Interactive versus Collaborative Writing Instruction: An Experimental Study

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Fasa University of Medical Sciences, Fasa, Iran

2 English Department, Sepidan branch, Islamic Azad University, Sepidan, Iran

3 Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of Interactive and Collaborative Instructional pedagogies on Iranian EFL learners' writing. It adopted pre-test and post-test control group quasi-experimental design with two experimental and one control groups. The participants were 90 college students in two branches of Islamic Azad University. The main data collection tool was an essay writing task. Data were analyzed using ANCOVA. Pre-test post-test comparisons revealed that students who received interactive pedagogy gained the most from the instruction t= -18.302; p = 0.000; p< 0.5, followed by students who received collaborative pedagogy with a significance level of t= -16.253; p = 0.000; p < 0.5. The control group recorded no significant gain in their post-test performance t= 0.339; p = 0.736; p> 0.5. The total variance accounted for by all the independent variables taken together was 51% (i.e. W2 = 0.51%). Findings indicated that interactive pedagogies befitted students more than collaborative ones.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

بررسی اثر نوشتن مشارکتی و تعاملی بر عملکرد نوشتاری زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی

Authors [Persian]

  • علی تقی نژاد 1
  • محمد علی آیت الهی 2
  • محبوبه آزادیخواه 3
Abstract [Persian]

هدف تحقیق حاضر, بررسی تاثیر نوشتن مشارکتی در مقابل نوشتن تعاملی بر مهارت نوشتاری زبان‌آموزان ایرانی است.برای رسیدن به این هدف, ۹۰زبان‌آموز بعنوان  نمونه مورد مطالعه انتخاب شدند. طرح کلی این تحقیق بصورت پیش آزمون و پس آزمون بود که در آن دو گروه آزمایشی
(مشارکتی و تعاملی) و یک گروه کنترل مورد مطالعه قرار گرفتند. گروه ازمایش یک تحت اموزش نوشتن به شیوه تعاملی برای ۱۳ جلسه متوالی قرار گرفت.گروه ازمایش دو تحت اموزش به شیوه تعاملی برای ۱۳ جلسه قرار گرفت. گروه کنترل تحت اموزش به شیوه سنتی قرار گرفت. ابزار مورد استفاده در این تحقیق شامل ازمون سطح‌بندی آکسفورد و ازمون مقاله‌نویسی بود. طبق نتایج بدست آمده از تحلیل و تجزیه داده‌ها در نرم افزار اس پی اس اس نسخه ۲۱  (تحلیل کواریانس), میانگین زبان اموزان اموزش دیده باروش تعاملی نسبت به همتایانشان در روش مشارکتی و روش سنتی به طور معنی‌داری بیشتر بود، گرچه زبان‌اموزان اموزش‌ دیده با روش مشارکتی نیز عملکرد بهتری نسبت به زبان اموزانی که به روش سنتی اموزش دیده بودند،داشتند. این نشان‌دهنده تاثیر بیشتر روش تعاملی نسبت به روش مشارکتی و روش سنتی است. زبان‌اموزانی که با روش سنتی اموزش دیده بودند در پس ازمون پیشرفت معنی‌داری در مهارت نوشتاری از خود نشان ندادند. این نتایج از انرو مهم است که این نوع نوشتن باعث فراهم آوردن فرصتی برای به اشتراک گزاشتن ایده‌های زبان‌آموزان در مورد نوشتن می‌شود.

Keywords [Persian]

  • نوشتن به صورت تعاملی؛ نوشتن به صورت مشارکتی
  • رویکردهای آموزشی
Al Ajmi, A., & Holi Ali, I. (2014).  Collaborative writing in group assignments in an EFL/ESL classroom. English Linguistics Research 3(2), 1-17.

Allen, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Placement-TestsTestpack/dp/019430 9002

Banerjee, R. (2000). The benefits of collaborative learning. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://www.brighthub.com/education/k-12/articles/70619.aspx

Belden, N., Russonello, J., & Stewart, K. (2005). Learning to write, learning to learn: Americans’ views of writing in our schools. Washington, DC: National Learning Project.

Berthoff, A. (1984). Recognition, representation, and revision. In R. L. Graves (Ed.), Rhetoric and composition (pp. 27-38). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level:         An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 205-241.

Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In J. Nicholas (Ed.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261-273). New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Craig, S.A. (2006). The effects of an adapted interactive writing intervention on kindergarten children's phonological awareness, spelling, and early reading development: A contextualized approach to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), Nov 2006, ERIC(EJ746475).

El-Salahat, H., M. (2014). The effectiveness of using interactive writing strategy on developing writing skills among 7th graders and their attitudes towards writing.Unpublished MA thesis. Faculty of Education at The Islamic University of Gaza, Palestine.

Fabela, R. (2013). The use and implementation of interactive writing as an instructional method for primary teachers in Texas educational service center. A Dissertation of Curriculum and Instruction, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Corpus Christi, Texas.

Farr, M., & Daniels, H. (1986). Language diversity and writing instruction. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Herrell, A. L. (2000). Fifty strategies for teaching language learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merill.

Hossain, M. M., & Quinn, R.J. (2013). Experience from the implementation of a web 2.0-based collaborative model in a college euclidean geometry course. European Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(3),124-135.

Irwin, J. W., & Kondol, M. A. (2008). Reading/writing connections: Learning from research. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133-53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M.(1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M. Clarke, & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL’82: Pacific perspectives on language and teaching (pp. 207-25). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Martin, J. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reading. New York: Oxford University Press.

McVey, M. (2008). Writing in an online environment: Student views of “inked” feedback. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20, 1, 39-50.

McVey, D. (2008). Why all writing is creative writing? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 289-294.

Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, R. L., & Marin, J. (2008). The foreign lagunage writer's strategic behavior in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30-47.

Sagban, A. (2015). The effect of collaborative writing activities on Iraqi EFL college students’ performance in writing composition. Unpublished Phd dissertation. Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University. Al- Diwaniya, Iraq.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed), Second language writing (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677.

Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M. K., & Kozyrev, J. (2001). Refining composition skills: Rhetoric and grammar (5th ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Smith, B. L., &, MacGregor, J. T.  (2009). What is collaborative learning? National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment at Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved April 3, 2011, from  http://learningcommons.evergreen.edu/pdf/collab.pdf

Stanswartz, N. (2016). About interactive writing and interactive editing. Retrived from www.stanswartz.com/lAW%20.pdf

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

Wells, G. (1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and taught. Curriculum Inquiry, 20, 369-405.

Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2000). Teaching science writing to first-graders: Genre learning and recontextualization. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(1), 35-65.