The Effects of Task-Based Collaborative Output Activities and Scaffolding Techniques on EFL Learners' Writing Performance: A Mixed-Methods Study
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)
خسرو زهره وندی
1
,
حسین احمدی
2
,
حمید رضا خلجی
3
1 - دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد ملایر
2 - دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد ملایر
3 - دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد ملایر
کلید واژه: Keywords: Collaborative Output-based Activities, Scaffolding, Writing Performance,
چکیده مقاله :
Abstract Literature review confirms that TBCOA and ST were effective in improving EFL learners’ writing skills. However, a new study is necessary to compare the rate of effectiveness of these activities and techniques on Iranian intermediate L2 learners' writing performance. Moreover, the impact of two types of TBCOA versus two types of ST on intermediate EFL learners' writing performance was compared. This research followed a quasi-experimental design. A sample of 80 intermediate-level EFL learners, selected through convenience sampling from a private language school, constituted the participants. The learners were divided into four groups. The homogeneity of the participants in terms of writing performance was checked through a quick placement test at the outset of the study. Furthermore, the effects of debating vs. dictogloss., teacher scaffolding vs. peer scaffolding, and overall TBCOA vs. overall ST were compared through ANCOVA, with the pretest scores treated as the covariate. Debating outperformed dictogloss, teacher scaffolding was more effective than peer, and the overall TBCOA group significantly performed better than the general ST group in writing performance. The learners' interview results concerning the role of TBCOA and ST in their writing production resulted in several common themes, which were categorized into 16 codes for debating, 11 codes for dictogloss, six common codes for teacher scaffolding and peer scaffolding. This study provides implications for EFL writing instruction.
Abstract Literature review confirms that TBCOA and ST were effective in improving EFL learners’ writing skills. However, a new study is necessary to compare the rate of effectiveness of these activities and techniques on Iranian intermediate L2 learners' writing performance. Moreover, the impact of two types of TBCOA versus two types of ST on intermediate EFL learners' writing performance was compared. This research followed a quasi-experimental design. A sample of 80 intermediate-level EFL learners, selected through convenience sampling from a private language school, constituted the participants. The learners were divided into four groups. The homogeneity of the participants in terms of writing performance was checked through a quick placement test at the outset of the study. Furthermore, the effects of debating vs. dictogloss., teacher scaffolding vs. peer scaffolding, and overall TBCOA vs. overall ST were compared through ANCOVA, with the pretest scores treated as the covariate. Debating outperformed dictogloss, teacher scaffolding was more effective than peer, and the overall TBCOA group significantly performed better than the general ST group in writing performance. The learners' interview results concerning the role of TBCOA and ST in their writing production resulted in several common themes, which were categorized into 16 codes for debating, 11 codes for dictogloss, six common codes for teacher scaffolding and peer scaffolding. This study provides implications for EFL writing instruction.
Abasi Mojdehi, H., & Zarei, A.A. (2023). The impact of different scaffolding techniques on IELTS candidates' writing anxiety: From perceptions to facts. Learning culture and social interaction, 40, 1- 10. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100715.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C, Walker, D. A., . Sorensen Irvine , C., K., (2019). Introduction to research in education (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning, Inc.
Allwright, D. (2005). From Teaching Points to Learning Opportunities and Beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 9-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588450.
Amerian, M., Ahmadian, M., & Mehri, E. (2014). Sociocultural theory in practice: The effect of teacher, class, and peer scaffolding on the writing development of EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 1-12.
Badr Parchin R., Davaribina M., (2019). Promoting Writing Ability: Exploring the Influence of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Scaffolding on Iranian High School Students' Writing Ability, UCT Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research 7(3) (2019) 21–26.
Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (3), 377-396. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.3.2.
Brown, D., (2000). Principle by language Learning and Teaching (4thEd), Eddison Wesley Longman. Inc.,
Bruner, J (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. W.W. Norton.
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, Ch., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semi-structured interviews: Problems of unitization and inter-coder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320.
Coniam, D., & Lee, M. W. K. (2008). Incorporating wikis into the teaching of English writing. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 7, 52-67.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37–46.
Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 335-336, 483-511.
Chen, J., Zhang, L. J., & Parr, J. M. (2022). Improving EFL students’ text revision with the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model. Metacognition and Learning, 17, 191-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09280-w
Crowhurst, M. (1991). Research review: Patterns of development in writing persuasive/argumentative discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25 (3), 314-338. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED299596.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Danli, L. I. (2011). Scaffolding in the second language learning of target forms in peer interaction. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 107-126.
Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38, 85-95.
Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58.
el Majidi, A., de Graaff, R., & Janssen, D. (2018). Students’ perceived effect of in-class debates in second language learning. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 7(1), 35-57.
el Majidi, A., de Graaff, R., & Janssen, D. (2020). Debate as L2 pedagogy: The effects of debating on writing development in secondary education. The Modern Language Journal, 104 (4), 804-821. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12673.
Ellis, R. and G. Barkhuizen, (2005). Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12532
Ekşi, G. Y. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: how effective? International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 33-48.
Farid, A. A. P. A., Setyarini, S., & Moecharam, N. Y. (2017). The implementation of dictogloss storytelling in improving 8th-grade students’ writing skill. Journal of English and Education, 5(1), 85-91.
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.
Ghanbari, N., & Salari, M. (2022). Frontier. Psychology. Sec. Psychology of Language
Volume 13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862400.
Gleason, M. 2001. Using the new basales to teach writing process: modifications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17: 75-92.
Guest, G, Bunce, A, & Johnson, L(2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05279903 Field Methods; 18; 59.
Ge, X., Chen, C. H., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers' problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219-248.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English. New York: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Teaching Research, 9 (3), 321-342.
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 69-87). Cambridge University Press.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Lamb, T. (2008). Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy: synthesizing an agenda. In T. Lamb, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses (pp. 269-284). Netherland: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leow, R. P. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners' L2 development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/328683.
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
Makiabadia, H., Pishghadam, R., Meidania, N., & Khajavy, G. H. (2019). Examining the role of emotioncy in willingness to communicate: A structural equation modeling approach. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 24(7), 120-130.
Malmquist, A. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14 (2-3), 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668829.
Messenger, W. E., & Taylor, P. A, (1989). Essentials of Writing. Prentice. Hall Canada Inc.
Modarresi, Gh. (2021). The effect of dictogloss vs. debating on L2 writing proficiency: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Teaching Language Skills. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/ 10.22099/jtls.2021.39939.2954.
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 39.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford University Press.
Pham, V. P. H. (2022). The impacts of task-based instruction on students’ grammatical performances in speaking and writing skills: A quasi-experimental study.International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 969-986.
Plakans, L., Gebril, A., & Bilki, Z. (2019). Shaping a score: Complexity, accuracy, and
fluency in integrated writing performances. Language Testing, 36, 161– 179.
Plutsky, S., & Wilson, B. A. (2004). Comparison of the three methods for teaching and evaluating writing: A quasi-experimental study. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 46(1), 50-61.
Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best practices in implementing a process approach to teaching writing. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 28-49). New York, NY: Guilford.
Riazi, M., & Rezaii, M. 2011. Teacher- and peer-scaffolding behaviors: Effects on EFL students‟ Writing improvement. In A. Feryok (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th national conference for community languages and ESOL, 1: 55-63.
Richer, D. L. (1992). The effects of two feedback systems on first year college students writing proficiency. Dissertation Abstracts Int
San Martin, M. G. (2018). Scaffolding the learning-to-teach process: A study in an EFL teacher education program in Argentina. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 20(1), 121-134.
Sundari, H., Febriyanti, R. H., & Saragih, G. (2018). Using task-based materials in teaching writing for EFL classes in Indonesia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7 (3), 119-124. Retrieved from http://journal.ipts.ac.id/index.php/ED/article/view/710
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611-633.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305.
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18 (2), 158-176. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860.
Shin, S., Brush, T. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2020). Patterns of peer scaffolding in technology-enhanced inquiry classrooms: Application of social network analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2321-2350. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09779-0.
Simeon, J. C. (2014). Language learning strategies: An action research study from sociocultural perspective of practices in secondary school English classes in the seychelles. Doctoral Dissertation, Ph.D., Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Skehan, P. (1998 b). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain, (Ed.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (p. 98-118). Longman.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44-63.
Taheri, P., Nazmi, R. (2021). Improving EFL learners' argumentative writing ability: Teacher vs. peer scaffolding. Teaching English Language, 15(2), 299-333. https://doi.org/ 10.22132/TEL.2021.143348.
Teng, M. F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573.
Villarreal, I., & Gil Sarratea, N. (2019). The Effect of Collaborative Writing in an EFL Secondary Setting. Language Teaching Research. doi: https://doi. org/10.1177/1362168819829017.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, J., & Sneed, S. (2019). Exploring the Design of Scaffolding Pedagogical Instruction for Elementary Preservice Teacher Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,1-24. (pp. 7-9). Oxford University Press.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-40.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.
Yong, F. L. (2010). Attitudes toward academic writing of foundation students at an Australian-based university in Sarawak. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 471-477.
