Collaborative learning has become not only an esse ntial concept in the field of education [610539]

INTRODUCTION

Collaborative learning has become not only an esse ntial concept in the field of education
(Gaillet, 1992; McWham et al., 2003)but also a well 4known and widespread activity in most
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) writing classes.
The term collaborative learning as used in this the sis refers to students working together in small
groups on specific activities, with everyone being required to participate actively (Cohen, 1994).
Collaborative learning (CL) emphasizes helping youn g learners to learn the skills necessary for
learning successfully with one another (Schmuck, 19 85). According to Dillenbourg (1999: 1),
collaborative learning is ‘a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn
something together’. There are both theoretical and pedagogical bases for the widespread use of
group and pair work in education. According to Vygo tsky (1978), the development of human
beings takes place in social situations. It enables students to acquire and develop various skills
such as leadership, thinking, building self4esteem, motivating and encouraging low4motivated
students (Johnson Ahlgren, 1976; Garibaldi, 1979; G underson & D. Johnson, 1980; Hill & Hill,
1990). Collaborative learning in the context of col laborative writing means two or more people
working together to produce and complete a text, th rough practising stages and activities such as
collecting, planning and organizing ideas, drafting , revising and editing (Rice & Huguley, 1994).
From a theoretical point of view, using collaborati ve group interaction has become a topic of
research in aspects of both education and social ps ychology. Storch (2002) claims that
collaborative learning in the form of collaborative writing in EFL classes might help students to
act socially and cognitively, and suggests that tea chers should encourage learners to become
involved in social activities that promote interact ion and the co4construction of knowledge. From
a pedagogical perspective, the use of small groups is based on using the communicative approach
to L2 instruction that focuses on helping learners to use L2 (Storch, 2005).
Collaborative or cooperative learning differs from traditional learning because it provides
structural opportunities for individuals, who are g iven specific roles within their groups, to work
together to reach common goals. It is usually contr asted with traditional or competitive classroom
environments (Kessler, 2003). Therefore, collaborat ive learning refers to ‘a small group of learners
working together as a team to solve problems, compl ete a task, or accomplish a common goal’

(Graham, 2005: 11). When students learn separately, their individual performances do not
necessarily affect one another either positively or negatively. Competitive learning, on the other
hand, means putting them in direct competition with each other, with the idea that this will have
an effect on individual performances. Graham (2005) finds that collaborative learning of writing
skills helped students to find new ideas together a nd exposed them to various opinions, encouraged
them to discuss, debate, disagree and teach one ano ther as well as helping them to practise aspects
of the process approach to writing such as generati ng ideas.
Many benefits have been claimed for collaborative learning. For example, it may help weak
students to learn more effectively when they work w ith strong partners (Gabriele, 2007; Winskel,
2008).

1. Statement of the Problem
Many studies have shown how using collaborative le arning in the form of collaborative
writing in classrooms has a positive effect on stud ents’ social activities and writing strategies
(Elbow, 1975; Storch, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007; Willi ams, 2003; Noël & Robert, 2003; Graham,
2005). It seems therefore that a collaborative lear ning strategy might be an effective way of
teaching writing to ESL students One of the reasons for believing that CL can improve ESL writing
skills is that collaborative learning is not only a way to improve aspects of writing accuracy such
as grammar, vocabulary and punctuation, but that it also helps to establish a social atmosphere
conducive to meaningful learning and to solving stu dents’ problems.
If teachers see the value of collaborative writing and choose to use collaborative writing
assignments in their classrooms, they will encounte r challenges, the same challenges that are
associated with collaborative pedagogies. For insta nce, one of the major costs of using
collaborative writing is time. Learning how to impl ement the writing process in the classroom
takes time. Implementing the writing process in the classroom takes time.
Evaluating students’ writing using a hea lthy dose of both formative and summative
evaluation takes time. In some cases, the design of the course will need to be altered, which is a
time4consuming process. I have no easy answers to t he time problem. Teaching students how to
write takes time, and I see no quick way to help st udents practice the writing process in their classe s

and engage in significant collaborative writing opp ortunities without using class time, sometimes
significant amounts of class time.
Another challenge to using collaborative writing i n the classroom that compounds the
challenge of how to use classroom time is the relat ionship between inculcating course content and
helping students to think critically (as a person w ould think critically in a particular discipline). If
learning is interactive, however, then the best cla ssroom pedagogies incorporate healthy doses of
interaction in the curriculum, including opportunit ies for students to engage in collaborative
writing.
Allied with concerns about time and content covera ge is the challenge of student4professor
discontent. Collaborative writing can make both pro fessor and students uneasy because
collaborative writing pedagogy asks them to investi gate their assumptions about teaching and
learning. In investigating those assumptions, profe ssors and students may experience anxiety, and
students may resent at least at first the departure from what they have come to see as traditional
patterns of student4student and student4professor b ehaviors. Felder and Brent (1996) accurately
describe the uneasiness that generally accompanies the introduction of active learning in the
classroom: “Student4centered instruction may impose steep learning curves on everyone involved.
The teacher feeling awkward and the st udents hostile are both common and natural” .
Reinforcing the legitimacy of collaborative writing in classroom pedagogy takes on a new urgency
when we admit that using collaborative writing in t he classroom is necessary and may cause
students and professors discomfort when it is intro duced in the classroom.

2. The context of the study
Before discussing the study context, it is importa nt to indicate that the teaching of writing
is not paid much attention compared to the teaching of language systems such as vocabulary and
grammar .When my students write essays, they are ge nerally concerned with surface aspects such
as spelling, choosing vocabulary and correcting any grammatical mistakes .

The context of the present study concerns 11th gra ders from the “Al. D. Ghica” National
College. The “Al. D. Ghica” National College has a long history regarding students that achieved
amazing results using English Language knowledge. L earning a foreign language helped my
former students to pursue interesting study and car eer opportunities which were life changing.

3. Purpose of the study
The aim of this study is to investigate the effect s of collaborative learning on the process
approach to teaching writing (pre4writing, drafting , revising and editing) and on the attitudes of
EFL students. In other words, it seeks to determine whether using the collaborative learning
approach would be more effective than using traditi onal approaches such as individual learning.
Collaborative learning might encourage EFL students to write and express their ideas in proficient
and effective ways.
Previous work in this field indicates some promisi ng lines of investigation. Storch (1999,
2005); Storch & Wigglesworth (2007, 2009), studied the quality of written texts produced by
students in cooperation with their peers compared w ith that of texts produced individually, in terms
of accuracy (grammar) and fluency, and found CL hel ped students to write better essays in terms
of grammar. The present work differs in crucial asp ects, such as the study sample, and the placing
of an expert student in each group, with this stude nt playing an essential role during the writing
process.

4. Research Questions

The aim of this investigation was to an swer the following main research question:
Does collaborative writing benefit students? In oth er words, will the writing ability of students
improve if teachers encourage them to use a collabo rative learning strategy? Particularly, do the
11th graders involved in the project write better a fter collaborating with others than after working
individually?

The main research question gave rise to two sub4que stions:
14 Would students who are involved in collaborative writing settings produce better written
and better organized essays than students working i ndividually?
24 Are students’ attitudes and perceptions positive ly affected by involvement in collaborative
learning settings?

5. Significance of the study
This research investigates the effectiveness of co llaborative learning in helping EFL
students develop their English writing skills. The study is thus significant because it is designed to
explore in depth whether students produce better wr iting when working in small groups than when
working individually. The use of the collaborative writing strategy provides an opportunity for
them to express their ideas in small groups instead of individually.

6. Definitions of Terms
Some terms that are crucial to this study need to be clarified in advance. This section
provides brief explanations and discussion of some of these:
The process approach to writing
This is an approach that is concerned with linguis tic writing skills, namely planning,
revising, drafting and editing, rather than linguis tic writing knowledge, namely structure and
mechanics (Badger & White, 2000). It concentrates o n teaching writing through the process and
stages of writing (Belinda, 2006). In Chapter 2, th is approach is compared to two other approaches
that are used in writing and teaching writing: the product and genre approaches.
Collaborative learning (CL)
As stated earlier, collaborative learning refers t o learners working in small groups to solve
problems or complete particular tasks (Artz & Newma n, 1990; Graham, 2005). In other words, it

means an active give4and4take of ideas between more than one person in order to discover solutions
and create knowledge together (Damon, 1984). Accord ing to Storch (2002), the use of small
groups is based on the communicative language teach ing approach that is concerned with
encouraging students to use L2 actively in the clas sroom.
Group behaviour in collaborative learning (CL) diff ers from that of groups in communicative
language teaching (CLT), however, in its involvemen t of the expert and the application of elements
such as positive interdependence, individual accoun tability, face4to4face interaction, social skills
and group processing. One of the crucial aspects of the collaborative learning strategy applied in
this study, as mentioned above, was the placing of an expert student in each group, a student who
played an essential role during the learning proces s. Collaborative learning in the form of
collaborative writing refers to a group of writers working in small groups as a team to produce and
complete a shared piece of writing. It can be accom plished by more one than one person and
includes activities such as collecting ideas, brain storming, planning, making an outline, revising
and editing (Rice & Huguley, 1994).
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
The concept of the Zone of Proximal Development wa s defined by Vygotsky as follows:
‘The distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving
and the level of potential development as determine d through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peer s’ (Vygotsky, 1978: 86). This concept forms
the basis of the notion of expert as used in this r esearch.
Positive interdependence
Positive interdependence refers to an entire group working together effectively and
successfully (Kagan, 1994). It establishes mutual b enefits for learners and a sense of joint
responsibility that make their social environment m ore supportive, motivated, confident and
excellent in academic achievement. Positive interde pendence is an essential part of the concept of
CL. It is considered to be both the basis and the h eart of CL (Graham, 2005).

7. Structure and organization of the paper

This paper is organized into main four chapters:
Chapter One: Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to review various i ssues related to the topic of the study. It
contains an overview of EFL writing skills, includi ng an examination of various approaches to
writing such as the product, genre and process appr oaches. It also contains a detailed discussion
of collaborative learning (CL) through an examinati on of various points such as the theoretical
framework of the collaborative learning strategy, t he benefits of CL for language education,
elements of CL, collaborative writing in ESL classe s, and some previous studies of CL.
Chapter Two: Methodology and Research Design
The research questions and the methods used to ans wer them are presented in this chapter.
The design of the study and the strategy and method ology used are also described here. The chapter
also includes a description of the sample used for the study, of the data collection procedures and
of the tasks and activities used during the data co llection. Finally, information is provided
concerning the statistical tests used to analyze th e data.
Chapter Three: Analysis and Findings
In this research, both quantitative and qualitativ e methods of data collection were
employed. The principal approach was quantitative, with data being collected from writing tests
and questionnaires. These data were supplemented by qualitative data obtained from interviews
with the students. In this chapter, all the collect ed data are presented and analyzed.
Chapter Four: Discussions, Implications and Recomme ndations for Future Research
This chapter furthers the discussion of the findin gs of the study, relating them to those of
previous studies, implications and suggestions for both teachers and learners.

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Background
A review of the relevant literature was conducted in order to provide a theoretical
framework for teaching writing skills through the c ollaborative learning strategy used in this
research. The purpose of this chapter is to review the existing literature on the use of the
collaborative learning strategy, to reflect on the opinions and perspectives of previous researchers,
and to examine the results of a number of previous studies: in other words, to provide a proper
foundation for this research. The chapter is divide d into two main sections: 1) an overview of ESL
writing skills; 2) a discussion of the collaborativ e learning strategy.
The first section will focus on writing approaches , briefly highlighting both the product
and genre approaches. The process approach to writi ng will be discussed in more detail since it is
the approach used during the current investigation of the impact of collaborative learning on the
development of ESL writing skills. In the second pa rt of this chapter, several relevant issues and
points related to collaborative learning are discus sed: the theoretical framework of CL,
distinguishing collaborative learning from other us es of group work, the benefits of CL for
language education, elements of CL, collaborative w riting in ESL classes and finally, previous
studies of CL.

1.2 Writing approaches

According to Raimes (1993), there are three princi pal writing approaches: the product
approach that is concerned with form, the process a pproach that concentrates on the writer, and
the genre approach that pays attention to the reade r. All these approaches are described below.
Since the aim of this research was to study the inf luence of collaborative learning in improving
ESL writers, the main focus in this chapter is on t he process approach to writing, which consists
of the pre4writing, drafting, revising and editing stages and the activities associated with these
stages.

1.2.1 The product approach
Before the development of the process approach to writing, researchers saw writing as a
product, and thought that the most important compon ent of good writing was linguistic knowledge
rather than linguistic skill. Young (1978) defined the product or traditional approach to writing as
‘the emphasis on the composed product rather than t he composing process; the analysis of
discourse into words, sentences, and paragraphs; th e strong concern with usage (syntax, spelling,
punctuation) and with style (economy, clarity, emph asis); and so on’ (cited in Matsuda, 2003: 70).
It is called the product approach because its aim w as to produce correct texts (Richards, 1990).
Other researchers believe that the product approach to writing concentrates mainly on helping
students to learn grammatical rules and how to avoi d errors and mistakes. Badger and White (2000:
154) mention that ‘product4based approaches see wri ting as mainly concerned with knowledge
about the structure of language’.
According to Pincas (1982) and Hyland (2003), four stages characterize the product
approach: familiarized writing, controlled writing, guided writing and free writing. Familiarization
means ‘preparing students for actual writing by dem onstrating one or other of the skills that are to
be ‘practised’ (Pincas, 1982: 78). One example of a n effective familiarization technique is the
provision of contrasting examples and having studen ts write about the differences between them:
for example, hearing a spoken invitation and then r eading a written invitation. Another method of

familiarization is to give students confusing instr uctions and ask them to put them into the correct
order and carry them out (Pincas, 1982).
According to Hyland (2003), familiarization can be accomplished by teaching students
specific grammar and vocabulary through the use of a specific context. While exercises at the
familiarization stage are concerned with showing st udents the type of writing they will produce,
at the controlled writing stage students are given permission to practise the exercises. The exercises
in the controlled writing stage are divided into tw o types: combining exercises, such as joining
words by matching or by re4ordering; and substituti ng exercises, which involve both imitating
items produced by the teacher and following the tea cher’s guidance. For example, teachers may
present a few paragraphs and then provide certain w ords or sentences that can be substituted for
existing words (Pincas, 1982). ESL classes in this stage, according to Reid (1993), consist of
structuring grammatical sentences and receiving ins tructions about or making discrete changes in
a piece of discourse.
The guided writing stage is considered as a bridge between controlled and free writing. The
exercises in this stage are divided into several ty pes: a) completion exercises such as filling in the
blanks or matching words with their pictures; b) re production exercises such as re4writing
something from memory; c) comprehension exercises s uch as note4taking, and d) paraphrasing
exercises concerned with changing a statement from the active voice (e.g., ‘I accept your advice’)
into the passive (e.g., ‘your advice was accepted’) . Guided writing gives the writer some freedom
in writing, but this freedom is still limited to st ructuring sentences and exercises that focus on
comprehending questions and building vocabulary (Re id, 1993). Free writing is the last stage in
the product approach in which students are given th e opportunity to write freely without stopping.
This is sometimes called express writing (Reid, 199 3) and depends on spontaneity and sincerity,
when students discover themselves through language. Instead of focusing on the final product and
correcting their mistakes, the students are concern ed with self4discovery and pay no attention to
grammatical, structural or critical comments. Howev er, this stage does have some negative
aspects: a) various errors are made in grammar, spe lling and vocabulary; b) teachers are left with
no opportunity to guide or give feedback to their s tudents .
On the other hand, Silver and Leki (2004) claim th at the product approach to writing does
not pay attention to the reader or the purpose of w riting. The reader in this approach is the teacher

and the context is the classroom. The product appro ach helps students in the beginning stages to
develop and improve their grammatical accuracy. How ever, it neglects writing processes such as
planning and outlining a text, collecting ideas etc (Badger & White, 2000).

1.2.2 The genre approach
According to Swales (1990), the genre approach con sists of ‘a class of communicative
events, the members of which share some set of comm unicative purposes’ (p. 58). In addition, this
approach is defined as a ‘goal4oriented, staged soc ial process’ (Martin, 1992). People using this
approach interact to achieve social processes and t hey have goals of achieving particular things
(Hyland, 2003). Badger and White (2000) mention tha t the genre approach is considered a
newcomer to English language teaching; however, the re are some similarities between this and the
product approach. Although it is concerned with lin guistic knowledge, the main focus in the genre
approach is on writing about various social context s. They add that there are three stages to
teaching the genre approach: 1) introducing the tex t by the teacher; 2) constructing the text by the
student with some help from the teacher; 3) produci ng the complete text by the student. According
to Tribble (1996), Badger and White (2000) and Hyla nd (2003), this approach could be used in
any social context (for example, medicine, economic s or politics), to use writing in various
situations: for instance, writing articles, receipt s and reports. Hyland (2003) states that the centra l
emphasis in this approach is not merely on writing but on writing something to achieve a specific
purpose, as in telling a story or describing a tech nical process.
According to Silva and Colleen (2004), the genre a pproach examines various contexts and
moves from writing general essays to more particula r essays and from school4sponsored writing
to the real world context. While the general essays involve writing in the classroom, in testing
situations or in laboratories, the particular essay s can include many genres: for instance, nursing
notes, care plans, personal or business letters, re search proposals, doctoral narratives, research
article publications, textbooks and summaries.
Regarding the teacher’s role in this approach, he or she needs to discuss the genre with the
students at the beginning of the class, then the st udents can carry on and complete their work by

themselves. According to Brindly (1994), the teache r should produce and supply information and
input for the students at the beginning of the clas s.
The most useful feature of the genre approach to w riting is that a great deal of emphasis is
placed on the audience and the readers of the writt en texts. According to Hyland (2003), teachers
using the genre approach look beyond composing proc esses, subject content or the forms of texts
to see writing as a bridge of communication with re aders. The writer employing this approach is
thus able to build a good relationship with his or her readers by conveying specific information. In
addition, it assimilates context with discourse, so mething which is usually neglected in both the
product and process approaches to writing (Hyland, 2003).
However, some researchers have expressed a negativ e view of the genre approach. For
example, Kay and Dudley4Evans (1998) mention that ‘ the genre4based approach is restrictive,
especially in the hands of unimaginative teachers, and this is likely to lead to lack of creativity an d
de4motivation in the learners and it could become b oring and stereotyped if overdone or done
incorrectly’ (p. 311).

1.2.3 The process approach to writing
Recent approaches to writing have focused on the p rocess rather than the end product of
writing. The process approach was introduced in the mid41960s. According to Rohman, in this
approach the writing is classified into three stage s: 1) the pre4writing stage,that includes tasks tha t
take place before writing; 2) the drafting and writ ing stage; 3) the re4writing stage, in which
attention is paid to any grammatical, punctuation o r spelling mistakes (Rohman, 1965). However,
Rohman did not describe the process approach to wri ting in sufficient detail (Williams, 1998).
More light was shed on the process approach to wri ting in research conducted at the
beginning of the 1970s. Thus, ‘although Janet Emig (1971) is rightly credited with originating
process pedagogy in composition, it is important to recognize that the late 1960s witnessed an
intellectual shift in many fields toward process’ ( Williams, 2003, p. 100). It has been found that
writing is not linear but a recursive process that necessitates the activities of pre4writing, writing
and post4writing (Emig, 1971; Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1983; Hyland, 2003; Rose, 1980). With
regard to the use of the term ‘recursive’, during t he process of composition writers can move

forwards or backwards to any activities whenever th ey find that useful (Perl, 1978, 1980; Raimes,
1985). This means that even if a writer has almost finished a composition, he or she may find that
it is necessary to collect additional data from the library. As a result, they may have to revise thei r
essay in order to cope with any new information (Tr ibble, 2003; Hyland, 2003).
The process approach to writing also places more e mphasis on writing skills (planning,
revising and drafting) than on linguistic knowledge (spelling, grammar, punctuation and
vocabulary) (Badger & White, 2000). Students theref ore have to be taught writing through its
process and stages such as planning, drafting, revi sing, editing and publishing in order to write
freely and arrive at a product of good quality (Bel inda, 2006).
Moreover, one of the beneficial aspects of the pro cess approach to writing in the ESL
setting is that teachers consider a writer to be an ‘independent producer of text’ (Hyland, 2003, p.
10). However, while the process approach to writing has positive advantages for the writer, it does
not pay much attention to the reader, which is not particularly helpful for those readers who expect
to acquire some knowledge from a text (Tribble, 200 3).

1.2.3.1 Stages and activities of the process approa ch to writing
According to Kroll (2003), some stages and activit ies of the process approach to writing
that take place in L2 classes (for instance, pre4wr iting, drafting and revisions that could be made
through feedback from the teacher or from peers) ar e important. These activities take place when
writing in both L1 and L2 classes . Williams (2003) also mentions that all students involved in
writing need to engage in the activities contained in the various stages of the process approach:
namely, pre4writing stage activities such as brains torming, collecting ideas, discussing; the
drafting stage, and the revising and editing stages .
In addition, these activities can be used as many t imes as the writer needs (Tribble, 1996, 2003).
Figure (1) clearly shows the four stages of the pro cess approach to writing.

Figure (1) Stages of the process approach to writin g
Pre-writing

(Specifying the task/planning and outlining/collect ing data/making notes)
↓
Composing
↓
Revising
(recognizing/shifting emphasis/focusing on informat ion and styles for your
readership)
↓
Editing
(checking grammar/lexis/surface features: for examp le, punctuation, spelling, layout,
quotation conventions, references)

A)Pre-writing
A significant feature of the process app roach to writing is that students collect and produ ce
ideas before finishing the actual writing (Zamel, 1 982). According to Hewings and Curry (2003),
brainstorming and student discussions are helpful s trategies that may be used to collect and gather
ideas effectively. During the pre4writing stage stu dents can use various methods, such as
brainstorming, word clustering and free writing, as a way of discovering themselves and their ideas
. Brainstorming means thinking quickly in order to produce and collect ideas for a specific topic
or problem; it should therefore be done freely with out any structure or judgment, and collaborative
learning is the best way of ensuring that it is car ried out effectively (White & Arndt, 1991).
Planning a topic is another important strategy of t he pre4writing stage that helps learners to
organize and write successfully (Peacock, 1986). Ac cording to Flower and Hayes (1981), planning
is a mental strategy, so students may return to it at any time during the writing process.
Another technique of the pre4writing stage is writ ing and making notes in order to collect,
generate and organize ideas. Ideas are generated in a free and unstructured way and without being
organized. Organizing ideas is a structuring strate gy that could be carried out through selecting
appropriate names as headings and categories (White & Arndt, 1991). Making an outline during
the pre4writing stage is another useful strategy. A ccording to Williams (2003), writers may find it

necessary and useful to write down their important ideas in outline form, starting with small ideas
and moving to more general ones.
B) Composing / Drafting
Getting started in writing an essay is one of the difficult stages in the process approach to
writing, because it requires a great deal of attent ion, application and focus (Harris, 1993; Hedge,
2000). The drafting stage comes after the completio n of pre4writing activities such as specifying
the writing topic, collecting data and making an ou tline (Williams, 2003; King & Chapman, 2003;
Tribble, 1996, 2003). During drafting students shou ld keep writing their essay from beginning to
end without stopping (Gebhard, 2000). According to King and Chapman (2003),
during this stage writers should focus on the actua l writing and leave checking both grammatical
and spelling mistakes to the final stages.
C) Revising
Hedge (1988) mentions that ‘good writers tend to c oncentrate on getting the content right
first and leave details like correcting spelling, p unctuation and grammar until later’ (p. 23). The
main concern of the revising stage is to complete t he content correctly, whereas correcting
grammatical and spelling mistakes can be done durin g the editing stage (Tribble, 2003).Focusing
on reorganizing sentences and adding more appropria te vocabulary are essential aspects of the
process approach to writing (Williams, 2003). In th e revising stage writers should carry out
activities such as deleting unnecessary sentences a nd moving certain words or paragraphs forward
or backward (Zamel, 1981; Williams, 2003; Hedge, 20 00).
D) Editing
The last stage of the process approach to writing is editing. This stage concentrates on
linguistic accuracy: grammar, spelling and punctuat ion (Harris, 1993). Hewings and Curry (2003)
state that the editing stage involves checking refe rences and formatting the students’ writing. In
this stage students may employ various strategies t o correct their mistakes, such as working in
pairs or in groups, and use any available resourses such as textbooks, dictionaries and computers
(King & Chapman, 2003; Hewings & Curry, 2003).

1.2.3.2 Studies related to the process approach to writing
Various studies and researchers have examined the process approach to writing in different
situations in order to show the advantages and bene fits of this approach. Using the process
approach to writing plays a role in changing the at titudes and opinions of students. Belinda (2006)
implemented six writing programmes on process writi ng in six primary classrooms in Hong Kong,
three in the upper primary levels and three in the lower levels. She investigated the effectiveness
of these processes on changing students’ writing an d attitudes by comparing all six classrooms
with each other and the upper and lower levels in g eneral. These comparisons were between pre4
and post4tests of questionnaires, interviews and ob servations. The study purpose was to improve
students’ writing strategies in all stages of the p rocess approach, including pre4writing, drafting
and revising. Because children at primary levels ar e interested in reading, they were taught how to
write a story through processes and stages. This ty pe of writing was used for both pre4 and post4
tests.
The researcher noticed that the process approach t o writing had been found to be a useful and
helpful strategy; however, it could be more effecti ve for students fluent in English in strengthening
their writing skills.
In order to assess the relevance of Belinda’s stud y to this research, it is also important to
know that ESL students in Hong Kong start to practi se writing skills at primary level. Belinda
mentions that the product4oriented approach is used in teaching writing (p. 2). She adds, however,
that over the last few years the process approach t o writing has been recognized as being more
effective than the traditional methods of teaching writing.
Regarding using the process approach to writing in the field of technology, Parks, Huot,
Hamers and Lemonnier (2005) investigated whether pr ocess4based writing would be appropriate
in the context of ESL language arts courses over a four4year period. Francophone high school
students in Quebec studying on an information and c ommunication technologies (ICTs)
programme took part in the research. The researcher s used some qualitative methods to obtain
their data, namely, the analysis of documents, obse rvation, videotaping and interviews. At the end
of the study, the researchers noticed that the stud ents had become able to describe the writing
process (meta4linguistic knowledge). Before the Gra de 7 students had been involved in the study,
they had no knowledge of the process approach to wr iting. The results obtained from some of the

excerpts from the interviews showed that the studen ts were able to describe the processes and
stages of the writing approach and that they had be come able to use certain labels to identify some
of these processes.

1.3 Theoretical Framework of the Collaborative Lear ning Strategy
In the mid41930s, well before the development of t he process approach to writing at the
beginning of the 1970s, the Russian researcher Lev Vygotsky was already talking about the
importance of writing in developing thought. Vygots ky’s research reached the English4speaking
world around 1962. The main theoretical perspective and framework of collaborative learning in
groups comes from Vygotsky’s social constructivist view (Thousand, Villa & Nevin, 1994; Gillies
& Ashman, 2003; Vanderburg, 2006; Rojas4Drummon & M erce, 2003).
According to Vygotsky, children can lear n and perform tasks individually only when they
interact with more capable people who can help and ‘scaffold’ them effectively. ‘Scaffolding’ is
defined by Dennen (2004) as ‘a metaphor for a struc ture that is put in place to help learners reach
their goals and is removed bit by bit as it is no l onger needed, much like a physical scaffold is
placed around a building that is under construction and removed as the building nears completion’
(p. 815).
At that time, social interactions and an inner voi ce were two important concepts for most
writing research, which focused on the positive rol e played by social interactions in developing
writing. Vygotsky believed that the repeated social interactions of people with experts can develop
thought. Vygotsky’s theory of learning supports the collaborative learning approach because ‘it
analyzes how we are embedded with one another in a social world’ (Kessler, 1992, p. 56).
Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) concept of the ZPD is consi dered to be the theoretical background for
peer collaboration in second language writing. The ZPD establishes two levels of development:
the actual level, which is determined through the a bility of the learner to do something individually,
and the possible level, which is determined by the ability of the learner to do it with the help of an
adult or a more advanced and capable classmate (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000). The functions in
the ZPD are called ‘buds’ of development and the ac tual development is called the ‘fruits’ of
development (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky believed tha t the child can be developed on both the

social plan and the psychological plan (1978). Acco rding to Lantolf (2000), Vygotsky’s idea is
that ‘all higher mental abilities appear twice in t he life of the individual: first on the inter4menta l
plan in which the process is distributed between th e individual, and some other person(s) and/or
cultural artifacts, and later on the intra4mental p lan in which the capacity is carried out by the
individual acting via psychological mediation’ .
To explain the difference between the inter4mental and intra4mental plans, Wertsch (1997,
cited in Smith, 2007) describes inter4mental speech as a functional tool in communicating with
others; whereas intra4mental speech is a psychologi cal tool that occurs inside the person with
him/herself. The inter4mental plane is therefore co nsidered as a social level and the intra4mental
plane is considered as a psychological level (Lanto lf, 2000).
According to Vanderburg (2006), three concepts are fundamental to the development of
learning: the ZPD, scaffolding and the inner voice. Advanced individuals can scaffold, develop
and create an inner voice in individuals who are we ak or who need more support through their
zone of proximal development. Van der Veer and Vals iner (2000) state that there is an association
between concepts of scaffolding and the ZPD, that w ere originally adopted by Vygotsky to refer
to how adults present cultural meanings to children . The term ‘scaffolding’ was then popularized
by Bruner and became well known in the field of edu cation (cited in De Guerrero & Villamil,
2000). Bruner (1978) used the word ‘scaffolding’ me taphorically to describe a mother’s efforts to
keep talking to her child. Five features characteri ze a mother’s scaffolding: a) the difficulty of the
task is reduced; b) the child becomes more focused and concentrated; c) the support is offered for
children; d) more models are offered (cited in De G uerrero & Villamil, 2000).

The ZPD may be illustrated simply by Lier’s (1996) diagram, shown in Figure (2), below:

Figure (2) Zone of proximal development
Zone of proximal
development

Self4regulation

ZPD

The circular area of ‘self4regulation’ shown in Li er’s diagram refers to anything people
may do by themselves confidently without asking for help from others. Outside this circle is the
area of the zone of proximal development, which inc ludes any skills or knowledge with which a
person needs help and assistance from more capable persons.
In addition, any things beyond the area of the ZPD are considered out of the reach of
learners, so they are not available for learning. S elf4regulation, according to Lantolf and Appel
(1994), is the movement from the inter4mental to th e intra4mental plan that helps young learners
to gain and exercise full control over their behavi our. In the field of education, this means that
learners are able to perform particular activities under the guidance and supervision of an advanced
person such as a teacher or another student who kno ws more than they do.

1.3.1 Distinguishing collaborative learning from ot her uses of group work

Collaborative learning can include variou s different strategies, one of which is peer feedba ck
(Van Gennip, Segers & Tillema, 2010). Studies on th e teaching of writing skills do not differentiate

between collaborative writing and peer feedback (Ge bhardt, 1980; Storch, 2005). It is important
to understand the role of feedback in collaborative learning. According to Gebhardt (1980),
‘Feedback, in fact, can almost be considered the ba se of collaborative writing because it is what
allows all the other principles to work’ (p. 67). T here are various kinds of feedback, such as peer
feedback, teacher feedback and conferencing (Freedm an, 1987). A clear definition of the
application of feedback in learning writing skills is provided by Freedman (1987), who states that
such feedback
Includes all reactions to writing, formal or inform al, written or oral, from teacher or peer,
to a draft or a final version. It can also occur in reaction to talking about intended pieces of
writing, the talk being considered a writing act. I t can be explicit or less explicit (Freedman 1987:
5).
Collaborative learning helps students to give and receive feedback to and from each other
(Baker, 2009; Pilotti & Chodorow, 2009). According to Storch’s study (2005), ‘the students’
feedback on the experience of collaborative writing was overall very positive’ (p. 169). Giving
and receiving feedback and working in groups are th us considered to be two of the principal
features of collaborative learning. Feedback is not only useful for beginners but also for advanced
writers because it enables them to evaluate their d rafts and avoid any possible mistakes .Not
receiving feedback either from teachers or from pee rs could result in complicated and unrevised
drafts (notably, Hyland, 2003).
There is also a variety of additional forms of fee dback available in the classroom: for
instance, written or oral conferencing (Hyland, 200 3); teacher4students face4to4face conferencing
(Hyland, 2003), and error feedback, which involves drawing students’ attention to the type of error
they have made: for example, 4 mistakes in choosing the appropriate verb tense (Ferris, 2001).
Another form of feedback that can be given in the c lassroom is direct and indirect teacher feedback
(Ferris, 2001). Direct feedback occurs when the tea cher explains the error in the form to the
student, whereas indirect feedback happens when the teacher tells the students that there is a
mistake in the form and that it needs to be correct ed.
Other forms are ‘corrective feedback’ (Ellis et al. , 2008); ‘praise feedback’, such as ‘that’s great’
and ‘that’s nice’; affirmative feedback (e.g., ‘yes ’ and ‘no’); laughter, and non4verbal usages (e.g.,
gestures) (Reigel, 2008).

1.3.2 Collaborative learning and communicative lang uage teaching
Since using small groups in learning a second lang uage is based on the communicative
approach to L2 instruction that focuses on helping learners to use L2 (Storch, 2007), it is important
to look at some aspects of communicative language t eaching theory, such as the definitions,
framework and elements related to CLT, and to analy se some of the implications of its use for
second language teaching and learning.
Communicative language learning depends on involvi ng all the members of the group in
the process of cooperation (Savignon, 1983). Educat ors have hoped that the adoption of
communicative language teaching will help second la nguage students master the necessary skills
for communication with speakers of the target langu age. It is important to mention the fact that in
the 1970s, research into communicative competence d istinguished between linguistic and
communicative competence, in order to highlight the difference between knowledge about
linguistic forms and the knowledge that enables a p erson to communicate functionally and
interactively.
The major discussion on the importance of communic ative competence for language
teaching was introduced by Canale and Swain (1980), who came up with a new framework of
communicative competence. This framework is compose d of the following four elements:
grammatical competence, pragmatic competence, socio linguistic competence and strategic
competence. The first two elements are concerned wi th knowledge of the linguistic system itself,
and the rest are related to more functional aspects of communication. Grammatical competence,
which is the first element, refers to the aspect of communicative competence that encompasses
‘knowledge of lexical items and of rules of the mor phology, syntax, sentence4grammar semantics
and phonology’ (p. 29).
The second element is pragmatic competence. It con cerns the user’s knowledge of rules of
discourse. This means everything from simple spoken conversation to lengthy written texts
(articles, books and the like). While grammatical c ompetence is concerned with sentence4level
grammar, discourse competence focuses on inter4sent ential relationships.

The third element is sociolinguistic competence, w hich refers to knowledge of the
sociocultural rules of the language and discourse. This type of competence includes an
understanding of the social context in which the la nguage is used, the function of the interaction
in which the learners are engaged and the informati on they share. Savignon (1983, p. 37) says that
only in a full context of this kind can a judgment be made on the appropriateness of a particular
utterance.
Strategic competence (later called the effectivene ss of communication) refers to ‘the verbal
and non4verbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for
breakdowns in communication due to insufficient com petence’ (Canale & Swain, 1980, p. 30). It
is this kind of strategy that is useful in persuasi on. The implication is that people are concerned
with knowledge about how to solve communicative pro blems in general, which may then be
exploited when actual problems occur and performanc e is required.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) focuses on l anguage skills: namely, speaking,
listening, reading and writing (Littlewood, 2007). The learner is considered the centre of the
teaching4learning process (White, 2007). In communi cative activities, the learner should start
looking not only at language forms (grammar and voc abulary), but also at how people use these
forms when they want to communicate with each other , because communicative ability is the goal
of foreign language learning.
One of the most important implications of this app roach is thus that teachers should focus
on activities and exercises that enable the student to communicate within different meaningful
contexts, instead of focusing on grammatical rules. While a communicative activity is taking place,
a classroom is far from quiet, however. The student s do most of the speaking, and frequently the
scene of a classroom during a communicative exercis e is active, with students leaving their seats
to complete a task. Because of the increased respon sibility to participate, students may find they
gain confidence in using the target language in gen eral. Students are more responsible managers
of their own learning. Teachers in communicative cl assrooms will find themselves talking less and
listening more, and becoming active facilitators of their students’ learning. The following
description of the teacher's roles is provided by L ittlewood (1984):
14 S/he is a general overseer of his learner’s lear ning, so he should organize and coordinate
the activities so that his learners perform their t asks effectively and coherently.

24 S/he is a classroom manager, so he should distri bute his learners into grouping activities
and make sure that these are organized satisfactori ly at a practical level.
34 S/he is sometimes a language instructor, so he m ay present new language, evaluate and
correct the learners’ performance.
44 S/he is a consultant and advisor, so he may help and advise his learners and also may
discuss their weaknesses and strengths.
54 S/he is sometimes a co4communicator, so he may p articipate in the activity. In this role, he
stimulates and presents new language without being the main initiator of the activity.

1.4 Benefits of collaborative learning for language education
Following the literature, it is possible to define the term ‘group’ as used in CLT as two or
more people performing a task together. Group behav iour in collaborative learning as defined here
differs from that of groups in communicative langua ge teaching by virtue of the existence of the
expert and in the use of some distinctive features of CL: the elements of positive interdependence,
individual accountability, face4to4face interaction , social skills and group processing .
Collaborative learning is based on Vygotsky’s (197 8, 1986) concept of the ZPD that is
considered the theoretical background for peer coll aboration in second language writing.
According to De Guerrero and Villamil (2000), the Z PD establishes two levels of development:
the actual level and the possible level . The more capable person (expert) can assist the less capable
person (Storch, 2005). So, collaborative learning i nvolves students who are less advanced in
knowledge and who need support and help from more a dvanced students, who act as experts. Some
studies (Gabriele, 2007; Schmitz & Winskel, 2008) s tudied the effectiveness of using more
advanced peers to improve less advanced students an d found that this strategy was more beneficial
than having students collaborate with each other.
Collaboration refers to an active give4and4take of ideas between persons, rather than one
person passively learning from another. Collaborati ve learning experiences are those in which
participants discover solutions and create knowledg e together (Damon, 1984, p. 334). According

to Cohen (1994), collaborative learning means that students work together in small groups on a
specific activity and each student has to participa te effectively.
Klingner and Schumm (1998) stated that collaborati ve learning doesn’t only mean putting
students together and asking them to work cooperati vely; the most important factor affecting the
success of small group work is to know how to struc ture the learning environment in order to
develop the students’ performance. Collaborative le arning should not only be about students
communicating and discussing with each other in gro ups, but also about sharing materials and
following elements of CL successfully (Graham, 2005 ).
Collaborative learning provides structured opportu nities for individuals to work together
to reach common goals. It is usually contrasted wit h traditional individualistic and competitive
classroom environments (Kessler, 2003). For example , individual learning does not help students
to benefit from their contribution to their learnin g, whereas the main concern of competitive
learning is to place students in competition with e ach other.
Graham (2005) studied how students’ reflections on and performance in collaborative
writing encouraged them to discuss, debate, disagre e and also to teach one another. CL also
enabled them to be more interactive and cooperative and perhaps prepared them more suitably for
the twenty4first century. By contrast, he found tha t during their collaboration, students
concentrated on the product rather than the process of writing, and therefore paid a great deal of
attention to sentence4level errors rather than to t he content and ideas of the text.
Moreover, cooperation in small groups is effective in enabling weak students to learn from
strong partners. It is clear that students who work individually may get stuck, so that working
collaboratively with strong students may help them to understand the materials more easily.
Gabriele (2007) examined the influence of high achi eving peers on improving the achievement
goals and comprehension monitoring of low achieving students. This study was conducted in an
urban school in the mid4west of the United States, where thirty4two low upper elementary students
were paired with high achieving students to improve their level of constructive activity (solving
problems). Videotapes were made of the students sol ving mathematical word problems
collaboratively, and these were then transcribed. T he day following the experiment, the students
were post4tested individually on similar problems. The results indicated that the low achieving
students had improved in the post4test in terms of the constructive activities.

In addition, learning in groups helps students to interact with each other collaboratively.
According to Williams (2003), working in groups pro vides learners with the opportunity to talk
about their activities socially and collaboratively . Discussing in groups is considered one of the
best ways to make writing more meaningful and clear er and to help students to improve their
writing strategies.

1.5 Elements of Collaborative Learning
The collaboration of students in small groups does not mean students simply sitting side
by side in order to communicate and discuss with ea ch other. Nor does it mean allowing only one
member of a group to complete all the work by him/h erself with the others simply putting their
names on the final product (Johnson & Johnson, 1987 ). Collaboration means talking about and/or
sharing materials with others in the group and usin g the aspects and elements of CL successfully
(Graham, 2005). In this section we present some of the distinctive features of CL that were used
in this research.
In order to establish a formal collaborative learn ing strategy, teachers need to take into
consideration five basic elements: (1) the ability of students to participate collaboratively in tasks
and be ready to share their work with others; (2) i ndividual and group responsibility; (3) face4to4
face interaction; (4) teamwork skills, and (5) grou p processing (Smith, 1998). According to
Johnson and Johnson (1999), there are five elements of collaborative learning that help students to
increase their achievement and to improve, as follo ws:
14 Positive interdependence
The first element that leads to successful collabo rative learning is the belief that failing at
least one student of the group means failing all, s o that one member cannot succeed unless all
members do, and vice versa (Johnson & Johnson, 1987 , 1989). The success of each member in the
cooperative group thus basically depends on all the others.
Strong positive interdependence refer s to the whole group working together effectively
and successfully (Kagan, 1994). It is established w hen all members of the team become
encouraged and motivated to ensure that everyone do es well. However, weak positive

interdependence is created when the success of the cooperative group is seen as being dependent
on the success of at least one member in the group. Positive interdependence helps students to
improve their individuality and their social identi ty (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). In addition,
positive interdependence is considered to be both t he basis and the heart of CL (Graham, 2005).
Therefore, positive interdependence establishes mut ual benefits for learners, a sense of joint
responsibility that means they care about the succe ss not only of themselves but also of other
members in the group; it makes their social environ ment more supportive and thus helps them to
be more motivated, confident and excellent in acade mic achievement.

24 Individual Accountability
This element is based on Vygotsky’s (1978) belief that ‘what a child can do with assistance
today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow’. The individual accountability technique is
important and useful because it helps the group to know which students need more support,
encouragement and assistance. One of the main purpo ses of the students cooperating together is
therefore to strengthen every member of the group ( Graham, 2005). Moreover, it enhances the
concept that students cannot ‘hitch a ride’ on the work of other members of the group.
Teachers thus need to ensure that not only are all members of the group working
collaboratively, but also that every single member of the group takes individual responsibility for
making a concerted effort to contribute effectively to the group’s work. According to Johnson
(1991), there are some good ways to structure indiv idual accountability, such as giving every
member of the group a test to answer individually, choosing one of the group’s members to
represent the whole group, and asking some members to teach what they have learned to others.

34 Face4to4Face Interaction
Face4to4face interaction is fostered by the positi ve interdependence element. It can be
defined as facilitating, supporting and encouraging individuals to assist each other’s efforts
(Johnson & Johnson, 1987). Face4to4face interaction has several effects on individual members of
the learning group (Johnson & Johnson, 1987):

a4 It helps them to exchange information and materi als with others.
b4 It provides feedback that helps them to improve their performance effectively.
c4 It challenges the conclusions of each member and this helps to improve the quality of
decision making.
d4 It encourages students to be strongly motivated.
e4 It decreases levels of anxiety and stress.

44 Social skills
The fourth important element of successful collabo rative learning is using the appropriate
social skills. Students can learn together successf ully when they know and trust each other,
communicate accurately, support and help each other , resolve any conflicts and solve problems
successfully (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). However, th e collaborative learning strategy will not be
used accurately and effectively if students do not learn the appropriate interpersonal skills. The
teachers’ role is thus to clarify to their students the social skills they need for their collaborativ e
learning groups, skills such as leadership, conflic t management, trust4building and decision
making (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999, 2003). The m ore skillful collaborators are socially, the
more feedback they receive or give on this skill, t he higher the achievement of the CL group will
be (Graham, 2005).

54 Group Processing
This element is a reflection on sessions of collab orative learning in order to determine
whether the actions of the group’s members are help ful or if there is a need to make some changes.
Group processing is therefore important because it gives the students the opportunity to evaluate
and maintain their social skills and receive some f eedback on their practice during the sessions.
Moreover, in this stage teachers have an essential role to play in order to help students achieve
successful collaborative groups.

For example, observations of the students are a good way to find out whether the students
understand all the structures, information, strateg ies and the basic elements of collaborative
learning (Graham, 2005).

1.6 Collaborative writing in ESL classes
With regard to the pedagogical approach, the use o f small groups is usually based on the
communicative approach to L2 instruction that focus es on helping learners to use L2