What does collaborative writing (CW) mean when we teach writing for those students who use English as a second language (ESL)? By general definition, collaborative writing means that two, or more than two, ESL students work together on their writing assignment. Research on the implementation of CW in second language (L2) writing has been discussed and reported for decades (e.g., Conner & Asenavage, 1994 Dobao, 2012; Parks, 2000; Shehadeh, 2011; Shi, 1998; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2011). Many factors that might affect CW performance have been discussed in primary studies, e.g., group size, teacher influence, student language proficiency, etc. However, most of these were external factors. Very little attention has been paid to research on student factors (internal factors—e.g., cognitive knowledge or attitude) that may affect CW outcomes. In other words, whether the effectiveness of CW is caused by a teacher’s beliefs and pedagogical approach for CW or some internal factors of students, i.e., students’ attitudes toward CW; students’ knowledge levels about CW; pre-existing preferences regarding teamwork, or a student’s English proficiency, etc.) is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to examine how internal factors affected CW outcomes, and thereby suggest what instructors should be aware of when adopting CW in
intermediate ESL classroom. Therefore, this paper addressed three important questions: 1. To what extent does students’ knowledge level about CW affect ESL students’ actual performance of CW? 2. To what extent does students’ knowledge level about CW play a role in their positive attitudes toward CW? 3. What does CW look like in an intermediate level ESL class? A case study to compare CW experiences between two classes (n= 26) was undertaken to address these three questions.
Using a mixed-method case-study approach, students (n = 26) in two classrooms were observed throughout a 7-week intermediate level English language class for university students whose native languages are not English. Participants included students from different countries (Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China, Lebanon, and South Africa) and who ranged in age from 18 to 33. In one classroom CW was introduced and practiced with research-based evidence of its efficacy explicitly explained (explicit CW class). In the other class, CW was introduced and practiced, but not explained in the same manner (implicit CW class).
The major findings of the present study can be summarized as follows: First, by the end of the seven weeks, the explicit CW group had much better knowledge of CW and performed better than the second (implicit CW) class of students in terms of writing content, organization, and grammar, but there were no substantial differences in terms of vocabulary or mechanics. Second, both quantitative and qualitative findings showed that participants’ knowledge about CW was independent of their attitudes toward CW. Statistically none of the correlations between these were significant. In other words, knowledge about CW did not play a very important role in their preference for CW. Additionally, through creating class participant profiles, examining transcripts of
collaborative writing sessions and conducting follow up interviews, it was found that often the most proficient writers had the least preference for CW even while they acknowledged its effectiveness. Implications and limitations of this study in addition to recommendations for additional investigations in this area are also discussed.