text comprehensibility;

* Peer feedback helps students foster a sense of ownership of a text. When students receive feedback from their peers, they will most probably reflect on whether the feedback or comment needs to be considered;

* As far as language and content are concerned, peer feedback urges students to learn from one another. Peers may spot something (e.g., incorrect tenses or unclear ideas) that their fellow students may not realize, thereby helping them become aware of strengths and weaknesses of their writing;

* When peer feedback is given orally, students can have the opportunity to clarify their ideas, explain the intended meanings, and explore effective ways of expressing ideas intelligibly, thereby developing critical thinking and building collaborative and negotiable dialogs among students (Hansen & Liu, 2005);

* Peer feedback assists students in understanding the fact that teachers are not the sole sources of authority that can provide valuable feedback for students' writing improvement; and

* Peer feedback can lead to learner autonomy and a learner centered learning atmosphere in which collaborative learning is promoted among students.

Although there are some benefits of peer feedback, there are also some challenges (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Rollinson, 2005; Tsui & Ng, 2000). First, students may not trust their peer responses to their writing because they are not native speakers of English or have poor English proficiency. Second, students insist on seeing teachers as the only sources of authority in such a way that their peers are not knowledgeable enough to comment on their drafts. Third, students may not know how to critique their peers' pieces of writing, so they just spot surface linguistic mistakes. Another challenge is that in some cultures where being critical is concerned about one's feeling, students may not want to hurt their fellow students by critiquing their drafts.

In order to facilitate peer feedback, teachers should take cognizance of "how [students] actually engage with and process the feedback, and why they use (or fail to use) the feedback received" (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010, p. 305). By considering these ideas, a teacher should provide in-class training in peer feedback as a sort of scaffolding for students and give them a peer review guide (Berg, 1999; Hansen & Liu, 2005; Min, 2006). The teacher can show the students how to respond to their peers' drafts using a peer review guide. Peer feedback training may take some time to be successful, but at least teachers can promote students' positive attitudes toward peer feedback (O'Brien, 2004). In the peer review activity, teachers get students "to clarify writers' intentions, identify the source of problems, explain the nature of problems, and make specific suggestions" for further draft improvements (Min, 2006, p. 123). The success and failure of peer feedback depend on students' capabilities of commenting on their peers' drafts, students' willingness to respond to these drafts, and students' attitudes towards peer feedback. Above all, teachers need to facilitate a peer review activity so that students become good and critical readers.

In addition to peer feedback, teacher feedback plays a crucial part of the writing process. Some authors (e.g., Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006) suggest that teacher feedback be given after peer feedback so that students feel free to comment on their peer drafts. Feedback practices may differ from one teacher to another. More importantly, according to Ferris (2007, p. 167), teachers should "find the correct balance between intervention (helpful) and appropriation (harmful)" so as to maintain students' self voices and encourage students to work on their further drafts and make significant revisions. In other words, a teacher is required to help students focus on the general content of the texts they produced and assist the students in decision making for reworking their drafts.

Revising and editing drafts

Similar to individual writing, after students receive feedback, they should rework their drafts. Revision is one of the crucial aspects in the process of writing, but whether revision gives rise to improvement in students' drafts rests on the students' capabilities and the quality of the feedback they receive from their peers (Tsui & Ng, 2000). Whether students will attend to feedback or not will depend on how they perceive it for improvement in their further drafts; they have to maintain their authorial voices. According to Lee and Schallert (2008), revision includes these series of activities: "reading the text, detecting problems, selecting a strategy, and revising the text" (p. 168). Drawing on the process of revision, revising does not simply involve looking at language errors, but it also addresses global content and organization of ideas so that the writers' intents are made clearer to readers (Widodo, 2006).

In the collaborative process based writing classroom, editing also plays a crucial role in the text producing process (Shin, 2007). It commonly deals with local issues of writing (e.g., incorrect spelling or inappropriate grammar). As a rule of thumb, editing is regarded as the last writing task that students need to do so as to complete the final draft after they produce multiple drafts and receive feedback from their peers and teachers. In short, the goal of editing is to check minor mistakes in grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics without changing substantial ideas before students submit their final drafts to teachers for process assessment.

2.3. Post-writing activity

Once students have revised and edited their final drafts, a teacher should start assessing the students' drafts. In student essay scoring, teachers must decide whether they prefer holistic scoring or analytic marking. The former deals with general impressionistic marking. In this kind of marking, a teacher quickly reads student's piece of writing and judges it against a rating or scoring rubric without explicitly stating criteria of individual writing aspects. The latter pertains to detailed or analytical marking in which a teacher rates a student's piece of writing based on several aspects of writing such as content, organization, cohesion, coherence, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. In short, analytical scoring allows for detailed information on student's writing performance (for more information on holistic and analytical scoring systems, see Assessing Writing by Sara C. Weigle, 2002). These two scoring systems have advantages and disadvantages. For example, as Weigle (2007) points out, the holistic scoring system is quicker and more efficient than the analytic scoring system. However, the analytic scoring system is "more useful feedback to students, as scores on different aspects of writing can tell students where their respective strengths and weaknesses are" (Weigle, 2007, p. 203). The choice of the two scoring systems depends variably on teacher preferences and goals, class sizes, time constraints, and needs for writing course assessment. More crucially, teachers should not view this assessment merely as an end, but as a process of helping students to write better.

Once students have carried out the entire collaborative process based writing activities, in each collaborative process based writing cycle, they are asked to reflect on what they have learned during the entire writing process. This reflection can also be applied to solitary writing. This reflective activity can encourage students to self-evaluate their strengths and weaknesses of their writing and think further of how they will improve in their own writing skill. To possibly help students focus on their reflection, teachers may provide a student reflection guide. For teachers, this reflection record allows them to look at what students have accomplished and what teachers need to do to help students with their future composing tasks.

3. Conclusion

As Storch (2005) points out, the difficult task that writing teachers encounter in collaborative process based writing is to respond to students' preferences to work alone. Nonetheless, teachers should prepare their students to write collaboratively to facilitate students' writing skill development. The success and failure of collaborative process based writing rely on a number of factors such as teacher competence in teaching writing and managing the process of writing, the particular writing classroom context, the nature of the school curriculum and class syllabus, and individual student differences (e.g., a student proficiency level in language and writing or motivation to write collaboratively). Above all, writing teachers should not lose sight of the fact that writing is a social act and takes time for students to be competent writers who are aware of their writing goal or purpose, context, and intended audience (Hyland, 2007).

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Nancy Hayward and Dan J. Tannacito (Professors of English at Indiana University of Pennsylvania) for their insightful feedback on the early version of the draft. I wish to extend my sincerest thanks to anonymous reviewers for their useful comment on this manuscript.

References

References

Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8/3: 215-241.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L (1996). 'Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5/1: 1-19.

Donato, R. (1994). 'Collective scaffolding in second language learning'. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Ferris, D. (2007). 'Preparing teachers to respond to student writing'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16/3: 165-193.

Gaith, G. M. (2002). 'The relationship between cooperative learning, perception of social support, and academic achievement'. System, 30/3: 263-273.

Hammond, J. (Ed.). (2002). Scaffolding teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Newtown, Australia: PETA.

Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). 'Guiding principles for effective peer response'. ELT Journal, 59/1: 31-38.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education.

Hyland, K. (2007). 'Genre pedagogy: language, literacy and 12 writing instruction'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16/3: 148-164.

Jacobs, G. M. (2006). 'Issues in implementing cooperative learning'. In S. G. McCafferty, G. M. Jacobs, & C. D. ladings (Eds.), Cooperative learning and second language teaching (pp. 3046). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Collaboration: a literature review [Research Report]. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/tmrs/Collaboration-Review.pdf

Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). 'Meeting the margins: Effects of the teacher-student relationship on revision process of EFL college students taking a composition course'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17/3: 165-182.

Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). ? comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15/3: 179-200.

Min, H. T. (2006). 'The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15/2: 118-141.

Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992). 'An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1/3: 171-193.

O'Brien, T. (2004). 'Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning'. Language Teaching, 37/1: 1-28.

Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills'. ELT Journal, 61/2: 100-106.

Rollinson, P. (2005). 'Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class'. ELT Journal, 59/1: 23-30.

Sert, 0. (2005). 'Comparative analysis of pairwork and individual assignments in two ELT classes' . Journal of Language and Learning, 3/2: 219-232.

Shin, S. K. (2007). 'Fire your proofreader!' Grammar correction in the writing classroom'. ELT Journal, 62/4: 358-365.

Stapleton, P. (2001). 'Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and familiarity'. Written Communication, 18/4: 506-548.

Storch, ?. (2005). 'Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14/3: 153-173.

Storch, ?. (2011). 'Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions'. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31: 275-288.

Storch, ?., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). 'Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing'. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32/2: 303-334.

Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). 'Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments'? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9/2: 147-170.

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.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weigle, S. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment'. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16/3: 194-209.

Widodo, H. P. (2006). Teaching cooperative writing7. RELC Guidelines, 28/1: 27-32.