CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2 Collaborative writing in EFL writing class

2.2.1 Definition of collaborative writing
(Chi) There have been multiple definitions of collaborative writing stated by
different scholars. This part aims to highlight these definitions and from which we will
draw a definition for this research.
Social constructivist theory believes that learning is a social activity (Vygotsky
1978). Based on this theory, students are encouraged to cooperative with one’s
another to boost their learning. One of the ways to boost interaction among learners in
the writing class is to conduct collaborative writing activities. CW has its roots from
cooperative learning. As we have concluded in the last part, CL is a teaching and
learning method that makes use of small groups from two to five students under
instructions in order for them to accomplish shared goals. The definition of
collaborative writing, which is a method of CL, needs to satisfy the definition of CL.
The definition of collaborative writing is first built on the definition of single-
author writing. Single-author writing requires 4 stages: planning, drafting, revising,
and reviewing. Planning involves brainstorming, looking for information and
organizing pieces of information. Drafting occurs when ideas are put into sentences
and paragraphs. Revision is where the writer think more deeply about their readers’
needs and expectations. The document becomes reader-centered. At this stage, the
writers try to make each sentence as concise and accurate as possible. Finally,
reviewing involves evaluating the drafted text and editing the text. CW increases the
complexity of the process as it is built on single-author writing involving many people
(Galegher & Kraut, 1994). The reason for the increased complexity is due to the fact
that there is a need for discussion, consensus, cooperation between the group
members. In addition, there are also outside factors such as relationship between
members or the way the teachers conduct CW activities. Because the process
complexity of CW is amplified by the possibility of multiple writing strategies,
writing activities, etc., there has been disagreement on the definition of CW.
 In one of the earliest studies about CW, Allen et al. (1987) state that in
collaborative writing "collaborators producing a shared document, engaging in
substantive interaction, and shared decision-making power and responsibility for it".
This study found that there was intense interaction among the group members in the
initial stage such as brainstorming, outlining, dividing work, and reviewing. However,
group members may work alone during drafting stage as each of the writers may be
responsible for different portions of one writing. It is also important to note that this
study was conducted in a business environment where the participants worked in
profession fields.
Bosley (1989) defines CW deals with “two or more people working together to
produce a document with group responsibility for the end product”. While Bosley’s
definition supports Allen’s statement, it is still lack of important elements such as the
stages involves in CW.
William Damon and Erin Phelps (1989) provide a definition of “peer
collaboration as a pair of relative novices working together to solve challenging
learning tasks that neither could do on their own prior to the collaborative
engagement”. This definition does not quite capture the essence of CW in the context
of this research as this research aims to identify the difficulties in CW by assessing
and comparing individual writing work vs group writing work.
Lowry et al. (2004) draw their own definition after compiling and reviewing
others’. They suggest the overall process for CW as a model in Figure 2.2. Their
research built a taxonomy for CW as follows:
(1) Single-author writing includes 3 steps: planning, drafting, and revising
(2) Single-author writing is extended by involving different parties throughout
the 3 steps.
(3) As it involves different parties, CW now become a social act which requires
things beyond writing such as discussion or consensus among writers.
(4) An effective CW requires communicating, reflecting, progress checking,
etc.
Figure 2.2: Tasks and activities of CW proposed by Lowry et al. (2004)
 (5) CW includes pre-task such as group formation as well as post-task activities
such as reviewed the group work process through out the whole writing
task.
(6) CW should include group formation, group planning execution of the
desired task, and finalization of the task. Any missing group activities will
negatively affect the result.
This figure suggests that CW is not solely about the writing products and the
stages of writing such as planning, drafting, revising, and reviewing; it also focuses on
other things such as group formation, review of the previous task, and identifying
group composition.
From these studies, we draw a definition of collaborative writing for the current
research. Collaborative writing deals with two or more producing a single document
people by sharing responsibility and joint decision-making. The scope of CW may
exceed the basic act of drafting or revising jointly to include some of pre- and post-
task activities such as group formation, and planning. It is imperative that there exists
mutual interactions, sharing expertise, cognitive conflict, and affective factors
throughout the writing process.
2.2.2 Features of collaborative writing
Fung (2004) draws a list of CW features from previous literature. There
have been 6 identified features of CW: Mutual interactions, Negotiation, Sharing of
expertise, Cognitive conflict, Use of L1, and Affective factors.
Mutual interactions refers to the social interaction among group members, the
active participation of group members when they discuss and argue on a CW task.
Dale (1994) in her study of CW in academic environment emphasizes a high level of
mutual interaction as a factor of successful CW group. Mutual interaction allows
students to freely express their ideas and respond to each other's ideas as well. It is
vital that teachers emphasize the importance of mutual interactions and encourage
students to not only contribute their ideas but also to listen to the others’ (Fung, 2010).
Negotiation closely related to mutual interaction. Some common negotiation
between a group may be clarification of tasks’ requirements, task’s distribution, task
confirmation. Thanks to clarification and confirmation, the likelihood of
misunderstanding will stay low. In addition to negotiation revolving around the task,
there may be negotiation about members’ relationship and roles in a group. Students
should be reminded of the necessity of negotiation as this is a way to enhance shared
decision-making power and mutual trust between group members (dale, 1997). It is
also important to note that there should not be an overly-domineering students or
passive ones, which can negatively affect a group's result (Fung, 2010).
Sharing of expertise illustrates the difference between group members’
language proficiency, knowledge, and background experiences. Once again, Dale
(1997) in her study places emphasis on the differences in members’ abilities. When
working in a group, each member will contribute their strengths (Dale 1997; Ohta
1995, 2001). The combined strengths help group members to enrich their language
ability and create a greater writing work. As students benefit greatly from the shared
expertise, it is vital that students be willing to share their own expertise, experience,
and knowledge (Fung, 2010).
Cognitive conflict appears when members in a group try to organize and narrow
down every idea into a single one. Conflict plays a positive role in the group working
process as it is an inevitable part during any discussion before the group reaches a
consensus (Allen et al. 1987; Dale 1994). Conflict can be a way for students to
develop their critical thinking and interpersonal skills. On the other hand, conflicts
relating to students’ personalities may have a detrimental effect on the group's result.
Teachers should therefore ensure students that conflict is a common phenomenon
happening during any group discussion and remind students of the benefit of a conflict
(Fung, 2010).
Use of L1 is a common problem during a CW task in a L2 class. Multiple
research has pointed out that students often use L1 during any type of collaborative
task, especially high demanding one (Antón & Camilla 1998). L1 can be used during
any stages, from planning to reviewing. L1 can be extremely useful in the planning
stage where it is easier for students to generate ideas in their mother tongue. Although
the use of L1 should not be encouraged in any L2 class, it cannot be denied that L1
can bring about tremendous benefits to the learning of L2. Therefore, teachers should
not totally prohibit the use of L1 but instead giving students the flexibility to use L1
when needed (Fung, 2010).
Affective factors refers to outside factors such as trust, reliability, respect, and
motivation. It can not be denied that a group can work significantly effective when
they are in a comfortable environment and there are mutual respects between the
members. Learners’ emotions and motivation act as a crucial part in their group work
habit. Once having positive feelings towards one’s another, a group can reach a
consensus easier (Tocalli-Beller, 2003). Learners must be reminded not to take any
didactic role during the CW process. Teachers also need to highlight the importance of
mutual trust and respect among group members and pay attention to any affective
conflict in a group (Fung, 2010).
2.2.3 Advantages of collaborative writing in EFL writing class
Influenced by communicative approaches to language teaching, teachers often
implement CW tasks in EFL (English as a second language) classrooms to promote
interactive classroom environments (Storch, 2013).