The Effects of Collaborative Writing Instruction

DSpace Institution DSpace Repository http://dspace.org

English Language and Literature Thesis and Dissertations

2018-10-31 THE EFFECTS OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE AND SOCIAL SKILLS: THE CASE OF GRADE 10 STUDENTS AT WURGESSA GENERAL SECONDARY SCHOOL

ALEMNESH, SEID http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/9051 Downloaded from DSpace Repository, DSpace Institution's institutional repository

BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITRATURE

THE EFFECTS OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE AND SOCIAL SKILLS: THE CASE OF GRADE 10 STUDENTS AT WURGESSA GENERAL SECONDARY SCHOOL

ALEMNESH SEID

AUGUST 2018

BAHIRDAR

THE EFFECTS OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTSWRITING PERFORMANCE AND SOCIAL SKILLS: AT WUREGESSA GENERAL SECONDARY SCHOOL GRADE 10

STUDENTS

ALEMNESH SEID

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR M. ED. IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE

ADVISOR

BIRHANU SIMEGN (PhD)

AUGUST

BAHIR DAR

This M.ED thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as a thesis advisor.

Name ______

Signature ______

Date ______

BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

THE EFFECTS OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTS WRITING PERFORMANCE AND SOCISL SKILLS

ALEMNESH SEID

Approved by the Board of Examination

1. ______

Advisor Signature Date

2. ______

Internal Examiner Signature Date

3. ______

External Examiner Signature Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and for most, my heartfelt thanks go to Almighty Allah, who gave me energy and courage to go through this long and complex academic journey.

I would like to underline my deepest appreciation and sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Birhanu Simegn for his support; he devoted his time and effort for giving me continuous guidance, constructive comments and suggestions. He provided his help throughout the thesis work, something that I would like to describe on his advisory is that his patience and punctuality in all of the advisory, these were my assets in successfully completing my research work.

I am also deeply grateful to all my brothers, their encouragement and assisting me in moral and material support while I was working on my thesis. Moreover, my heartfelt thanks also go to my youngest brother Awol seid for his professional support throughout the paper.

And also I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my students and English language department teachers at Wurgessa General Secondary School in 2018 G.C. Last but not least, I would like to thanks to all my friends and others who directly and indirectly put their hands throughout my study.

Overall, Alhamdulillah, all these happened with the blessing of Allah!

Table of contents Contents Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... I

Table of content ...... II

LIST OF TABLES ...... V

LIST OF ABBREVIATION /ACRONYMS/ ...... VI

ABSTRACT ...... VII

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1. Background of the Study ...... 1 1.2. Statements of the Problem...... 4 1.3. Research Questions ...... 7 1.4. Objectives of the Study ...... 7 1.4.1. General Objective ...... 7 1.4.2. Specific Objectives ...... 8 1.5. Significance of the Study ...... 8 1.6. Scope of the Study...... 9 1.7. Limitation of the Study ...... 9 1.8. Organization of the Study ...... 9 1.9. Operational Definitions of Terms ...... 10

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 11

Introduction ...... 11

2.1. Collaborative Writing ...... 11 2.2. Definition of Collaborative Writing ...... 11 2.3. The Nature of Writing ...... 13 2.3.1. Nature of Collaboration of Student‟s Reflections ...... 14 2.4. Why is Collaborative Writing Used? ...... 14 2.5. Writing Approaches ...... 17 2.6. Cognitive, Affective and Social Aspects of Writing ...... 19

2.7. Why is Collaborative Writing Helpful for L2 Writing Performance? ...... 23 2.8. Theoretical Framework of Writing ...... 25 2.9. What is Social Skills? ...... 25 2.10. Research on Collaborative writing and social skills ...... 27 2.11. Summary of Review of Related Literature ...... 30

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 31

3.1. Research Design ...... 31 3.2. Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques of the Study ...... 31 3.2.1. Population of the Study ...... 31 3.2.2. Sample of the Study ...... 32 3.2.3. Sampling Techniques ...... 32 3.3. Data Collection Instruments ...... 32 3.3.1. Pre-test ...... 33 3.3.2. Post-test ...... 33 3.3.3. Questionnaire ...... 33 3.3.3.1 Pre –questionnaire ...... 34 3.3.3.2. Post-questionnaire ...... 34 3.4. Validity and Reliability of Instruments ...... 34 3.5. Data Collection Procedures ...... 35 3.6. Teaching Treatment Materials and Procedures ...... 35 3.6.1. Treatment materials ...... 35 3.6.2. Treatment Procedures ...... 36 3.7. Methods of Data Analysis ...... 37 3.8. The Research Setting ...... 37 3.9. Inter Ratter Reliability of the Study ...... 37 3.10. Guidelines for Marking the Pre- and Post test ...... 38

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS ...... 39

4.1. Writing Performance and Social Skills Results ...... 40 4.1.1. Pre Intervention Results ...... 40 4.1.2. Post Intervention Results ...... 42

III

4.2. Discussion of Findings ...... 44

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 47

INTRODUCTION ...... 47 5.1. SUMMARY ...... 47 5.2. Conclusions ...... 48 5.3. Recommendations ...... 49

References ...... 51

APPENDICES ...... 58

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Pre Intervention of Writing Performance Result ...... 40 Table 4.2: Pre Intervention of Social Skills Development Results ...... 40 Table 4.3: Post Intervention Writing Performance Results ...... 42 Table 4.4: Post- Intervention Social Skills Development Results ...... 43

LIST OF ABBREVIATION /ACRONYMS/

CW Collaborative Writing EAP English for Academic Purpose EFL English as a Foreign Language EGP English for General Purpose EL English Language ESL English as a Second Language L1 First Language L2 Second Language SLA Second Language Acquisition SPSS Statistic package for Social Science TEFL Teaching of English as a Foreign Language WA Writing Assignment WP Writing Performance

ABSTRACT The main purpose of this study was to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students’ writing performance and social skills in English language class at Wurgessa General Secondary School. This research design was a quasi-experiment, used to allow the researcher to gather information and interpret data for the purpose of clarification. To check the validity and reliability of the instruments, pilot study was carried out on a group of people similar to the target participant. Pre-test and post-test were given for both control and experimental group samples to measure their writing performance. In addition, pre and post questionnaire were also given for those control and experimental group samples to measure their social skills, and both test and questionnaire were analyzed quantatively. The researcher used the target population of 300 students of Wurgessa General Secondary School, two sections with a sample size of 74 students determined by simple random sampling. To this effect, an intervention program was conducted for two months to enhance the students writing performance and social skills of the experimental group.Teaching material which mainly consisted of collaborative writing activities was prepared and used for experimental group students. Grade ten English student’s text book and research on EFL collaborative writing tests were the main sources for the preparation of the teaching material. The results of the pre-test showed that there was no significant difference in students writing performance between the control and experimental groups. However, the results of the post tests showed after intervention, experimental group students scored better than control group students. In addition, the data obtained from the students’ questionnaire also indicated that after intervention, students in the experimental group had a positive social skills improvement towards collaborative writing instruction. On the basis of the finding of the study, it was concluded that collaborative writing instruction improved students writing performance and social skills. Based on the finding of this study, conclusions and recommendations were made.

VII

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION This study investigated the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills. This part of the study presents the back ground of the study, statement of the problem objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study, scope of the study, limitation of the study, organization of the study and operational definition of terms.

1.1. Background of the Study Writing is considered as a challenge which many foreign/second language learners face. It is an important component not only in education, but also in life especially for those people who do not know how to express their feelings verbally. So, they use words and letters to translate their feelings, ideas and thoughts. When anyone learns how to write very well, this helps us to produce an excellent plot and a logical argument. In addition, writing gives the reader a positive impression about the writer as a professional person and a good thinker because this writer enables the reader to live with him/her that experience he/she has written about just through words (Ibrahim, 2013). According to Hussin et al., 2015, writing is considered an important language skill and an essential productive activity specifically for second and foreign English (ESL/EFL) language learners. In order to be competent writers, ESL/EFL learners not only need intellectual strategies, but also certain linguistic and vocabulary knowledge as well as appropriate writing conventions that would help them express themselves effectively (Erkan& Sabah, 2011). It is also a common knowledge that ESL/EFL writing has always been viewed as a complex process. Hence, novice and unskilled writers especially in the early stages of learning require motivational, social, cognitive and cultural input before producing the final written product (Dujsik, 2008; Jun, 2008; Erkan& Sabah, 2011; Raoofi et al, 2014). According to Haring-Smith (1994, p. 360) defines collaborative writing as involving more than one person who contributes to the creation of a text so that “sharing responsibility” becomes essential. Collaborative writing takes on a variety of forms in an active process. In the most elementary application of collaboration in the writing process,

students would be required to jointly discuss a topic, plan out an outline, and contribute elements of text (paragraphs, sentences, phrases, or words) to a collaborative piece, while at the same time questioning their choices from multiple perspectives. Collaborative writing involves developing instructional arrangements whereby students work together to plan, draft, revise, and edit their compositions. This implies that students writing quality improve when students are allowed to work together and help each other: they also note that collaborative shows a strong impact on improving the quality of students writing. Due to the complexity of writing and its various requirements, both novice and advanced EFL/ESL learners usually have negative perceptions towards writing. Consequently, WA will lead to poor writing performance. Shedding some lights on this issue, Hussin et al. (2015:168) have stated that “the phenomenon of the writing anxiety hides the awareness of the fact that it negatively affects the WP”.

Undergraduate students at Bangkok University, in the nine faculties: Humanities, Business Administration, Accounting, Communication Arts, Fine and Applied Arts, Sciences and Technology, Laws, Economics, and Engineering, are required to take at least three English courses. Each course consists of four skills: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. It is found that most students always get low scores in the writing assignments and tests. As mentioned earlier, among various teaching methods, collaboration among students is an interesting alternative in terms of creating helpful and active learning environments. Their Language Institute decided to implement collaborative learning in many language courses to improve students‟ writing performance. In a collaborative writing environment, students help one another to compose a writing task. They can learn from each other through the editing process until they get the final product. In terms of learning motivation, students who work in collaborative groups appeared to be satisfied with their classes, and their learning motivation improved respectively (Kowal& Swain, 1994). Nevertheless, there is a limitation of collaboration in classrooms. Students may not have much time to read and build on each other‟s work.

There is always much about collaborative writing instruction in research, yet collaborative writing is paid attention with little thorough considerations. Manchon (2011, 46), argues that the „„rationale for the language learning potential of writing derives from various influential theoretical strands of SLA research‟‟. These are Skill Learning Theory (DeKeyser, 2007) and (Swain, 2001). In relation to collaborative writing, what becomes important is a theoretical construct which reflects the increasing realization of the relevance of the social context of language learning. Consideration of social context is frequently underpinned by the adoption of a culture of society theoretical approach which provides a means to understand and explain the learning process. It is within this construct that collaborative writing has been used to explore how social interaction contributes to learning, feedback, and our understanding of, and insights into, both of these. The process of collaboration to assist each other in learning L2 is called scaffolding. Based on the researches conducted by (Alegrıa de la Colina& Garcıa Mayo, 2007; Kim & McDonough, 2008; Nassaji& Tian,2010; Storch,2001; Swain, 2001), the process of scaffolding can also occur in a L2 context among peers when they are working on a task in pair. They put their attention on the influence of task design on focus on form, collaborative dialogue, and feedback. One requirement of collaborative tasks is, as Dobao (2012) mentioned, they require “learners to work in pairs or groups to produce one jointly written text”. Exercising this fact, learners will be pushed to collaborate on their language that they have already used.

Another thing research has shown us is that even the best interventions may fall short in achieving desired outcomes without a well-defined, systemic framework, or program, to support it. Such programs embed evidence-based interventions into a larger context that considers collaborative writing based instruction. Therefore, collaborative writing instruction needs students‟ organization to discuss in pairs or groups to improve their writing performance and social skills.

1.2. Statements of the Problem When students write collaboratively, they learn to express their ideas in different ways others can understand. In class, students‟ interaction should not take interest in the class attentively; write down their ideas in discussions and receiving information from their group mates.

The ability to write effectively and accurately in English is becoming increasingly important in today‟s modern world, since communication through language has become more and more essential. Writing is known as an important skill for different reasons in education. In fact, it plays a significant role in personal and professional life. Consequently, it has become one of the major requirements in English for General Purposes (EGP) as well as English for Academic Purposes (EAP) syllabi. Evidently, the pedagogical purposes of writing range from improving, training, and practicing language in the early stages of learning for communicating fluently and accurately at intermediate and more advanced levels (Raimes, 1987). Indubitably, writing is a complicated process through which ideas are created and expressed. Learning to write in a foreign language is even harder and it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to write skillfully. To become a skillful writer, the role of English writing instruction in foreign language education is quite prominent (Weigle, 2002). Admittedly, composing an accurate and fluent paragraph is by no means an easy task. Since learning to write is an inseparable part of language learning without which effective acquisition cannot be obtained. Writing has been drawing more and more attention in language teaching and learning. In fact, writing is mostly a hard-laden task and skill for both native and non-native speakers, Iranian EFL learners being no exception. Over the last decade, research on writing has received a lot of ink in the review of the literature and it has been regarded as one of the most important communicative skills in English language teaching (Hayes & Flower, 1986). Over time, the interest in a more communicative approach to language teaching has resulted in the growth of pair work in second language contexts (Hawkey, 2004). This provides language learners with opportunities to interact in collaborative situations, in which two or more learners do activities together. For a situation to be collaborative, the pairs should be more or less at the same level.

Although writing is generally considered an individual activity through which ideas are transmitted from an address or to an addressee, collaboration in writing has been drawing an increasing attention in language teaching and assessment (Storch, 2005; Swain &Lapkin, 1998). Collaborative writing, which is maximizing learners‟ engagement and involvement in language learning practices, has turned into a-laden, purposeful, and communicative objective. This collaboration provides the students with opportunities to interact and challenge their language knowledge in a more effective learning environment (J. Willis, 1996). In spite of its importance, the researcher experience has shown that collaborative writing is often a difficult process for many students in Wuregessa General Secondary School. All most all, except some students had serious problems in collaborative writing and social skills. Many students cannot construct meaningful sentences, paragraphs and essays. These problems were reflected on their results, their scores were very low in all language skills especially writing. In addition to this, collaboration makes the writing task more difficult compared to individual writing. To reduce such complexity, the present study see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills in which students collaborate and interact to create a composition. Though collaborative writing has much importance as mentioned above, and English is used as a medium of instruction in higher institutions in Ethiopia, students‟ writing performance are very low. This is because learners do not practice writing in collaboration. Regarding this problem several works seem to be carried out at university levels in Ethiopia. Geremew Lemu (1999) conducted a research on the requirements in writing for academic purpose at Addis Ababa University and found out there were various aspects of academic writing in which students had deficiencies such as lack of cohesion and coherence in writing, problems of senses and shortage of basic vocabularies. Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) conducted their study just by comparing between two sessions of instruction; one in pre-test time and the other in post-test time, and just by comparing students‟ writing performance in these two sessions, so the possibility of intervening factors were ignored in their study. This shows that research works are limited on the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing

performance and social skills in English language class. This is one of the gaps that the researcher wants to see. The other point that the researcher eager to study the problem on this topic is for the reason that no local similar study has so far been done on this level in the researcher knowledge. Although the role of writing in language learning was not less than the role of the other three language skills, it has long been ignored. Compared with the other three language skills, writing seems to be too difficult and time-consuming to teach, so little attention has been given to teach and practice writing in the class (Zeng, 2005). Students need enough knowledge to create and generate ideas in order to write a composition. In Ethiopian educational system even private language institutes, students receive little practice in writing in English. Due to students‟ limited proficiency, time limitation, and poor motivation, writing especially, collaborative writing still remains a big problem. Considering learners are always hesitant to make grammatical mistakes. Al-Jarf (2007) found that peer support and feedback could help the learners to reduce such stress and improve their language knowledge as well. Besides, the students label, writing as the most difficult to acquire as it has been found by a pilot research conducted by the researcher before the main study. From this, the researcher has started to concern about the students‟ low level and has begun look for solution to this problem. Hence, this necessitates the researcher to look for another approach to collaborative writing that enables students improve their writing performance and social skills in English language. Collaborative writing instruction is, thus chosen and hypothesized to help students to improve their writing performance and social skills. From the researcher teaching experience and knowledge, she has observed that the school students have experienced difficulties of grammar usage, vocabulary words, organization, spelling and punctuation, and even common errors linguistics in writing paragraph. In addition to this, students were passive when they discussed in groups concerning writing. Even if the researcher tried to use student centered teaching method and gave chances for the students to say something, they were not willing to practice in the group. When the researcher supervised other English language teachers‟ classes to share experience, those classes were also passive to participate and write collaboratively.

Looking through the researcher teaching experience, this study was designed to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills. From the different studies mentioned above, the researcher understood two important points. First, most of the studies conducted on the effects of collaborative writing on students‟ writing performance at universities and colleges level. This shows that there were little evidence on students‟ collaborative writing instruction on their writing performance and social skills in secondary schools. Secondly, the results of most of the studies indicated that the effects of students writing performance in most classes were unsatisfactory. Therefore, this study aimed to carry out and establish baseline information on collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills at Wurgessa General Secondary School Grade 10 EFL Class.

1.3. Research Questions In line with the statements of the research problems, the following research questions were addressed in this research.  What are the effects of collaborative writing instruction on EFL students‟ writing performance with regard to different writing components: content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics?  To what extent does collaborative writing instruction help EFL students to improve their social skill?

1.4. Objectives of the Study

1.4.1. General Objective The general objective of the study was to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills in English language class at Wurgessa General Secondary School and to come up with possible solutions for better implementation.

1.4.2. Specific Objectives This study had the following specific objectives:  to examine the effects of collaborative writing instruction on EFL students‟ writing performance with regard to different writing components: content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics  to investigate the extent of collaborative writing instruction help EFL students to improve their social skill

1.5. Significance of the Study Doing a research has its own significance in which it contributes for the improvement of resolving problems of the students writing performance and social skills. The findings of this study addresses the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills in English language class grade 10 students at Wurgessa General Secondary School. Therefore, in one or another way, the present study has the following significances.

 It helps the researcher and the readers to be aware the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills in English language class.  It helps the reader and researcher to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills, and how it is currently going to be addressed. Thus, the findings of the research become importance and useful for those who wish to increase collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills.  It gives as simple, immediate, and effective implementation measures for teachers and policy makers in general as guidance in the study area to enhance students writing performance and social skills.  Finally, it becomes a base line for other researchers who want to study in this area.

1.6. Scope of the Study The researcher believed to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills in English language on various schools in North Wollo, Amhara Region and Federal level. However, to conduct a study including a whole would be difficult because of limited time and resources. Hence, the boundary of the study was confined at Wurgessa General Secondary School which is found in Habru Woreda of Amhara Regional State, North Wollo Administrative Zone.

1.7. Limitation of the Study The major weakness of the study was overlapping of programs and some experimental group students were absent in opposite shift due to various reasons. To overcome the problems, the researcher discussed together and tried to convince the subject again and again and rearrange the programs. The researcher brought the subjects together and in opposite shift allowed them to discuss freely about their problems. And this helped the researcher to make them active participant to improve their difficulties. In addition, while conducting the study, a number of difficulties were encountered like lack of relevant local review of literature. But the researcher used world- wide literatures to minimize the limitation.

1.8. Organization of the Study

This study is organized in five chapters. The first chapter contains introduction, background of the study, statements of the problem, research questions, objectives of the study, and significance of the study, Scope of the study and limitation of the Study. The second chapter discuss review of related literature; the third chapter presents research methodologies. The fourth chapter contains data analysis and discussion of findings. Finally, the last chapter presents summary, conclusion and recommendations of the study.

1.9. Operational Definitions of Terms

Effect: This indicates that the result of something when it is applied on it with in a specific period of time.

Collaborative: Being in groups to perform a defined set of programme (Cooperative)

Rapport: Relationships between students to discuss and write collaboratively

Scaffolding: Frame work of a programme from the beginning to the destination

Social Skills: Verbal and nonverbal interaction between students‟ in the class during writing collaboratively

Extra class: Periods that is arranged in addition to the normal class Performance: A thing done or carried through an achievement (accomplishment)

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature pertinent to this study. It contains review of literature on collaborative writing and on students‟ writing performance and social skills; researches on collaborative writing and social skills and summary of literature are included.

2.1. Collaborative Writing Pedagogically, the teaching of writing skills collaboratively in English has gone through advanced changes in the last thirty years. As a result of this change, a movement in writing instruction has appeared which emphasizes on the process of writing that leads to the final product rather than focusing on the product of writing. This requires students have to go through a writing process which involves cyclical writing stages so as to arrive at the final product. These writing stages are pre-writing, drafting, and rewriting through the revision and editing stages. Clearly, by involving students in a collaborative, revision group work in each stage of the writing process, along with sharing feedback from the teacher and peers, the students could express their ideas and meaning closer to the targeted intention (Kim, 2010).

2.2. Definition of Collaborative Writing Collaborative writing can be defined as a process of social negotiating among several writers for the purpose of constructing meaning, knowledge and content of the text to be written (Ansarimoghaddam& Bee, 2013). As such, the writers collaboratively contribute to all aspects of the written text: content, structure, organization, and language (Storch, 2005). The interest in collaborative writing was triggered by the work of the pioneer (Bruffee 1984). Bruffee believes that students working collaboratively in groups are able to produce better-written composition than those students who are writing individually. In developing writing performance collaboratively, students will benefit from the interaction during the various writing stages. For example, in brainstorming of ideas as a pre-writing activity, students will be motivated to write if it is done in a group.

Helen Dale (1994) cited in Yung Mei Fung (2006 P. 19) in her study of collaborative writing in a ninth grade classroom defines collaborative writing as “dialogic”, a word that stresses the context of the writing situation and the relationship of the students as they interact (P. 334). Her definition was operationalzed in the way she examined three different group of students to ascertain the amount and kinds of engagement, types of social interaction, and levels of conflict within the groups. She found that successful collaborative writing interactions depended on a high level of active engagement, productive cognitive conflict, and a positive social environment.

According to (Louth, 1989) interactive writing is collaborative writing in which group members interact during the various stages of the writing process, but where individual authors are ultimately responsible for their own work. This definition is somewhat similar to Ede and Lunsford‟s and Allen et al,‟s definition in that collaborators may plan together but do not necessarily write together throughout the writing process. In addition, collaborative writing endorses group ownership of the written text, increases students‟ awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses and encourages collective learning. Moreover, writing collaboratively helps students to have multiple perspectives on the topic of writing and simultaneously shares ideas and knowledge easily. Consequently, this will develop their self-confidence and decreases the anxiety level associated with the challenges of the writing task itself especially when completing the task alone (Ansarimoghaddam& Bee, 2013). Writing collaboratively can help develop students‟ writing ability since the process of peer writing and reviewing contributes towards improvement in organization and syntactical elements of the written text. The most important merit of collaborative writing is that it produces independent writers since they have acquired the important skills of self-editing and revision of their own written work (Rollinson, 2005). In short, it can be safely concluded that through collaborative writing, students can learn various language and writing skills more effectively than by working individually.

Additionally, it is worth mentioning that with the current technological advancements and the use of computer and Internet in the language classrooms, students have more opportunities to practice online collaborative writing activities and their collaboration is

not only restricted to the classroom setting. They can share information and construct and exchange knowledge and meaning with each other in all stages of the writing process. An example of these activities is that learners can gain knowledge and feedback from the teacher and peers using online interactive programmers irrespective of time or place. Online peer review allows room for flexibility for students and this can reduce their writing anxiety and emotional pressure when sharing feedback verbally which they normally experienced in a traditional face-to-face classroom. Online peer review is also more effective as opposed to face-to-face peer review whereby it allows careful monitoring of conversation and less pressure in providing responses and as such it can establish a sense of teamwork and partnership (Kim, 2010).

2.3. The Nature of Writing Writing is a natural activity. All mentally and physically normal people learn to speak a language. Yet all people have to be taught how to write. This is a big difference between the spoken and written forms of language.

Among the four language skills (i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing), writing can be considered as especially important because writing is one of the most important tools for communication especially in regards to business, professional, and academic communication. By writing, people communicate an array of messages to various readers. Similarly, in language education, writing is regarded as not only a thinking process but also a tool for language learners to express their thoughts and feelings (Chiu, 2006). In other words, by writing, learners can communicate a diversity of messages to various readers. In the modern world, such communication is extremely important whether the interaction takes the form of paper-and-pencil writing or online writing because it is through writing that people can communicate a variety of messages to a close or distant, known or unknown. Thus, viewing that writing is an act of communication, the ability to express ideas fluently, accurately and coherently in writing in native language (L1) or second or foreign language (L2) should be emphasized and cultivated (Olshtain, 2001).

Indeed, to prepare students for the ability to compose, during the last 50 years, some pedagogical approaches to the teaching of L1/L2 writing emerged, each representing a

different view of the nature of writing. In addition, the emergences of these approaches also reflect the major writing development in the L1/L2 contexts. Several of these teaching approaches will be briefly addressed below regarding its theory and pedagogy.

2.3.1. Nature of Collaboration of Student’s Reflections In a more recent study, Storch (2005) cited in Yung Mci Fung 2006:36) found that pairs who chose to work in pairs produced shorter but better texts. Most of the students rated the experience as a positive one. Storch conducted classroom based research 23 adult ESL students who were given a choice to work in pairs or individually. The compositions were measured on fluency, accuracy and complexity. Quantitative T- units and clause analysis showed that pairs composed shorter texts even though they spent more time on the task. They also produced more accurate and linguistically complex sentences compared to individual writers. Storch argued that the individual writers provided too much detail because they failed to synthesis information. Storch‟s study on the nature of collaboration and students‟ reflections is significant as it extended knowledge about the benefits of collaboration by comparing the process and product of pair and individual work. She also provided insight about students‟ feelings over the collaborative experience.

2.4. Why is Collaborative Writing Used? Many claims are made by researchers about using collaborative writing. However, the claims may not automatically arise over every collaborative experience or apply to all contexts for all learners. Some of the claims are qualities which can be developing during the collaborative process. These difficulties notwithstanding, reasons for using collaborative writing can be broadly categorized in to three dimensions: social, cognitive and practical.

The most saliently claimed benefit of collaborative writing is the social dynamic of group interaction. Students can learn more about writing by talking and listening to their peers. Multiple input from group members also produce a richer document and reduces error (Ede and Luns ford, 1990). Furthermore, social relations are developed through meaningful and purposeful joint work. Students learn from peers‟ writing strengths and weakness because collaborators contribute knowledge and share expertise and a variety

of strategies in the written process. They provide support for one another through difficult point in the writing process.

However, not all social interactions are positive. Students‟ interactions can result in conflict. Students develop an awareness of possibilities which they would not have thought of before. Differences of opinions also improve students‟ problem solving ability as they learn to reach consensus. The ability to accommodate conflicting opinions can develop group skills, such as team character, tolerance and cooperation. The experience of conflict in collaboration can also help students to develop leadership, self-reliance, and an ability to work with others. The social element of collaborative writing includes the resolution of differing viewpoints which can enhance affective outcomes.

As well as the social benefits of using collaborative writing, researchers also claim its cognitive benefits. As group members engage in cooperative effort, new knowledge emerges and their language development continues to grow. During collaboration, students‟ co- constructs new knowledge that goes beyond any knowledge possessed by an individual (Donato, 1994).

Furthermore, collaboration increases the awareness of audience. There is built- in feedback from peers as they compose and revise the text together. Peers become an immediate audience. There is built is being constructed. This preparation for dealing with the needs of audiences makes the learners more alert to analytical and critical thinking. Creative ideas and evaluation perspectives can be internalized and employed in subsequent independent writing (Daiute, 1986; Storch 2002). Therefore collaboration can develop the students‟ cognitive ability and explain their language growth.

Finally researchers make claims about the practical uses of collaborative writing. Collaborative writing provides a natural context for feedback, promoting a “more recursive, more sophisticated” writing process) than individual writing. Similarly, during pair work students can monitor and refine their production, and with their combined writing strengths students may perform beyond their individual ability. Another claim about collaborative writings‟ practicality is how it further writers‟ independence. Peers may be more effective than teachers at transferring knowledge about writing, because

they share similar language and perspectives (Daiute and Dalton, 1993). Students learn best through interactions and even relying on peers. This promotes learner autonomy where students take responsibility for their own learning process and do not rely on the teachers as the sole authority of knowledge (Morgan et al., 1987).

Perhaps most practical of all is that collaborative writing is that collaborative writing can prepare students for real world applications (Ede and Lunsford, 1990). The experience of writing together improves teamwork and various writing skills that are essential in most professions. Increasingly, workplaces are adopting more collaborative form of activities, including writing activities (Benton,1999). Therefore, writing collaboratively in classroom gives practical experiences for later work place writing.

In essence, collaborative writing is claimed as beneficial for learners‟ social and cognitive language development as well as for their practical preparation in future professional writing.

While using collaborative writing has valuable advantages, it uses also have their drawbacks, the most prominently discussed being disagreement over ideas or writing styles (Allen et al., 1987); Ede and Lunsford, 1990). Sometimes, individuals may be unwilling to give up their ideas or they may feel disappointed when their ideas are rejected. A second drawback is that some members may shirk responsibility or fail to share responsibilities among the members. This may result in loss of personal satisfaction and creativity in those who work hard because of those who do not such differing levels of motivation can cause frustration or breakdown within the group. A further problem with using collaborative techniques stems from power struggles which can be detrimental to group cohesiveness. Domineering members who assume an authoritative role can intimidate discourage other members from participating. Lastly, due to the nature of collaboration, additional time is needed to complete a task. Collaborators may end up to taking more time to write than anticipated.

Despite the drawbacks, most researchers promote the pedagogical benefits of using collaborative writing, especially co- construction of knowledge through social

interactions, development of learners‟ autonomy, and transfer of knowledge of future writing.

2.5. Writing Approaches First, from the early 20th century into the 1960s, the instruction of writing focused mostly on the features of written text. Early composition pedagogy, the product-based approach, is defined by its emphasis on the end result of the writing process, such as an essay, a paper, a letter, etc. In addition, the pedagogical focus of this approach is on form, the text itself. At the beginning, this approach emphasizes the view of writing as sentence level structure. Therefore, the production of well-formed sentences is stressed. A writing task that reflects this view and is mostly used at this time is the controlled composition. The teacher employs the controlled composition to teach writing will focus on formal accuracy and strive to avoid errors. Then, as the awareness that there is a need for writers to produce extended written texts appears, the awareness extends the focus on linguistic structures/grammatical sentences to the level of paragraph. The result of the realization led to the emergence of the paragraph pattern approach, which emphasizes the importance of organization at the above-sentence level that is the discourse level. Both the controlled composition and the paragraph pattern approach typify the paradigm of the product-based approach. The product approach reflects traditional teacher-centred approach to teach writing. In this traditional writing classroom, the teacher assigns a writing task, whether a controlled composition or the task on arranging sentences into paragraph, and evaluates the end results (Ferris &Hedgcock, 2005; Kitao& Saeki, 1992; Matsuda, 2003; Silva & Matsuda, 2002).

In the late 1970s and the 1980s, the interest had begun to shift from texture features to the process of writing itself, paved the way for the process approach. The process approach emphasizes the act of writing itself and the product, the written text, is the secondary concern. This approach also views writing as a recursive and generative process during which ideas are discovered and meaning are made. In other words, during the process of writing, writers need to plan, draft, read, revise and edit their texts. Hence, this approach emphasizes the revising process and audience awareness. Moreover, different from the product-based approach which focuses on form and the end result, the process-based

approach focuses on the person, that is the writer, as well as the process, that is the strategies used. In the process-based approach classroom, it is suggested that instructors need to provide and maintain an environment which is like a positive, encouraging and collaborative workshop. Therefore, in this environment, the skill for communicating with others purposefully and meaningfully is important and necessary for writers. Furthermore, the instructor also needs to provide sufficient time and minimal interference which would allow students to work through their composing process so as to assist students to develop strategies for getting started, drafting, revising and editing. Consequently, from the process perspective, writing is not only a recursive, complex and creative process, but also a social activity, aiming at interaction and communication with others (Ferris &Hedgcock, 2005; Kitao & Saeki, 1992; Matsuda, 2003; Silva & Matsuda, 2002).

Dissatisfaction with the process approach, due to the belief that writers need to compose texts for academic or professional readers with particular expertise, the emphasis in composition instruction are shifted from the writer-centred approaches to the reader- based approaches and content-based models, in particular English for academic purpose (EAP) and English for specific purpose (ESP) courses. In the writing classroom focusing on reader and content, instructors still can use the writer-driven and process-oriented procedures such as prewriting, revision, collaboration and peer review. Yet, the more different principle is the emphasis of discipline-specific rhetorical forms. Accordingly, based on this view, writing instruction will centre more on identifying, practicing, and reproducing the features of written texts aiming for particular audiences (Ferris &Hedgcock, 2005; Matsuda, 2003; Silva & Matsuda, 2002).

These pedagogical approaches are based on different views of the nature of writing, though they stress different aspects of writing, the relationship between them are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, they can be used in the same course. The instructor assigns some types of assignment emphasizing audience, fluency in writing, and planning and revising, as well as some other assignments focusing more on noticing the linguistic aspect of the language and controlling over the mechanics of the language (Ferris &Hedgcock, 2005; Kitao& Saeki, 1992; Matsuda, 2003; Silva & Matsuda, 2002).

These writing approaches emerging from different time not merely reflect the writing development in the first and second language contexts but also disclose that writing, however, must be taught. In other words, both L1 and L2 writers need to learn to write in order to master this language skill.

As stated above, writing is an extremely complex activity, and is, thus, considered the most difficult of the four basic language skills to master. In the following section, the complexity of the language skill will be accounted for again through the discussion of its cognitive, affective and social aspects. Then an instructional method to help writers, particularly L2 writers, to master writing skills will be proposed based on the discussion of the three aspects.

2.6. Cognitive, Affective and Social Aspects of Writing The cognitive aspect is related to thinking because we think as we write. For example, Gebhard (1996) suggests that writing is associated with the choice of word, use of grammar, syntax, mechanics and organization of ideas into a coherent and cohesive form. In addition, writing also includes an emphasis on audience and purpose. For instance, in order to present at a conference, graduate students need to think about how to write a conference proposal for the conference participants instead of professors. Apart from the focus of audience and purpose, writing itself is also a recursive process of creating meaning, including prewriting, drafting, revising and editing (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Gebhard, 1996; Zamel, 1976; 1982). Each stage of the process all needs thinking.

In addition to the cognitive aspect, according to McLeod (1987), writing is also an emotional activity because we feel as we write. She presented her experience of observing the behaviours of college freshmen when they were taking a writing test. The behaviours demonstrated by the students during writing evidently showed that writing is not merely cognitively but emotionally demanding. McLeod (1987) described her observation in this way.

In terms of writing in L2, it is considered to be a more challenging cognitive activity than writing in L1. L2 writers have to not merely consider global aspects of the L2 such as strategic, rhetorical, and cultural levels but also local aspects dealing with syntactic and lexical options using L2. Therefore, when composing, L2 writers planned less, as well as

were less fluent and accurate as compared with L1 writers. To think in this way, writing in L2 is more difficult than writing in L1. Apart from the difficulty in the cognitive aspect, Lee (2005) suggests that, similar to L1 writing, the difficulty of L2 writing also originates from the affective aspect such as writing anxiety. However, because L2 writers think and write in the second language with which they are less familiar, L2 writing seems to produce writing anxiety more easily than L1 writing. A further discussion on this affective aspect of writing, writing anxiety and its related L2 research will be briefly presented below.

The construct, writing anxiety or writing apprehension, named by Daly and Miller (1975a), is defined in a variety of ways. It is used generally to mean the negative and anxious feelings that disrupt part of the writing process (McLeod, 1987). It also relates to the tendency of people to approach or to avoid writing (Daly & Miller, 1975a). Thus, low apprehensive writers tend to enjoy writing frequently, and are more confident in their abilities to write. As for the people with high writing anxiety, they view writing as an unrewarding and even punishing event, and, therefore, they avoid the situations in which they need to write. Their writing anxiety is reflected in the behaviours they demonstrate as they write, in the attitudes they express about their writing, and, above all, in their written products (Daly & Miller, 1975a).

There are some researchers conducted to explore the role of L2 writing anxiety. For example, Lee (2005) examined the relationship of EFL writing performance to a variety of inhibiting factors. Among the inhibiting factors, writing anxiety was explored. A total of 270 university students from Taiwan participated in the study. They were asked to complete the Daly and Miller Writing Apprehension Test (WAT) within 30-40 minutes and were given another 40 minutes to write a short essay. Two ratters were involved in evaluating the essays. The grading was based on the level of writing proficiency, vocabulary, grammar and mechanics. In the study Lee (2005) hypothesized that writing anxiety had a negative impact on writing performance. However, based on the data analysis, the study indicated that participants‟ writing anxiety was not significantly related to their writing performance.

Cheng, Horwitz and Schaller‟s study (1999) also explored how writing anxiety relates to writing achievement. Four hundred and thirty-three university students completed the Chinese version of the WAT. Their final course grades for their English writing classes were used as achievement measurement. The results revealed that writing anxiety was negatively associated with writing achievement. Students with high levels of writing anxiety tended to have lower English writing course grades. In Cheng‟s study (2002), the relationship between writing anxiety and learner variables was investigated. Participants were 165 EFL college students. The data of the study were from the modified versions of the WAT and background information questionnaires completed by participants, as well as the participants‟ English writing course grades at the end of the semester. The results of the data analysis showed that English writing achievement was able to predict writing anxiety.

The above research focuses on the discussion of how L2 writing anxiety relates to people‟s writing performance (e.g., Cheng, 2002; Cheng, Horwitz &Schallert, 1999; Lee, 2005). Among these studies, with the exception of Lee (2005), most found that writing anxiety is negatively related to writing performance (Cheng et al, 1999) and writing performance is a significant predictor of writing anxiety (Cheng, 2002).

The above sections address the cognitive and affective aspects of writing. In one word, the cognitive and affective aspects of writing emphasize that writing is a cognitively and emotionally demanding activity because we think and feel as we write. In addition to the two aspects, writing is also concerned with the social aspect. The social aspect of writing is discussed below.

According to Bruffee (1984), writing itself is a displaced form of conversation. If thought is internalized social talk (i.e., internalized conversation), writing of all kinds is internalized social talk made social and public again. In other words, writing is internalized conversation re-externalized, as Bruffee discussed “We converse; we internalized conversation as thought; and then by writing, we re-immerse conversation in its external, social medium” (p. 641). The point that Bruffee attempts to make is that writing teachers must involve students in conversation among themselves in the writing process. The reason for collaborative writing is that it provides a social context where

students can experience and practice conversation. Through collaborative classroom group work, students could engage in more conversation. Since thought is internalized conversation, it is assumed that the more conversation could result in more thought; the more thought would facilitate students to compose. Based on this viewpoint, writing is not simply an individual act. It needs more complex activity, such as the interaction and conversation with others. Collaborative learning helps create an interactive environment where learners could interact with each other, and engage in more conversation which is internalized as thoughts facilitating learners to write. Therefore, collaborative learning can be viewed as a pedagogical tool that works in teaching composition (Bruffee, 1984).

To conclude, it is via writing that people can communicate a variety of messages to a reader or readers. Based on the viewpoint that writing is an act of communication, writing can be considered an essential language skill. Therefore, it should be emphasized and nurtured in language education. Indeed, during the last 50 years, different pedagogical approaches to teach writing have emerged, such as product-based approaches, process- based approaches, and content-based approaches, each of which reflecting different views of the nature of writing. The emergence of the many different approaches to teach writing not merely reflects the writing development but also implies that writing is complicated in nature as researchers also suggest that writing is regarded as the most difficult of the four language skills to master, and therefore, it must be taught.

In addition, the complexity of writing can also be realized as it is analyzed through cognitive, affective and social aspects. Researchers claim that writing is a cognitive and emotional activity. It also needs more complex activity, such as interaction with others. Accordingly, writing is not just an individual act. For L2 learners, writing may be more challenging and difficult because they need to think in L2 as they are writing. Hence, writing in L2 may arouse more anxiety during the writing process. Previous research indeed suggests that learners with higher writing anxiety tend to have lower writing performance. Because writing in L2 seems to be more cognitively and emotionally demanding than writing in L1, to help L2 learners compose and master the skill, it is important for language instructors to consider using more effective instructional methods to teach writing.

Previous research suggests that collaborative writing is considered as a useful pedagogical strategy for promoting students‟ writing outcomes (e.g., Bejarano, 1987; Johnson & Johnson, 2008; Slavin, 1980; Sung, 2009). Researchers (e.g., Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1991) also propose that collaborative learning helps produce less anxiety. Therefore, based on the viewpoint of the social aspect of writing and the findings of previous research, it is possible that integrating collaborative learning with writing (i.e., the collaborative writing in the dissertation study) can be an effective instructional method to help L2 learners to cultivate the writing ability and master the skill, especially for enhancing their writing performance and reducing their writing anxiety.

2.7. Why is Collaborative Writing Helpful for L2 Writing Performance? The literature has noted many benefits of collaborative writing from students‟ perspectives: collaborative writing divides workload and saves time; during collaboration, students can share ideas and make the information more accurate; students can be more responsible to their task, etc. (Barley &Coniam, 2008; Kessler, 2009; Storch, 2011; Storch, 2005; Shehadeh, 2011). These findings are very much related to Vygotsky‟s (1981) socio-cultural theory, which believes all cognitive development and higher order functions, e.g., language learning, is socially situated (Storch, 2012). The reasons why collaboration writing is helpful can be summarized below: A. Students Learn new Knowledge from Others on the Team The theoretical rationale of Vygotsky‟s socio-cultural theory explains the importance of verbal interaction for learning, i.e., collaboration provides students an opportunity to interact with each other to contribute writing outcomes. Interaction allows students to scaffold ideas and obtain assistance provided by stronger writers. Storch (2012) pointed out the key element in the interaction is the nature of the assistance from an expert. His idea was supported by Vygotsky‟s Zone Proximal Development (ZPD), which is the gap or difference between what learners can do with help and without. Instructors help create the zone for each learner by providing help or encouraging learning. During collaboration, peers can provide guidance to actually stretch each other‟s learning ability (Vygotsky, 1978). The assistance is not limited to weak writers as strong writers can

benefit from CW processes as well. For example, they can reinforce memory from teaching or helping students on the team. B. Students Build Rapport and Create Community Collaborative writing can be challenging when students have a passive relationship in the team and they work ineffectively. Storch (2012) suggested relationships learners formed and roles they adopted affect quantity and quality of writing outcomes. There are others findings that have addressed the benefits ESL students receive from the interactions during CW and the importance of sharing a harmonious atmosphere in CW. Swain (1994) observed students‟ learning opportunities can be impeded in an ineffective collaboration, where weaker students are intimidated and overwhelmed by students who have better language proficiency. CW allows students to know each other and build their social circle through learning. According Ferris and Hedgcock (2005), students can benefit from group writing in many ways. For example, even if the feedback is not effective, they can still learn from reading each other‟s papers and bonding with peers. All these potential benefits can enhance their learning. As Ferris and Hedgcock (2005) have addressed, students have the responsibility to provide adequate and accurate feedback to their peers, and to offer an effective response is a skill that develops during the process of peer collaboration. In other words, the expected effect of collaboration will be more accurate writing assignments, however, a lot of unexpected effects, such as building relationships and creating a classroom community where students can stimulate and grow thoughts together, will happen because of the nature of collaboration. Therefore, effective collaboration under the guidance of an instructor can encourage students to build classroom community through learning.

C. Students will Practice Language through Collaboration Research on how the implementation of CW in L2 writing helps with writing performance has been discussed and reported for decades (e.g., Dobao, 2012; Conner &Asenavage, 2000; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth &Storch, 2011). Specifically, Storch (2005) and Dobao (2012) found out that CW was more helpful and effective than individual writing on ESL students‟ writing performance in terms of grammatical accuracy, complexity, and fluency found that students tend to write drafts

with a greater variety of verbs after peer talk. CW was also shown by Shehadeh (2011) to have an overall significant effect on students‟ L2 writing. The effect was significant for content, organization, and vocabulary, but not for grammar or mechanics.

2.8. Theoretical Framework of Writing There are many ways to approach the concept of writing. Authors like Goodman and Hudelson (as cited in Ruiz, 2004) defined it “as an instrument of communication that mediates personal and social learning among human beings” (p. 130). Goodman (as cited in Clavijo, 2007) asserts that reading and writing have to do with the personal history of each individual, his or her culture and his or her social environment. That is why we need to devote quality time to develop this skill in our students, as not all of them share the same background. When students are not used to reading and writing, we cannot expect that they will produce texts and master their writing skills without the appropriate instruction. Lombana (2002) affirms that this skill is the most difficult to master in any language and especially when learning a new one because it requires aspects such as linguistic knowledge, cognitive and socio cultural aspects (discourse and sociolinguistic features) to convey meaning, even as writing influences each person‟s abilities which need the practice and reflection of a spoken language. Salmon (as cited in Galvis, 2004) shares the previous idea since he affirms that the development of the writing skill requires permanent practice and it is the cause of a social environment, cognitive development and psycholinguistic processes. Consequently, we can define writing far beyond a skill but rather a means that helps individuals‟ communication according to what influences their lives.

2.9. What is Social Skills?

Researchers have defined social skills in a number of ways. Often a distinction is made between social skills and social competence. Social skills typically refer to discrete, goal- directed behaviors. These are skills that we need when interacting with others. There a certain ways we all must behave if we want to have fun and to have others like being around us. For example, we must take turns, share, be patient, be respectful, listen, talk positive about others and be friendly. Interacting with people who do not use social skill is difficult. Imagine a person who will not share, gets upset easily and refuses to play by

the rules. Whereas social competence generally refers to the quality of an individual‟s social interactions as perceived by those around him or her (McFall, 1982). Taken together, it emerges that for students to attain social skillfulness; they must not only acquire important social behaviors for interacting with others, but must be able to use these skills in ways that are acceptable to others in their environment (Sheridan & Walker, 1999).

An important key to well-being is being involved in social activities. These activities are based on doing things with others. Social activities include spending time with friends, attending parties, being involved in team sports, being a member of a club, going to local parks, writing a letter to someone or even phoning a friend or family member. Socials kills are not the same thing as behavior. Rather, they are components of behavior that help an individual understand and adapt across a variety of social settings. Walker (1983) defines social skills as “a set of competencies that allow an individual to initiate and maintain positive social relationships contribute to peer acceptance and to a satisfactory school adjustment, and c) allow an individual to cope effectively with the larger social environment” (p. 27). Social skills can also be defined within the context of social and emotional learning recognizing and managing our emotions, developing caring and concern for others, establishing positive relationships, making responsible decisions, and handling challenging situations constructively and ethically (Zins, Weissbert, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). With this understanding, researchers and educators seek to evaluate and build students‟ social skills within a variety of social contexts. The classroom is one such environment students must learn to find the way. Successful learning requires students to interact closely with teachers and peers.

2.10. Research on Collaborative writing and social skills Writing research on collaborative writing has been conducted in the L1 context (e.g., Louth, McAllister, & McAllister, 1993; Sutherland & Topping, 1999) and the L2 context (e.g., Fung, 2010; Gousseva-Goodwin, 2000; Jafari& Ansari, 2012; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2001; 2005; Wigglesworth &Storch, 2009). The issues investigated in these studies include the influence of collaborative writing on students‟ writing ability/performance (e.g., Louth, et al, 1993; Gousseva-Goodwin, 2000; Jafari& Ansari, 2012; Shehadeh, 2011) and on students‟ attitude toward writing (e.g., Louth, et al, 1993; Sutherland & Topping, 1999), students‟ experience of writing collaboratively (e.g., Storch, 2005), the features of collaborative writing (Fung, 2010), as well as the comparison of the performance of different collaborative writing pairs.

Among the research examining the effect of collaborative writing on students‟ writing ability, some researchers compare the individual writing products completed by two groups of students after being involved in different treatment (e.g., Jafari& Ansari, 2012; Louth, et al, 1993; Shehadeh, 2011; Sutherland & Topping, 1999). In other words, one group writes collaboratively and creates one joint product; the other group writes individually. Both groups complete pre-test and post-test individual writing tasks. The post-test writing products completed by both groups were analyzed and compared to identify if collaborative writing had any influence on students‟ writing performance. However, in some studies, there were no pre-test and post-test. The researchers only compare the collaborative and individual writing products (e.g., Gousseva-Goodwin, 2000; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth &Storch, 2009). In terms of exploring the influence of collaborative writing on students‟ attitudes, most researchers have students complete surveys or questionnaires, or interview students after the completion of collaborative writing tasks (e.g., Louth, et al, 1993; Shehadeh, 2011; Sutherland & Topping, 1999).

In addition to the research exploring the influence of collaborative writing on students‟ writing performance and attitudes toward writing, some research (e.g., Fung, 2010) examined the features of collaborative writing. The collaborative writing features were identified through analysing the excerpts from collaborative writing groups or transcripts of pair talks. There is also some research (e.g., Storch, 2001) which compared the

performance of different pairs on a writing task. The performance in these studies meant not merely writing performance but the performance of pairs as they were involved in collaborative writing as well. In this type of research, not only were the collaborative products analysed but also the transcripts of pair talks and the observation notes. The qualitative research design is employed in Fung‟s (2010) and Storch‟s (2001) studies, which are different from the research investigating the influence of collaborative writing on students‟ writing and attitudes because the latter uses quantitative (e.g., Gousseva- Goodwin, 2000; Jafari& Ansari, 2012; Louth et al, 1993; Sutherland & Topping, 1999) or mixed-method research design (e.g., Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth &Storch, 2009). The following section presents a more detailed explication of this body of research in second context.

Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) investigated the effects of pair and individual writing on fluency, complexity and accuracy. A total of 144 ESL students participated in the study. Ninety-six of the students who had self-selected into pairs completed the writing task (i.e., 48 pairs). The other 48 students completed the same task individually. The pairs and the individuals were given 60 minutes and 40 minutes to complete the essay respectively. The essays were analysed for fluency (i.e., length of production), complexity and accuracy. The comparison of individual writing and pair writing showed that collaborative writing did not result in longer texts, and had no impact on grammatical complexity. However, there were significant differences in the performance of the individuals and pairs in terms of accuracy. Pairs produced more accurate texts than those writing individually. In terms of the process of writing, the analysis of pair dialogue suggested that collaboration offered the learners with the chances to interact at different phases of writing. It encouraged students to collaborate when generating ideas about the content of their essays. A more detailed analysis of students‟ interaction demonstrated that the pair work activities provided students with substantial opportunities to share ideas and to pool their language knowledge.

Another study by Jafari and Ansari (2012) examined the effect of collaboration on Iranian EFL learners‟ writing accuracy, and the effect of gender on text production. Participants were 60 university students and were divided into the control and

experimental groups. Students in the experimental group were asked to write in pairs while those in the control group wrote individually. Both groups participated in four essay writing sessions. The first and last sessions are pre-test and post-test respectively and all members in both groups wrote individually. As for the second and third sessions, students in the control group engaged in individual writing while those in the experimental group wrote in pairs. The results revealed that learners in the experimental group produced more accurate texts than those in the control group. The improved accuracy in collaborative writing groups may be due to the increased motivation to focus on grammatical accuracy and the engagement in revision process which led to more accurate texts. In addition, results also showed that female participants in both groups produced more accurate texts than male participants. The above L2 collaborative writing research suggests that collaboration and interaction with peers during the writing process help develop ESL writing skills (e.g., Fung, 2010). It also has a positive effect on writing performance in both ESL and EFL contests, including the performance of individual (e.g., Louth et al, 1993; Sutherland & Topping, 1999) and collaborative (e.g., Gousseva- Goodwin, 2000; Jafari& Ansari, 2012; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth &Storch, 2009) written products. For instance, students were found to be able to produce better texts in terms of holistic score (e.g., Louth, McAllister, & McAllister, 1993; Storch, 2005), grammatical accuracy (e.g., Jafari& Ansari, 2012; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth &Storch, 2009), complexity (e.g., Storch, 2005), as well as content, organization and vocabulary (Shehadeh, 2011). In addition, particularly in the EFL context, there seems to be the effect of gender on text production, with female being able to produce more accurate texts than male (Jafari& Ansari, 2012).

Research on effective social skills instruction can provide guidance when trying to help children build social skills (Quinn et al., 2000; Sainato&Carta, 1992; Honig&Wittmer, 1996; Zirpoli&Melloy, 1997). Researchers have also studied particular social skill interventions in a variety of settings, as well as for children of different age levels and abilities. Findings suggest that quality interventions and related instructional strategies might focus on social and emotional learning strategies that create opportunities to practice effective social skills both individually and in groups. Discuss effective interactions with specific attention to the steps involved. For example, discuss the

process of a conversation, showing how effective listening makes such interaction possible. Role-play scenarios that build social skills.

2.11. Summary of Review of Related Literature The importance of collaborative writing in the present study context is obvious from the numerous recent publications made in the field of collaborative writing instruction. Collaborative writing focuses on group and pair ways of writing. According to Taki& Fardafshari,( 2012 )Writing is not only a way of expressing ideas and feelings and exchanging information or a way of using words to express oneself, but also it is a social activity in which people interact with their partners). In this chapter, an effort has been made to discuss important issue in relation to collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills. The most important issue is what is collaborative writing and social skills? The nature of writing, cognitive, affective and social aspect of writing, instruction focused on writing, why is collaborative writing a helpful for L2writing performance , approaches of writing, definitions of social skills and research focused on collaborative writing and social skills have been discussed. Therefore, this study has tried to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter presents methods used in carrying out the study. In particular, it presents the research design, source of data, populations of the study, sample size determination, data collection instrument, data collection procedure, teaching treatment material and procedures, and the validity and reliability of instruments and methods of data analysis. It also deals with research setting.

3.1. Research Design The main purpose of this study was to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills in English Language class at Wurgessa General Secondary School in 2018 G.C. To achieve this objective, the researcher used quasi experimental design which included quantitative methods. The quantitative method helped the researcher to analyse the data which obtained through tests and questionnaires. According to Hatch and Farhayday (1982:23) “quasi experimental design is practical compromise between true experimentation and the nature of human language behaviour, which we wish to investigate. They are also the best alternatives available to us...” Therefore, quasi experimental was found to be appropriate for studying to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills.

3.2. Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques of the Study

3.2.1. Population of the Study A population can be defined as the total collection of elements about which we wish to make some inference (Cooper, 2006). The target populations of this study were 180 male and 120 female a total of 300 grade 10 students at Wurgessa General Secondary School in 2018 G. C. Grade 10 students were selected because the researcher was teaching currently in this grade level. Therefore, the researcher got the required information closely and she believed that these students were better than grade 9 students‟ particularly; they were able to distinguish the strategies used while writing. The researcher further hoped that grade 10 students were able to respond to all requirements such as tests and questionnaires accordingly.

3.2.2. Sample of the Study

As it is difficult to include the entire population due to time, cost and accessibility constraints, sample size was determined to represent the whole population. Therefore, the sample size is 74 grade 10 students from two sections at Wurgessa General Secondary School in 2018 G.C from the total population of 300. However, as the design of this research is quasi-experimental, these 74 students were divided in to two groups, experimental and control. So, to make the two groups equal in number, the researcher took 74 respondents that are 37 for each group.

3.2.3. Sampling Techniques

The sampling technique is the process of selecting a specific number of respondents from the total population for a study. Therefore, the sample size is 74 grade 10 students from the total population of 300 students, two sections were selected by random sampling technique because it gives equal chances for all sections. And also, since the design of this research is quasi-experimental, these 74 samples were divided in to two groups randomly to make equal in number, experimental and control that is 37 for each group.

3.3. Data Collection Instruments Pre-test and post-test were used as the main instruments for the data needed for the study to achieve its objectives and to obtain possible answers for the research questions. Pre and post-tests are valuable instruments for comparing performance of subjects prior to a certain treatment with performance of subsequent treatment (Mackey and Gass, 2005). Therefore, the data gathering instruments were pre and post-tests, and also pre-and post questionnaires for both control and experimental group participants. These instruments were selected based on the research design and methodology approach employed by the researcher. It is also important to mention that the correct usage of the selected research instruments ensure information acceptability and consistency. In other words, research instruments appropriateness ensures reliable research results and to help the study better, selecting appropriate and helpful instruments is also important. As a result of this, the researcher used different kinds of instruments, such as tests and questionnaires to collect appropriate data from the respondents.

3.3.1. Pre-test The pre-test is one of the data collection instrument, the researcher prepared questions to check using tests whether collaborative writing instruction improves the students writing performance or not (as it is shown Appendix “D”). The pre-test was prepared based on the students writing ability and experiences. The prepared pre-test was given for both controlled and experimental group. This test was given by limiting the number of words and focused on controlled writing about „Write a paragraph about one of the historical places found in Ethiopia”, and to give clues for the students, words like holiday, journey, recreation, visit, tourist, attractive, sculptures were given to help the students to write appropriate paragraph.

3.3.2. Post-test Training was given for two consequent months for the experimental group participants based on the action plan. The same test was given for both trained (experimental) and untrained (controlled) groups. The post-test was prepared by rearranging the pre-test question in order to avoid rote memorization. Then the prepared test was administered to compare experimental and controlled group students‟ results.

3.3.3. Questionnaire In this study, a questionnaire was used. According to Parrot (1993), questionnaire is an important tool which is often used to gather primary data about the general and common preferences of the learner, as well as to elicit the response of respondents. Therefore, the researcher used pre and post questionnaires to collect data to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ social skills in English language class at Wurgessa General Secondary School. Items having 10 close-ended questions were designed for respondents of the control and experimental groups. Close ended responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale of intensity rating which places an individual somewhere on an agreement continuum (kerlinger, 1977) concerning a particular item. Thus, the five-point Likert was preferred because of the degree it entails for determining the intensity of expression of the subjects. Furthermore, the main advantage of a five- point scale is that a greater variance can result. The scores of the items in each category was summed up and expressed in mean and standard deviation.

3.3.3.1 Pre –questionnaire The researcher prepared pre-questionnaire to check whether collaborative writing instruction improve students‟ social skills or not (as shown Appendix “E”). Ten close ended pre-questions were prepared based on the students‟ understanding and prior knowledge of the students‟ social skills. The prepared questionnaire was checked the reliability and validity of the questions by distributing the questionnaire for pilot study participants in Mersa General Secondary School. It was found that some of the items, such as, item 5 and item 9 needed improvement. Then, unclear instructions and ambiguous items were improved depend on the comment. Next, the final draft of the questionnaire administered to 74 of grade 10 control and experimental group students. After organizing the control and experimental group students, the researcher distributed the questionnaire and read through the cover page of the questionnaire. Finally the questionnaire was completed and returned back, and scores of the items in each category was summed up and expressed in mean and standard deviation.

3.3.3.2. Post-questionnaire

After training was given for two consequent months for the experimental group, the questionnaire which was used for pre-questionnaire also distributed for both control and experimental group participants. The items were ten. This post questionnaire was very important to check whether collaborative writing instruction improve the students social skills or not, and to compare the results of control and experimental group students‟ social skills improvements after two months of experimental group intervention program.

3.4. Validity and Reliability of Instruments Before distributing the questionnaire to the respondents, a pilot study was conducted in order to keep the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. In this regard, Wire (1990:39) states” the pilot study should undergo a further validation check at this stage by inviting professionals in the field (language and subject) to comment on the suitability of texts, formats and items.”

To see the validity of the questionnaire, the researcher employed expertise comments. Thus, the questionnaire was given to her advisor who works at Bahir Dar University for his professional judgments. And then the advisor suggested the researcher on some item to modify. Accordingly, the researcher has accepted her advisor‟s suggestions and comments‟ she made some modifications on items. Following the pilot study, improvements were made on some questionnaires. Accordingly, unclear instructions and ambiguous items were improved. It was found that some of the items needed improvement. For example items 5 and 9 needed improvement. Based on the result of pilot study, the researcher has decided to make some sort of modification on the commented items (especially on item 5 and 9). The pilot study was not included in the sample during the administration of the final form of the questionnaire.This pilot study was tried out on a group of people similar to the target group and done at Mersa General Secondary School on twenty students as a participant. After the questionnaire was completed and returned back, Alpha Coefficient reliability was calculated by using SPSS.

The reliability of the instruments was tested by cronbach alpha method. The computed cronbach alpha of the pilot study was 0.87.

3.5. Data Collection Procedures In order to collect the necessary information, the following procedures were used. First of all, tests were made for the control and experimental groups to see students‟ writing performance. Secondly, a questionnaire was distributed for both control and experimental group students to measure students‟ social skills during collaborative writing. Furthermore, it helped the researcher to get the necessary information within a short period of time in the absence of the researcher. Before and after training was given for two consequent months for the experimental group, close ended questionnaire was distributed for both untrained (control) and trained (experimental) group participants.

3.6. Teaching Treatment Materials and Procedures

3.6.1. Treatment materials For the experimental group, collaborative writing based material was prepared. The purpose of this material was to help the students‟ to practice their writing performance

and social skills through collaborative writing instruction. Thus, the researcher selected different writing activities from grade ten English students‟ text books, and other different research tests such as: Zinkgraf, Wormuth,Hartfile and Hughey (see Appendix “C”) in order to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills after intervention program. The major aim of preparing treatment material on collaborative writing instruction was to encourage students to practice the selected activities collaboratively in the context of collaborative writing. It was also aimed at improving students‟ writing performance and social skills.

3.6.2. Treatment Procedures

In this quasi experimental research, the researcher selected Wurgessa General Secondary School grade 10 students as participant of the study. These students were categorized in to five sections but the researcher selected 74 students for this study. In order to avoid the selection bias, the researcher employed lots to assign these 74 students of two section as experimental and control group. As a result section “A” put as a control group and section “B” put as an experimental group. To achieve this, the researcher prepared collaborative writing instruction program for experimental group was practiced eight lessons using collaborative writing based instruction activities. To see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills, written activities were prepared by the researcher. The activities were shown to the researcher colleagues and senior English Language teachers for comments before it was put to use. Finally, the activities were given to the experimental group participants for two hours per a week for two months of collaborative writing instruction program.

3.7. Methods of Data Analysis

In this section, the methods and techniques used for analysing and interpreting data are explained in this area. Explaining and discussing these techniques are essential because it enables correct integration of empirical data with reviewed literature to arrive at research findings and to make appropriate recommendations. In analysing the respondents‟ questionnaire and test, quantitative method was used. The results of respondents‟ test scores were computed by using mean, and standard deviation. Then, the organized data was entered into computer to be analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS=20) software analysis.

3.8. The Research Setting The teaching environment that the researcher was engaged in located in North Wollo, particularly Wurgessa General Secondary School which is found near South Wollo about five kilo meter far away from Wuchalie towards North. The researcher classes consisted from 50-55 students that the researcher taught them four periods in a week where each period lasted 42 minutes. In wurgessa, there are two General Primary and one General Secondary Schools. The researcher decided to conduct the study at a high school level in which she could closely observed the problem. As such, it is common to see many students who could not write activities, paragraphs and assignments, and participate in groups collaboratively. This could be a means to improve students writing performance and social skills.

3.9. Inter Ratter Reliability of the Study

According to Gray (2004) inter judge reliability compare the consistency of observation when more than one person is judging. To assure consistency of scoring, inter- ratter reliability of the designed collaborative writing test was measured by calculating the scores provided by two ratters who scored the test. The inter rate reliability compared by the Pearson correlation of the two ratters showed that the average correlation of pre test score of the pre-post control group was 0.737and 0.739 respectively. In addition to this, pre-post scores of the experimental group was 0.643 and 0.644 (See Appendix “I”).This indicates that the inter ratters were positively correlated.

3.10. Guidelines for Marking the Pre- and Post test

According to Heaton (1990) suggests that in order to make students‟ composition, we have to identify the importance features such as content, organization, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics that we want to focus on. What is more, if we want to emphasize a certain features in correcting compositions, we can double that marks and we can also reduce the weight age of any section like spelling and punctuation. Similarly, in this study since the primary emphasis on collaborative writing instruction, the mark for content (meaning) part was doubled. The marks allotted to some of the components of writing such as vocabulary, and mechanics were reduced. (See Appendix “F”)

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

Introduction

The analysis and discussion of the data collected from participants via tests and questionnaires were presented in this chapter. The study was mainly focused on the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills in English language class at Wurgessa General Secondary School grade 10 students in 2018 G.C. The distributed questionnaires to the control and experimental group participants were returned 100%. This is considered to be valid since the unreturned questionnaire was 0%. It is to mean that all distributed questionnaires were properly filled and returned by respondents. In addition to this, pre-test and post-test were given for both experimental and control groups. When it started this work, the researcher has the starting topic which is collaborative writing instruction. By using collaborative writing instruction method, the researcher saw whether this teaching method improved the students writing performance and social skills or not. The researcher gave pre-test and a post-test, and pre and post questionnaires for both control and experimental groups. So, the results were analyzed in mean and standard deviation.

4.1. Writing Performance and Social Skills Results

4.1.1. Pre Intervention Results

Table 4.1: Pre – Intervention of Writing Performance Result NO Mea SD Df t Sig.(2 n tailed) Control. 37 20.2 3.951 Group 36 36 -.562 .578 Experime 37 20.6 3.522 ntal group 01

As can be seen from table 4.1, the mean difference between the control and experimental groups is not statistically significant at 0.05 levels. This is because the calculated p- value (0.578) associated with the calculated t-value (0,562) is greater than 0.05. this means, both control and experimental group students‟ were similar in their writing performance in the pre- test result because of the difference between the score of the two groups found to be statistically no significant difference over its pre test, t (72), -.562 (p>.578) at .05 alpha level. From this two things can be inferred. One is that the subjects in control and experimental groups have more or less a similar standing, as the mean values of the two groups is nearly the same. The other is subjects in both control and experimental groups have little prior knowledge of the items in the test, as the mean values of the two groups are very low.

Table 4.2: Pre Intervention of Social Skills Development Results No Items Groups Mean Standard t- Sig.(2- value tailed) deviation 1 Social skill Control group 2.73 1.367 1.000 3.24 improvement Experimental 2.70 1.351 group 2 Getting new Control group 2.65 1.358 - .160 information Experimental 2.70 1.412 1.434

group 3 Opportunities Control group 2.73 1.262 1.434 .160 for practice Experimental 2.68 1.313 group 4 Improving Control group 2.84 1.385 1.434 .160 relation ship Experimental 2.78 1.357 group 5 Getting peer Control group 2.78 1.336 feedback - .044 Experimental 2.89 1.350 2.089 group 6 Increasing Control group 3.22 1.336 1.782 .083 participation Experimental 3.14 1.337 group 7 Practicing Control group 3.16 1.323 .571 .572 activities Experimental 3.14 1.337 group 8 Increasing Control group 2.92 1.460 .324 - confidence Experimental 2.95 1.452 1.000 group 9 Sharing ideas Control group 2.78 1.417 - .324 1.000 Experimental 2.81 1.431 group 10 Developing a Control group 2.89 1.316 1.000 .324 sense of Experimental 2.86 1.316 Awareness group

As can be seen from table 4.2, the question “your involvement in collaborative writing will increase your social skills”, the mean and standard deviation of both the control and experimental groups were 2.73 and 2.70, 1.36 and 1.35, respectively. The question “collaborative writing instruction will increase your participation”, the mean and standard

deviation of both control and experimental group were 3.14 and 3.14, 1.37 and 1.33, respectively. The question “collaborative writing will help you to improve your relationship”, the mean and standard deviation of both control and experimental groups were 2.84 and 2.78, 1.38 and 1.35, respectively. As it is observed from this result, both experimental and control groups gave almost similar responses in the pre questionnaire. From this result the researcher understood that, the social skills of both control and experimental groups have more or less a similar performance, as the mean value of the two groups is nearly the same. The other is the understanding of both control and experimental groups have little prior knowledge of the items in the social skills, as the mean values of the two groups are very low.

4.1.2. Post Intervention Results

Table 4.3: Post Intervention Writing Performance Results

N O Mean SD df T Sig.(2- tailed) Control. 37 20.27 3.047 Group Experime 37 27.49 2.791 36 -12.474 .000 ntal group

As can be seen from Table 4.3, the p-value is (.000), which is less than 0.05 the level of significance. In addition, from the table the mean of the experimental group is 27.49, and the mean of the controlled group is 20.27. It shows there was the mean difference between the control and experimental groups post test scores. The table shows that t (72), -12.474, p<0.000. This implies, there is a statistically significant difference between the writing performances of the control and experimental groups. From this, the researcher concluded that after collaborative writing instruction program was given, the scores of experimental group students have improved their writing performance than the scores of control group students.

Table 4.4: Post- Intervention Social Skills Development Results No Items Groups Mean Standard t- Sig.(2- value tailed) deviatio n 1 Social skill Control group 2.84 1.344 -7.716 .000 improvement Experimental 3.59 1.363 group 2 Getting new Control group 2.70 1.309 -8.250 .000 information Experimental 3.59 1.322 group 3 Opportunities Control group 2.70 1.222 -6.921 .000 for practice Experimental 3.41 1.404 group 4 Improving Control group 2.86 1.417 -8.660 .000 relation ship Experimental 3.68 1.292 group 5 Getting peer Control group 2.84 1.302 feedback -9.947 .000 Experimental 3.62 1.233 group 6 Increasing Control group 3.24 1.278 -4.954 .000 participation Experimental 3.65 1.358 group 7 Practicing Control group 3.14 1.357 -4.954 .000 activities in Experimental 3.54 1.445 groups group 8 Increasing Control group 2.95 1.433 -5.917 .000 confidence Experimental 3.57 1.345 group 9 Sharing ideas Control group 2.84 1.385 -8.193 .000 with others Experimental 3.76 1.362

group 10 Developing a Control group 2.89 1.308 -8.734 .000 sense of Experimental 3.62 1.361 Awareness group

As can be seen from table 4.4, the question “your involvement in collaborative writing instruction will increase your social skills?” the mean and standard deviation of both the control and experimental groups were 2.84 and 3.59, 1.34 and 1.36, respectively. The question “collaborative writing instruction will interesting to get new information?” the mean and standard deviation of both control and experimental groups were 2.70 and 3.59, 1.3 and 1.32, respectively. The question “collaborative writing instruction helps you to get an opportunity practicing your social skills”, the mean and standard deviation of both control and experimental groups were 2.7 and 3.41, 1.22 and 1.4, respectively. It showed that, the mean and standard deviation of the experimental group students are greater than the mean and standard deviation of the control group students. From this, the researcher concluded that the students‟ social skills performance can improve by intervention program through collaborative writing instruction.

4.2. Discussion of Findings As stated before, pre-test and post- test on collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance‟ and pre and post questionnaire on collaborative writing on students‟ social skills were administered to see whether the students in the experimental and controlled groups had equal writing performance and social skills or not before and after the treatment. The finding of pre-and post-test results, and pre and post questionnaires results were the core data used in this study. Paired sample t-test was used to compare the average scores of the control and experimental group. The results of the pre-test showed that, there was no significant difference between the averages scores of the control and the experimental groups at 0.05 level of the significance. The results of the statistical analysis of the paired sample t- test in the post test showed that, students in the experimental group improved their writing performance in all cases at (p<0.05) at 0.05 level of significance. The result

of the present study reassures the findings of previous study conducted at foreign language settings. For instance, it supports the research result of Hussin et al., 2015, writing is considered an important language skill and an essential productive activity specifically for second and foreign English (ESL/EFL) language learners. As a set of descriptive statistics was run, the result indicated that the overall writing performance of the students who were in the experimental group improved more than those students who were in the control group. The total mean scores of the students in both control and experimental groups were compared in the pre-test and post-test. The total mean score of the experimental group was 20.60 and this amount reached to 27.49 after the treatment sessions. On the other hand, the control group total mean score of pre test was 20.23, and post test that reached ultimately to 20.27 in the post-test. The result of the present study reassures the findings of previous study by Jafari and Ansari (2012) examined the effects of collaboration on Iranian EFL learners‟ writing accuracy, participants were 60 university students and were divided into the control and experimental groups. The results revealed that learners in the experimental group produced more accurate texts than those in the control group. The improved accuracy in collaborative writing groups may be due to the increased motivation to focus on grammatical accuracy and the engagement in revision process which led to more accurate texts. (E.g. Fung, 2010). It also has a positive effect on writing performance in both ESL and EFL contests, including the performance of individual (e.g., Louth et al, 1993; Sutherland & Topping, 1999) and collaborative (e.g., Gousseva-Goodwin, 2000; Jafari& Ansari, 2012; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth &Storch, 2009) written products. On the other hand to become a skillful writer, the role of English writing instruction in foreign language education is quite prominent (Weigle, 2002). In connection to questionnaire, close ended questions were designed to ask the students whether collaborative writing instruction helped students to improve their social skills during collaborative writing instruction or not. As a result, more than half of the experimental group respondents strongly agree and agree respectively that the opportunities to improve their social skills by frequently practicing writing activities through pair and group activities in collaborative writing instruction program.

Regarding to this, the total mean score of the control group pre-questionnaire was 2.86, and post test that reached ultimately to 2.9 in the post-questionnaire. On the other hand, the total mean score of the experimental group pre questionnaire was 2.8 and this amount

reached to 3.6 after the treatment sessions. This implies that the comparison of pre-test scores of both the experimental and control groups indicated that, there was no significant difference between the two groups and both groups were almost equal in their social skill. This shows that before the treatment was going on, the students in both groups had the same background in students‟ levels of collaborative writing instruction on their social skill at the beginning of the study. The result of the present study reassures the findings of the previous studies. For instance, research on effective social skills instruction can provide guidance when trying to help children build social skills (Quinn et al., 2000; Sainato&Carta, 1992; Honig&Wittmer, 1996; Zirpoli&Melloy, 1997). Researchers have also studied particular social skill interventions in a variety of settings, as well as for children of different age levels and abilities. Findings suggest that quality interventions and related instructional strategies might focus on social and emotional learning strategies that create opportunities to practice effective social skills both individual and in groups. For example, discuss the process of a conversation, showing how effective listening makes such interaction possible. Role-play scenarios that build social skills. This implies that, collaborative writing instruction has main important for improving students‟ writing performance and social skills. The present study reassures the findings of previous study conducted by Williams (2012) stated that, the findings of this studies revealed that by using collaborative writing activates, learners could benefit from the mechanism necessary for learning through a verity of language processes. Therefore, collaborative writing instruction is a good example of an activity in which the class room becomes a writing workshop where students make collaborative effort to produce more valid written texts. This consideration made possible the groups could be taken as experimental and control groups to make a comparison between their scores after treatment to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills in English Language class at Wurgessa General Secondary School grade 10 students in 2018 G.C. So, it is possible to say that, the teaching material prepared for the experimental group helped the students to achieve better writing performance and social skills.

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION This part of the study focuses on the summary of major findings, the conclusions drawn and the recommendations forwarded on the basis of the conclusions made.

5.1. SUMMARY The main objective of this study was to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills. In order to see these, Wurgessa General Secondary School grade 10 students were selected using simple random sampling. Regarding to see the two sections as control group and experimental group, the researcher used lottery system to avoid selection biases; section ”A” 37 students were put under control group (untrained group) and section “B”37 students under experimental group (trained group).

The designed used in this study was quasi experiment. The data was collected through pre –test and post-test for both control and experimental group students to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance, and pre- questionnaire and post -questionnaire for those control and experimental group students to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ social skills. To see the validity and reliability of the prepared test and questionnaire, the researcher showed to her colleagues and senior English language teachers, and finally submitted to her advisor to get his advisable comments.

After checking the validity and reliability of the test and questionnaire with the help of her colleagues, senior English language teachers and advisor who were specialized in TEFL, the pre and post test were provided for the control and experimental groups before and after the intervention program. The tests were scored by another English language teacher, and to see the correlation between the rater one and rater two, the researcher used Pearson correlation then she took the average results of the pre-test and post-test. As a result of pre test, the writing performance of the students in both control and experimental groups did not significantly differ. The control and experimental group

students‟ were similar in their writing performance in the pre- test result because the difference between the scores of the two groups found to be statistically no significant difference over its pre test , t (72), -.562 (p>.578) at.05 alpha level. Whereas after two months treatment of collaborative writing program, the experimental group students made significant improvement over its post test compared to the control group at. t(72), - 12.474, p<0.000.

Additionally, the pre and post questionnaire were designed and distributed for control and experimental group students so as to see whether of collaborative writing instruction improved students‟ social skills or not. Regarding to the data which gained from the control and experimental group respondents, after intervention program the result of the experimental group students‟ social skills was improved positively.

5.2. Conclusions

The main objective of this study was to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students‟ writing performance and social skills on EFL class. The researcher conducted a test to both control and experimental group students by delivering the same questions in order to see the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance i.e., whether a collaborative writing instruction helps the students to improve their writing performance or not. In addition to this, the researcher was also delivered both control and experimental groups pre and post questionnaires of closed ended questions in order to see whether collaborative writing instruction improves the students social skills or not. According to the results, the researcher concludes that in the following way.

1. Regarding to the treatment, the experimental group writing test score was greater than the control group. This result can be acceptable since the students of the experimental group were taught through collaborative writing instruction in an organized situation. 2. Based on the findings with regard to the implementation of collaborative writing instruction, it can be concluded that collaborative writing instruction led to increase students‟ writing performance and social skills.

3. Collaborative writing instruction improved students‟ writing performance and social skills because it gives an opportunity for students‟ to form strong bond, peer feedback, idea contribution for writing a paragraph to improve the students writing performance and social skills. 4. The findings proved that the incorporation of collaborative writing instruction, in the writing classes produced significantly positive outcome. The experimental group students showed a significant improvement in the post-test compared to the pre-test. This proved that experimental group students performed better scores and the five writing components after the inclusion of collaborative writing instruction program. 5. In addition, the findings indicated that the participants in the experimental group had a positive attitude towards collaborative writing instruction. In general, from the obtained findings, it can be concluded that collaborative writing is an effective and appropriate technique for writing performance and social skills improvement. Collaborative writing instruction can also be used as a pedagogical tool to encourage student collaboration and create a positive social atmosphere in the classroom. As a result, there was significant improvement on students writing performance and social skills in experimental group than control group. This study, therefore, according to the results of pre-test and post-test, the students‟ response to the pre and post questionnaires, by giving treatment for the students, it is possible to conclude that collaborative writing instruction is helpful for improving students writing performance and social skills of EFL learners.

5.3. Recommendations In this section, recommendations are provided based on the findings and conclusions of the study.  EFL teachers should be used collaborative writing instruction in their teaching, since it enhances students‟ accuracy and fluency as well as their attitudes towards collaborative writing.  Collaborative writing instruction is advisable to avoid students‟ writing difficulties.  Students should be interested and organized themselves in groups to write collaboratively in order to improve not only their writing performance and social skills but also to increase their academicals performance.

 Similar studies should be carried out on using collaborative to enhance the reading skills or the listening skills.  Collaborative writing instruction is important to improve students‟ writing performance and social skills; therefore, it is better to apply it in schools and classrooms.  Curriculum designers are recommended to add more collaborative writing activities in English text books in the future.

References Alegri' a de la, C., & Garcia, M. (2007). Attention to form Across Collaborative Tasks by Low- Proficiency Learners in an EFL Setting. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Al-Jarf, R. (2007). Online Instruction and Creative Writing by Saudi EFL Freshman Students. Asian EFL Journal: King Saudi University.

Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C. (1987). What Experienced Collaborators Say About Collaborative Writing? Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 70-90.

Ansarimoghaddam, S., & Bee, H. (2013). Co-constructing an Essay: Collaborative Writing in Class on Wiki.3L; Language, Linguisticand literature. The Southeast Asian Journalof English Language Studies, 35-50.

Ariza, A. (2005). The Process-Writing Approach: An Alternative to Guide the Students‟ Compositions. Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development. 37-46.

Baker, J., & West-rup, H. (2000). The English Language Teachers Hand Book: How To Teach Large Class With Few Resources. London: Continuum.

Bejarano, Y. (1987). A Cooperative Small-Group Methodology in the Language Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48-504.

Benerjee, R. (2011, October 2011). The benefits of collaborative learning. Retrieved October 8, 2011,. Retrieved from https;//www.brighthub.com/education/k-12/articles/70619.aspx

Benton, R. (1999). Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Academic and Professional Collaborative Writing. Austin: Unpublished.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the “Conversation of Mankind". College English, 635-652.

Cheng, Y. (2002). Factors Associated with Foreign Language Writing Anxiety. Foreign language Annals, 647-656.

Chiu, C. (2006). The Effects of the Cooperative Evaluation and Group Rewards with Writings and Evaluation-Cooperative Online Learning System on Senior High School Students English Writing Achievement and Attitudes. National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan.

Clavijo, A. (2007). Prácticas Innovadoras de Lectura y Escritura [Innovating practices on Reading and Writing. Bogota: Universidad Francisco Jose de Caldas.

Daiute, C. (1986). “Do 1 and 1 make 2? Patterns of Influence by Collaborative Authors Written Communication. 383-408.

Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between Children Learning to Write: Can Novices be Masters? Cognition and Instruction. 281-333.

Dale, H. (1994). Collaborative Writing Interactions in one Ninth Grade Classroom. . Journal of Educational Research, 334-344.

Daly, J., & Miller, M. (1975). The Empirical Development of an Instrument to Measure Writing Apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English. 242-249.

Dekeyser, R. (2007). Practicing in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dobao, F. (2012). Collaborative Writing Tasks in the L2 Classroom: Comparing Group Pair, and Individual Work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40-58.

Donato, R. (1994). Collaborative Scaffolding in Second Language Learning. J.P: Lantolf & G.Appels.

Dujsik, D. (2008). The effects of Pre-Writing Strategy Training Guided by Computer-Based Procedural Facilitation on ESL Students' Strategy Use, Writing Quality. University of South Florida: Unpublished Ph.D Thesis.

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts / Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. OXford: Oxford University Press.

Erkan, D., & Saban, A. (2011). Writing performance Relative to Writing Apprehension, Self- efficiency in Writing, and attitudes Towards Writing: A Correlation Study in Turkish Tertiary-Level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 163-191.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication. 365-387.

Foote, E. (2009). Collaborative Learning in Community College. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from https://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/colleges.htm>

Foster, P. (1998). A Classroom Perspective on the Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistics. 1-23.

Fung, Y. (2010). Collaborative Writing Features. 18-30.

Fung, Y. M. (2006). Applied Linguistics at Massey University. Palmerstone North New Zealand.

Galvis, A. (2010). A Collaborative Writing Workshop: Developing Children’s Writing in an EFL Context . Bogota, Colombia: Unpublished.

Gebhard, J. (1996). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Geremew Lemmu. (1999). A Study on the Academic Requirements: Four Departments in Focus in Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa: Unpublished PhD Dissertation.

Gousseva-Goodwin, J. (2000). Collaborative Writing Assignment and Online Discussion in an Advanced ESL Composition Class. Tucson, Arizona: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth-Olson, C. D., Aoust, C., macArthur, C., Mc Cutchen, D., et al. (2012). A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education.

Gray, D. (2004). Doing Research in the Real World. . London: Thousand Oaks.

Gresham, F. (1986). Conceptual Issues in the Assessment of Social Competence in Children:Children's Social Behavior: Development, Assesment, and Modification. New York: Academic Press.

Haring-Smith, T. (1994). Writing Together: Collaborative Learning in the Writing Classroom. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Hatch, E., & Farahiday. (1994). Research Design and Statistics in Applied Linguistics. . Rowley: Newbury.

Hawkey, R. (2004). A Modular Approach to Testing English Language Skills: The Development of the Certificates in English Language Skills (CELS) Examinations. Cambridge: UCLES, Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1986). Writing Research and the Writer. American Psychologist. American Psychologist, 1106-1113.

Heaton, J. (1990). Classroom Testing. Longman: Longman Group UK Limited.

Hussin, S., Abdullah, M., Ismail, S., & Yoke, S. (2015). The Effects of CMC Applications on ESL Writing Anxiety Among Postgraduate Students. English language Teaching. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n9p167, 167-172.

Ibrahim, M. (2013). The Effect of Using Facebook on Improving Students' Writing Skills in English. Al-Najah National University,Palestine: Unpublished M.A Thesis.

Jacobs, G. (1998). Cooperative Goal Structure: A Way to Improve Group Activities. ELT Journal, 97-101.

Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A Practical Approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Jafari, N., & Ansari, D. (2012). The Effect of Collaboration on Iranian EFL Learners‟ Writing Accuracy. International Education Studies, 125-131.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Cooperation and the Use of Technology. Handbook of research on Educational Communication and Technology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.

Kim, B. (2010). Collaborative Discussion and Peer Review Activity in Computer-Mediated EFL Writing. Multimedia Assisted Language Learning, 105-128.

Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The Effect of Interlocutor Proficiency on the Collaborative Dialogue Between Korean as a Second Language Learner. LanguageTeaching, 211-234.

Kitao, S., & Saeki, N. (1992). Process and social aspects of writing: Theory and Classroom Application. Annual Reports of Studies, 86-102.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using Collaborative Language Production Tasks to Promote Students's Language Awareness. Language Awareness, 73-93.

Lapkin. (1998). Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together. Modern Language Journal, 320-337.

Lee, S. Y. (2005). Facilitating and Inhibiting factors in English as a Foreign Language Writing Performance. Language Learning, 335-374.

Lombana, C. (2002). Some Issues for the Teaching of Writing. PROFILE Issues in Teachers‟ Professional Development . 44-45.

Long, M. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W.C Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of Language Acquisition. Second language Acquisition, 413-468.

Louth, R., & McAllister, H. (1993). The Effects of Collaborative Writing Techniques on Freshman Writing and Attitudes. Journal of Experimental Education, 215-224.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second Language Research, Methodology and Design. London: Lawrence Elbaum Association .

Mancho'n, R. (2011). Writing to Learn the Language: Issues in Theory and Research In R. mancho'n (Ed), Language-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Matsuda, P. (2003). Second Language Writing in the Twentieth Century. A situated Historical Perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. NY: Cambridge university Press.

McFall, R. (1982). A Review and Reformulation of the Concept of Social Skills. . Behavioral Assesment, 1-33.

McLeod, S. (1987). Some Thoughts About Feelings: The Affective Domain and the Writing . College Composition and Communication, 426-435. Ministry of Education (2000). English for Ethiopia grade 10 students‟ book. Addis Ababa:

EMPDA Ethiopia.

Ministry of Education. (2011). English for Ethiopia grade 10 students' book. .Addis Ababa: EMPDA Ethiopia. Morgan, M. A., & Snow, C. (1987). Collaborative Writing in the Classroom. Bulletin of the Association of Business Communication, 9-17.

Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and Individual Output tasks and Their Effects on Learning English Phrasal Verbs. Language Teaching Research, 397-419.

Olshtain, E. (2001). Functional Tasks for Mastering the Mechanics of Writing and Going Just Beyond. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Eds), Teaching English as second or Foreign Language. US: Heinle&Heinle.

Quinn, M., Osher, D., Warger, C., Hanley, T., Bader, B., Tate, R., et al. (2000). Educational Strategies for Children with Emotional and Behavioral Problems. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from https://cecp.air.org/aft_nea.pdf

Raimes, A. (1987). Why Write? From Purpose to Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt,v7n11p39

Raoofi, S., Chan, S. H., Mukundan, J., & Rashid, S. M. (2014). A Qualitative Study into L2 Writing Stategies of University Students. Retrieved from English Language Teaching: https://de.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n11p39

Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL Wirin. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT journal, 23-30.

Ruíz, N. C. (2004). Design of Literacy Activities to Promote Writing with Children: An Experience with Second Graders. Colombian Applied Linguistic Journal, 129-144.

Sainato, D., & Carta, J. (1992). Classroom Influences on the Development of Social Competence in young Children with Disabilities. In W,H. Brown, S.L. Oden & S.R McConnell (Eds), Social Competence in Young Children with Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning . Applied Linguistics, 192-196.

Seliger, H., & shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and Student Perceptions of Collaborative Writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 286-305.

Sheridan, S., & Walker, D. (1990). Social Skills in Context: Considerations for Assessment,intervention, and Generalization. In C.R. Reynolds & T.B. Gutkin (Eds.), The Handbook of School Psychology (3rd ed). New York: Wiley.

Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). An introduction to appliedLinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, B. L., & Mac Gregor, J. T. (2009). What is collaborative learning? National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assesment at Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved April 3, 2011

Storch, N. (2001). How Collaborative is Pair Work? ESL Tertiary Students Composing in Pairs. Language Teaching Research, 29-53.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative Writing: Product, Process, and Students‟ reflections. . Journal of Second Language, 153-173.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks and the effects of collaboration. In M. Pillar (Ed), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Settings. Clevedon: Multiligual Matters.

Sutherland, J. A., & Topping, K. J. (1999). Collaborative Creative Writing in Eight-year- olds: Comparing Cross-ability Fixed Role and Sam-Ability Reciprocal role Pairing. Journal of Research in Reading, 154-179.

Swain, M. (2001). Integrating Language and Content Teaching Through Collaborative Tasks. . Canadian Modern Language Review, 44-63.

Taki, S., & Fardafshari, E. (2012). Weblog-based Collaborative Learning: Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Skill and Motivation. . International Journal of Linguistics, 412-429.

Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2003). Effective Writing Instruction Across the Grades: What every Educational Consultant Should Know. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walker, H. (1983). The Access Program: Adolescent Curriculum for Communication and effective Social Skills: Student Study Guide. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. .

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair Versus Individual Writing: Effects on Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy. Language Testing, 445-466.

Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task Based Learning. London: Longman.

Wire, C. (1990). Communicative Language Testing. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The Process of Discovering Meaning. . TESOL Quarterly, 195-208.

Zeng, D. (2005). The Process-oriented Approach to ESL/EFL Writing Instruction and Research. . Teaching English in China, 66-77.

Zins, J., Weissbert, R., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (2004). • Zins, J., Weissbert, R., Wang, M., &Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say. New York: Teachers College Press.

Zirpoli, T., & Melloy, K. (1997). Behavior Management: Applications for Teachers and Partners (2nd ed.). . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX –A : Time table for intervention program

NO Time Lesson for intervention Intervention Date

1 2 hour Activity One: Paragraph Feburary20 writing

2 2 hour Activity two: Sentences March 5 completion:

3 2 hour Activity Three: Position of March 12 adverbs

4 2 hour Activity Four: Jumbled March 19 Sentences

5 2 hour Activity Five: Punctuation March 26 marks

6 2 hour Activity Six: Feeling April 03 expression

7 2 hour Activity Seven: Letter writing April 10

8 2 hour Activity Eight: Health issues April 17

APPENDIX -B Collaborative Writing Instruction Teaching Programme The researcher was conducted entitled the effects of collaborative writing instruction on students writing performance and social skills on EFL learners in Wuregessa General Secondary School in 20108 EG.C. Therefore, this collaborative writing instruction programme was concerned at improving students writing performance and social skills. The purpose of the program was to see the training in collaborate way. The program prepared based on a number of collaborative writing activities. It also adapted from Willis model for teaching learning process in the intervention program. The treatment was conducted for two months on the opposite shift of Wuregessa General Secondary School. To put into practice the program, the researcher gave extra class once a week for 2 hours by preparing different activities. The activities were more focused on controlled writing. Controlled writing activities include coping correct sentences, filling in blanks by choosing correct responses among the given alternatives, matching beginning and endings of sentences, and sequencing jumbled words (Baker and West rup,2000). Therefore, this programme was designed on the bases of collaborative writing instruction to improve students writing performance and social skills.

APPENDIX-C Collaborative Based Instruction Activities School –Wurgessa General Secondary School Grade 10 Participant –Experimental group Year 2010 Time 90‟ Topic –paragraph organization Objectives: At the end of this lesson students will be able to  search appropriate words to organize a sentences  organize the words to make meaningful sentences  write a paragraph depend on the given topic Introduction (pre-writing activity) 20’  create interest and introduce topic and related words or phrases  provide students with some background knowledge so as to help them what they learned Presentation one (pair work) 20’  encourage students to connect as much as possible in the activities and organize them  motivate students to engage in brainstorming their thoughts , feelings and memories about these topics  divide the students in to pairs to discuss these questions  ask students to report the results of their pair work Presentation two (group work) 20’  motivate students to contribute ideas by dividing them in to small groups and each groups contain 4-6 students  monitor the group leader  students write a draft according to their discussion  encourage students to put their own information on to paper in a logical manner not worrying about grammar or spelling  help students exchange their drafts of writing and analysis concerning content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, spelling and punctuation  group leaders will report the results of the group discussion

Summarize and Evaluate the Activity 30’  give emphasis on the meaningfulness and fluency of the idea  regarding to the group report, show the strength and weakness of their report  write down the language points and functional pattern on the black board  to make sure that the students have understood all that is being taught provide students with similar activities as a home work

Activity One -Writing Paragraph

INSTRUCTION: Write a paragraph in English about the following topic. You will have only 60 minutes to finish the paragraph using only 100 words. Some vocabularies will be provided to help you to complete your paragraph successfully. “Describe the different reasons you have for coming to Secondary School?”

The following words may help you in writing your paragraph: attend, common, prepare, experience, increase, knowledge, career, primary reason, job, competitive, opportunities, information, technology, expected, decision, expand, recommend

Source: adapted Jacob, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, and Hughey (1981)

LESSON PLAN TWO

School Wuregessa General Secondary School

Time allotted

2 hours

Objectives –At the end of this lesson the students will be able to re arrange sentences.

Method- Pair and group discussion

Activity Two- Sentences Completion

Re-arrange the following words in each set to make to make a sensible sentences. Each set contains adverbs or adverbial phrases. 1. just 2. understand 3. opened my sister what the door a baby I can and ran away had he he has is saying very slowly never

1. to the river 5. You 6. go some fish ever I must they eaten immediately to catch an apple I will be went have late or Source: Adopted from English for Ethiopia grade 10 students‟ text book (2000 p. 63-64) LESSON PLAN THREE School –Wurgessa General Secondary school Time allotted 2 hours Objectives-At the end of this lesson the students will be able to complete sentences by using adverb of place. Method- Group discussion

Activity Three -Adverbs of Place INSTRUCTION: Complete the following sentences with one of the adverbs of place from the list below to make sensible sentences. Use each expression only once. to the market in the school compound here on the table outside the post office on the monitor screen near the river inside the mattress to Nazareth around the world

1. Light pens can be used to write directly------2. I saw the director------3. She met her grandmother------4. He puts his briefcase------5. Their house is------6. When are you going to drive------7. We are going ------this afternoon. 8. He hid the money------9. Ferdinand Magellan sailed------10 “------comes the teacher!” shouted the student. Source: Adopted from English for Ethiopia English student‟s text book (2011, p.32- 33)

LESSON PLAN FOUR School –Wuregessa General Secondary School Time allotted- 2hours Objectives-At the end of this lesson the students will be able to correct a piece of writing.

Activity Four -Jumbled Sentences INSTRUCTION: Read the following sentences carefully and correct each. Whenever you complete a piece of writing, always read through what you have written and ask yourself these questions: 1. Does everything make sense? Nishan goes to school at7 o‟clock every morning. The journey takes him half an hour so he usually arrives at about 8:15 (This student has given the wrong time. What time should Nishan arrive at school?) 2. Are there any spelling mistakes? Many diseases can now be succesfully treated by modern medicne (This student made two spelling mistakes. What are they?)

3. Is the punctuation correct? I went to the market on the way home mother had asked me to buy some bananas Potatoes and Plantains (This student left out a capital letter, a comma, and a full stop. Where should they go?)

4. Are there any grammar mistakes? Although I not answer all the questions, I passed the test. (This student has left out an auxiliary verb. (Which one and where should it go?)

Source: Grade 10 English for Ethiopia student‟s text book (2011, p.74) LESSON PLAN FIVE School –Wuregessa General Secondary School Time allotted 2 hour Objective-At the end of this lesson the students will be able to use punctuation marks properly. Method -group and pair discussion Activity Five: Punctuation INSTRUCTION: Write the following passage, adding punctuation marks and capital letters where necessary. Noise Pollution Do you know the difference between a sound and a noise although these words are synonyms we use them in different ways if we hear something unpleasant we usually refer to it as a noise rather than a sound for this reason your teacher would say to the class stop that noise he or she would never say stop that sound Noise is made by an irregular pattern of sound waves very loud noises can damage our hearing they can cause headaches and affected body process such as digestion in some countries it is illegal to make noise above a certain level nevertheless noise pollution is still a serious problem especially in a big cities Source: Adapted from English for Ethiopia students text for grade 10 (2000, p.226)

LESSON PLAN SIX School -Wuregessa General Secondary School Time allotted 2 hours Objectives-At the end of this lesson the students will be able to express their feeling. Method –Role play Activity Six-Feeling Expression INSTRUCTION: Discuss collaboratively and complete the following feeling expression. I feel excited when______I sometimes worry about______What makes me really angry is when______I feel scared when______I feel frustrated when______I felt sad when______. ______. ______. ______. LESSON PLAN SEVEN School Wuregessa General Secondary School Time allotted 2 hour Objective –At the end of this lesson the students will be able to write letters. Method-group discussion Activity Seven: Letter Writing INSTRUCTION: imagine that you are on a holiday. You are visiting your cousin who lives near a forest. One day, you are walking through the forest with your cousin. Suddenly, you hear someone calling for help. Write a letter to a friend at school telling him or her what happened. You may use the following ideas to help you to write your letter.  visiting cousin  one day walking in a forest  heard someone calling for help

 what you saw  what you did to help  person very grateful Begin and end your letter in a suitable way. Remember the four stages of composition writing and letter writing: 1.think 2.plan 3.Write 4.check Adopted from English for Ethiopia student text book grade 10(2000:173).

LESSON PLAN EIGHT School –Wuregessa General Secondary School Time allotted 2hour Objectives –At the end of this lesson the students will be able to write paragraph. Method –group discussion Activity Eight-Health issue INSTRUCTION I: Work in groups to discuss one of the following issues related to gender and health education. Early sexual relations between boys and girls How to deal with infectious diseases How illiteracy affects health education The effects of poverty and malnutrition on health Sanitation in school Disease prevention and control in rural areas INSTRUCTION II: write a report setting out your suggestions or recommendations about your chose issue and present it to the class.

Adopted from English for Ethiopia student text book grade 10(2011:145).

APPENDIX –D Tests Pre and Post Test for Control and Experimental Groups Pre-Test Writing Prompts

Name ______Grade and Section______GENERAL DIRECTIONS: Dear students read the following instructions before you start answering the question. Write a paragraph in English about the following topic. You will have only 60 minutes to finish the paragraph using only 100 words. Some vocabularies will be provided to help you to complete your paragraph successfully. Write a paragraph about one of the historical places found in Ethiopia.

The following words may help you for writing your paragraph: visit, recreation, tourist, journey, holiday, attractive, sculptures,

Post-Test -Writing Prompts Name______Grade and Section______GENERAL DIRECTIONS: Dear students read the following instructions before you start answering the test.

Write a paragraph in English about the following topic. You will have only 60 minutes to finish the paragraph using only 100 words. Some vocabularies will be provided to help you to complete your paragraph successfully.

“Write a paragraph about one of the historical places found in Ethiopia.

The following words may help you in writing your paragraph: sculptures, recreation, attractive, holiday, visit, journey, tourist

APPENDIX- E Questionnaire for Students Dear Students, I would like to assure you that your response will be reported using cods, not names and hence it is strictly confidential. For confidentiality purpose, you do not have to write your names on the questionnaire at all.

Thank you in advance!

General Directions:

1. No need of writing your name

2. Mark “” tick in the box of your alternative answer(s)

3. Please give answers to each closed ended items as appropriate as possible.

4. Your participation is voluntary -based. You have the right to stop whenever you like.

Section I: Back ground information

1. Sex: Male □ Female□

2. Age: below 18years □ 19--20 years□21--25 years □Above 25 years □

Section II Close Ended Questions

Instruction: Please make a tick mark (√)on one of your answer on which you agreed that a structured questionnaire provided to you based on five point Likert scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree)2(disagree)3(neutral)4(agree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

5 4 3 2 1 No Item

Items related to the effect of collaborative writing instruction on students’ social skills. 1 Your involvement in collaborative writing can improve your social skills. 2 Collaborative writing instruction is interesting to get new information. 3 When you write collaboratively, you will get opportunities to practice exercise.

4 Collaborative writing instruction helps you to improve your relationship.

5 Your social skills will increase when you get feedback from your peers. 6 Collaborative writing helps you to increase your participation. 7 Practicing activities in groups are useful for social skills improvement. 8 When you write collaboratively, your confidence will be increased. 9 Sharing ideas about the essay with your friends collaboratively can help you to improve your social skills. 10 Writing collaboratively develops your social skills awareness.

APPENDIX -F Guidelines for Marking the Pre Test and Post Test 100% for Each Component.

1. Content (30%) 27-30 Excellent to very good: knowledgeable, sustentative, through development of thesis: relevant of topic assigned 22-26 Good to average: some knowledge of subject ;adequate range; limited thematic development; mostly relevant to topic, lucks details 17-21 Fair to poor: limited knowledge of subject; minimal substance; poor thematic development 13-16 Very good : shows little or no knowledge of subject; in adequate quantity; not relevant, or not enough to rate 2. Organization(25%) 18-20 Excellent to very good: fluent expression; clear statement of ideas; solid support; clear organization; logical and cohesive 14-17 Good to Average: adequate fluency; main ideas clear but loosely organizing; supporting material limited; sequencing logical incomplete. 10-13 Fair to poor: low fluency; ideas not well connected; logical sequencing and development lacking 7-9 Very poor: ideas not communicated; organization lacking, or not enough to rate 3. Grammar (20%) 22-25 Excellent to very good: accurate use of relatively accurate use of relatively complex structures; few errors in agreement, number, tense, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions 11-17 Fair to poor: significant defects in use of complex construction; errors in agreement, number, tense, negation, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions, fragments, and deletions, lack of accuracy, interferes with meaning 5-10 very poor: no mastery of simple sentences construction; text dominated by errors; does not communicate, or not enough to rate

4. Vocabulary (15%) 18-20 Excellent to very good: complex range; accurate word/idiom choice; mastery of word forms; appropriate register 14-17 Good to average: adequate range; errors of word/idiom choice; effective transmission of meaning 10-13 Fair to poor: limited range; frequent word/idiom errors, in appropriate choice, usage; meaning not effectively communicated 7-9 Very poor: translation-based errors; little knowledge of target language vocabulary, or not enough to rate 5. Mechanics (10%) 5 Excellent very good: masters conventions of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc. 4 Good to average: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc. Which do not interfere with meaning 3 Fair to poor: frequent spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing errors; meaning distributed by formal problems 2 Very poor: no mastery of conventions due to frequency of mechanical errors, or not enough to rate

Rating Scale (adopted from Shehadeh 2011

APPENDIX G: RESULTS OF PRE AND POST QUESTIONNAIRE Pre- Intervention Social Skills Development Result

No Items Groups Strongl Agre Un Dis- Strongly y e decide agree( dis agree(5 (4) d(3) 2) agree(1) ) 1 Social skill Control 6 5 9 8 9 improvement group Experimental 5 5 10 8 9 group 2 Getting new Control 5 5 8 10 9 information group Experimental 6 5 7 10 9 group 3 Opportunities Control 5 4 10 12 6 for practice group Experimental 5 4 10 10 8 group 4 Improving Control 6 6 9 8 8 relation ship group Experimental 5 7 8 9 8 group 5 Getting peer Control 5 6 10 8 8 feedback group Experimental 6 6 10 8 7 group 6 Increasing Control 8 8 10 6 5 participation group Experimental 7 8 11 5 6

group 7 Practicing Control 8 6 12 6 5 activities in group groups Experimental 7 8 11 5 6 group 8 Increasing Control 7 8 5 9 8 confidence group Experimental 7 8 6 8 8 group 9 Sharing ideas Control 6 6 8 8 9 with others group Experimental 6 7 7 8 9 group 10 Developing a Control 6 6 10 8 7 sense of group awareness Experimental 5 7 10 8 7 group

Post- Intervention Social Skills Development Result

No Items Groups Strongly Agree(4) Un Dis- Strongly agree(5) decide agree(2) dis d(3) agree(1) 1 Social skill Control group 6 5 10 9 7 improvement Experimental 12 11 5 5 4 group 2 Getting new Control group 5 5 8 12 7 information Experimental 11 12 6 4 4 group 3 Opportunities Control group 4 5 10 12 6 for practice Experimental 10 11 5 6 5

group 4 Improving Control group 7 5 9 8 8 relation ship Experimental 12 12 5 5 3 group 5 Getting peer Control group 5 6 11 8 7 feedback Experimental 10 13 7 4 3 group 6 Increasing Control group 8 7 12 6 4 participation Experimental 12 13 3 5 4 group 7 Practicing Control group 8 6 12 5 6 activities in Experimental 12 12 2 6 5 groups group 8 Increasing Control group 7 8 5 10 7 confidence Experimental 11 12 5 5 4 group 9 Sharing ideas Control group 6 6 9 8 8 with others Experimental 14 12 3 4 4 group 10 Developing a Control group 5 7 11 7 7 sense of Experimental 12 12 4 5 4 awareness group

APPENDIX –H: Results of Pre and Post Tests of Both Control and Experimental Groups Control Group Pre and Post Test Results

Control group Pre-test 50% Control group Post-test 50% Ratter 1 Ratter 2 Av. Ratter 1 Ratter Av. No 2 1 18 22 20 19 21.5 20.25 2 16.5 19.5 18 16.5 18 17.25 3 21 24 23 24.5 22 23.25 4 19.5 22 20.75 18.5 21.5 20 5 23 20 21.5 20 23 21.5 6 16 19 17.5 15.5 18 16.75 7 20 23 21.5 21.5 22.5 22 8 29 25.5 27.25 26 29 27.5 9 20 17 18.5 18.5 20 19.25 10 20 21.5 20.75 20 22 21 11 11 14 12.5 12.5 15 13.75 12 22 25 23.5 23.5 25 24.25 13 21.5 24.5 23 20.5 23 21.75 14 22.5 23.5 23 21.5 22.5 22 15 15 19 17 15.5 20 17.75 16 20 21 20.5 20 22 21 17 16 19 17.5 17.5 19 18.25 18 19 18 17.5 26 28.5 27.25 19 26.5 28 27.25 21 23.5 22.25 20 23 20 21.5 21.5 23 22.25 21 23.5 26.5 25 25.5 25 25.25 22 23 20 21.5 22 22.5 22.25

23 21.5 19 20.25 22 19 20.5 24 18.5 21 19.75 17 15.5 16.25

25 19.5 23 21.25 21.5 24 22.5 26 20.5 24 22.25 20 23.5 21.75 27 22.5 21.5 22 19 22 20.5 28 16.5 19.5 18 18.5 22 20.25 29 14 12.5 13.25 14 14.5 14.25 30 20 22.5 21.25 19 22 20.5 31 17 14 15.5 15.5 17 16.25 32 22 25 23.5 21.5 24 22.75 33 19 22 20.5 19 20.5 19.75 34 17 14 15.5 17 17.5 17.25 35 24.5 22 23.25 22 25.5 23.75 36 17 17 17 16 15.5 15.75 37 16.5 17.5 17 18 17 17.5

Experimental Group Pre and Post Test Results

No Experimental group Pre- Experimental group Post- Test Test 50% 50% Rater 1 Rater 2 Av. Rater 1 Rater 2 Av. 1 12 14 13 22.5 25.5 24 2 16.5 13.5 15 26 24 25 3 18 22 20 29 31 30 4 20 23 21.5 22 26 24 5 23 21 22 26 30 28 6 17.5 20.5 19 29 23 26 7 28 26 27 30 32 31 8 20 22 21 29 27 28 9 21 17 19 23 25 24

10 24 22 23 24 26 25 11 17 21 19 28 24 26

12 22.5 21.5 22 30 28 29

13 22 25 23.5 36 34 35

14 19 16 17.5 30 26 28

15 22 20 21 30 29 29.5

16 23 20 21.5 30 34 32

17 21 24 22.5 24.5 27 25.75

18 21 22.5 21.75 29 31.5 30.25

19 22 24 23 30 27.5 28.25

20 26 24 25 23 27.5 25.25 21 21 23 22 25 29.5 27.25 22 20 22 21 29 28.5 28.75 23 20 23 21.5 26 28.5 27.25 24 24 22 23 28 26.5 27.25

25 15 16 15.5 22 24 23 26 12.5 16 14.25 30 29.5 29.25

27 19.5 23 21.25 32 30 31

28 19.5 21.5 20.5 24 28 26

29 22 20 21 25 27 26

30 21 23 22 30 28 29

31 17.5 21 19.25 21.5 23 22.25

32 22 26 24 28.5 30 29.25

33 20 23 21.5 31 33 32 34 19 21 20 26 27 26.5 35 21 17 19 23 25 24 36 22 20 21 29 25 27 37 16.5 20 18.25 28 27 27.5

APPENDIX- I- FREQUENCY Reliability and Inter-Rater Correlation Coefficient of Control and Experimental Groups

Pre-Control Correlations Ratter1 Pre- Ratter2 Pre-Control Control Group Group Pearson Correlation 1 .737** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Ratter1 N 37 37 Pearson Correlation .737** 1

rRatter2 Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 37 37 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Post-Control Correlations Ratter1 Post - Ratter2 Post- Control Group Control Group

Pearson Correlation 1 .739** Ratter Sig. (2-tailed) .000 1 N 37 37 Pearson Correlation .739** 1 Ratter2 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 37 37 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Pre-Experimental Correlations

Ratter1Pre- Ratter2 Pre- Experimental Experimental Group Group Pearson Correlation 1 .643 Ratter1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 37 37 Pearson Correlation .643** 1 Ratter2 Sig. (2-tailed) .000

37 37 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Post Experimental Correlations ratter1postexp. ratter2postexp. Pearson Correlation 1 .644**

Ratter1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 37 37 Pearson Correlation .644** 1 Ratter Sig. (2-tailed) .000 2 N 37 37 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).