IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aoj/asjoet/v7y2021i3p179-188id3241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collaborative Writing in EFL Classroom: Comparison on Group, Pair, and Individual Writing Activities in Argumentative Tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Jitlada Moonma
  • Chittima Kaweera

Abstract

This study focused on comparing the effects on 32 students’ argumentative writing qualities when they worked alone or collaborated in pairs and groups and explored the students’ opinions towards critical thinking across different writing activities. The 32 students were divided into groups of four (n=8), pairs (n=16) and individuals (n=32). Their papers were rated in terms of content, language use, and organization by three raters. The research employed argumentative writing rubrics, semi-structured interview, and observation. From the total of 15 points, the novice learners gained the highest scores when writing in groups (X ̅ = 11.22), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.19) and individuals (X ̅ = 8.98). The intermediate learners also gained the highest scores in group work (X ̅ = 11.50), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.32), and individual work (X ̅ = 9.04), respectively. Similar to the advanced level, they had the highest scores when working in groups (X ̅ = 11.95), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.45), and individuals (X ̅ = 9.45). The findings indicated that group work led to the highest scores in all proficiency levels and in groups, the students’ critical thinking improved regarding analyzing, evaluating and creating information when they brainstormed, shared and discussed all information. In pairs, the students also demonstrated that their critical thinking developed but only in analyzing from sharing information with a partner. In individuals, all proficiency levels reported that critical thinking was not developed as no interaction with peers.

Suggested Citation

  • Jitlada Moonma & Chittima Kaweera, 2021. "Collaborative Writing in EFL Classroom: Comparison on Group, Pair, and Individual Writing Activities in Argumentative Tasks," Asian Journal of Education and Training, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 7(3), pages 179-188.
  • Handle: RePEc:aoj:asjoet:v:7:y:2021:i:3:p:179-188:id:3241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/3241/2140
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/3241/2476
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aoj:asjoet:v:7:y:2021:i:3:p:179-188:id:3241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sara Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.