collaboration and cooperation: the use of wikis with teens for second language writing

93
Collaboration and cooperation: The use of wikis with teens for second language writing. A dissertation submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Humanities, School of Education 2012 Suzanne Naylor Faculty of Humanities, School of Education The University of Manchester

Upload: suzanne-naylor

Post on 03-Apr-2016

235 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

Collaboration and cooperation: The use of wikis with teens for second language

writing.

A dissertation submitted to The University of Manchester for the

degree of Master of Arts

in the Faculty of Humanities, School of Education

2012

Suzanne Naylor

Faculty of Humanities, School of Education The University of Manchester

Page 2: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "!

Table of Contents: !Abstract ................................................................................................................ 6

Declaration ........................................................................................................... 7

Intellectual property statement ............................................................................. 7

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 8

Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 9

1: Introduction .................................................................................................... 10

1.1: Background ............................................................................................. 11

1.2: Rational ................................................................................................... 12

1.3: Research aims ........................................................................................ 13

2: Literature review ............................................................................................ 14

2.2: Writing in the L2 classroom. .................................................................... 18

3: Methodology .................................................................................................. 26

3.1 Action Research ....................................................................................... 26

3.1.2: Cycle 1 and cycle 2: Action research. ............................................. 27

3.1.3: The participants: ............................................................................... 28

3.1.4: The project: ....................................................................................... 30

3.1.5: Ethics and project design: ............................................................... 34

3.2: Data Collection ........................................................................................ 36

3.2.1: Participant survey ............................................................................. 36

3.2.2: Content Analysis ............................................................................... 39

3.2.3: Qualitative analysis of peer error correction ..................................... 39

3.2.4: Observations and Interview: ............................................................ 40

3.2.5: Validity .............................................................................................. 40

3.2.6: Limitations ........................................................................................ 41

3.2.7: Ethics ................................................................................................ 41

4: Findings ......................................................................................................... 42

4.1: Participant Survey. .................................................................................. 42

4.2 Content Analysis ...................................................................................... 51

4.2.1: Critical incidences in content analysis: ............................................ 52

4.3 Qualitative analysis of peer corrections .................................................. 53

4.3.1: Critical incidences reported in peer error correction analysis: ......... 57

Page 3: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #!

4.4: Observations and critical incidence: Interview. ..................................... 58

4.5: Data from the Universitat de Barcelona. ................................................ 60

4.5.1: Measure of written fluency. .............................................................. 60

4.5.2: Measure of lexical richness ............................................................. 61

5: Discussion .................................................................................................... 62

5.1: Student perceptions ................................................................................ 62

5.2: Collaborative writing and ownership of texts. .......................................... 64

5.3: Student confidence in writing. ................................................................. 64

5.4: Peer correction and peer scaffolding. ..................................................... 65

5.5: Focus on form and focus on meaning. .................................................... 67

6: Conclusion. .................................................................................................... 68

6.1: Recommendations. ................................................................................. 70

Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 71

Appendix ............................................................................................................ 76

Appendix A: Styles of writing for the FCE. ......................................................... 77

Appendix B: Code for error correction ............................................................... 77

Appendix C: Raw data for qualitative analysis of error corrections. ................. 79

Appendix D: Ss pre - course survey. ................................................................ 80

Appendix E. Model error correction given to Ss as a pre task in a f2f

environment. ...................................................................................................... 84

Appendix F. Coding of content analysis. ........................................................... 85

Appendix G. Problems with reliability in content analysis and the interpretation

of vocabulary. .................................................................................................... 86

Appendix H. Transcribed interview with the teacher of class B. ........................ 86

Appendix I: Full responses to open questions asked in the post course survey

for Ss. ................................................................................................................ 91

Page 4: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $!

List of figures:

Page 5: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %!

List of Tables:

Total word count: 16.076. !!!

Page 6: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &!

Abstract

Many teenage language students find writing in English a daunting and

demotivating task. The teaching of writing in the EFL classroom is often paper

based. However, for teenage students living in today’s highly technological

society, reading and writing in their own personal lives often takes place across

various digital platforms. This study is designed to explore how teachers can

bridge this gap between the classroom and the reality of everyday life by

exploiting wikis. It is possible that wikis can be used to encourage social

written interaction and to connect students across space and time. This study

examines a telecollaborative project between two groups of Catalan teenagers

studying English. Working collaboratively in groups of four and connected by a

wiki, students from the two classes wrote an extended text. To create the text

students took part in peer error correction. In addition the wiki provided an

interactive showcase for the final texts and students were able to experience

having an authentic audience for their written work within a writing community.

Student surveys, content analysis of student output during the project,

numerical analysis of student revisions and observations inform this project.

This study found that students were motivated by communication with other

students in a separate class and this written communication gave them more

authentic writing practice. This study also found that by working collaboratively

students were able to achieve a high level of accuracy in peer corrections.

However findings also pointed to lower levels of accuracy for vocabulary

corrections. The final texts were achieved through various stages of process

writing. The implications of this study are that wikis and the written social

communities that can emerge from within them, are more relevant to adolescent

students’ real world experiences. This study shows that used with care, wikis

provide an effective means in the teaching of second language writing to this

age group .

!!

Page 7: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '!

Declaration I hereby declare that no portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has

been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification

of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

Suzanne Claire Naylor

Intellectual property statement i. The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or schedules to this dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the dissertation, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this dissertation, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s Guidance for the Presentation of Dissertation !

Page 8: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! )!

Abbreviations

Nb: YL is a term which can cover Ss from early childhood into adulthood. The

focus of this study is based on teenagers aged 13 – 16. For that reason in this

study, this term will be used in respect to 13 – 16 year olds in this study.

CAE CMC CW F2F FCE FoF FoM L1 L2 P2P SLA Ss T Tc YL(s) ZPD !!

Certificate of Advanced English Computer mediated communication Collaborative writing Face to face First Certificate in English Focus on form Focus on meaning First (native) language Second language Peer to peer Second language acquisition Students Teacher / instructor Telecollaborative Young learner(s) Zone of proximal development

Page 9: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *+!

1: Introduction

“For many children there is a gap between literacy practice in school and where

they use print based media and digital reading and writing at home”

EU High Level Group of Experts on literacy

Executive summary, September 2012: (9)

This recent European report has highlighted current discussion throughout

Europe in relation to levels of literacy amongst the population. The EU

executive summary on literacy in 2012 states that “one in five European fifteen-

year-olds lack the literacy skills required to successfully function in a modern

society” (p.6). The report suggests that the factors behind this are not

necessarily economic and that anyone who struggles with literacy can be

helped with the right support and help. One of the report’s recommendations

for adolescents is that literature teachers should provide increasingly diverse

reading material in class to provide motivation and digital reading should be part

of the norm in schools throughout Europe. Language and literature teachers

themselves should be trained to use more ICT skills in their classes (11).

This report is specifically based on speakers in their native language (L1). It

does not address students studying a second language (L2). However, it

follows that if there are problems with literacy levels at L1, and many students

struggle in this area it will have some bearing on learners at L2. When

considering adolescents who are learning English as a second language,

writing can be tiresome and uninspiring. It can be difficult for a teacher to find

appropriate activities that help to encourage students (Ss) towards reading and

especially writing, in class. For this reason it may be necessary to explore

different paths to the teaching of literacy. This dissertation will examine a

collaborative writing project between two groups of Catalan adolescent English

language students and their interaction in an online environment, a wiki.

Page 10: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! **!

1.1: Background

In Cataluña many Ss aim toward taking the Cambridge suite of exams,

specifically the First Certificate in English (FCE) and also the Certificate of

Advanced Exam (CAE). These exams can be key to their future as they

progress towards university education or employment. The exams are

comprehensive and cover a range of skills each given equal weighting. The

writing section of the exam has several styles of writing that need to be taught

for the student to be successful at this section of the exam. These styles can

range from a formal letter of application to a less formal magazine article and

each style has its own particular layout and specifications (appendix A).

Traditionally the teaching of writing in English in Spanish secondary schools as

well as in private language academies has been very paper based. It has

revolved around a student – teacher relationship. There is often no other

audience for student work. Teachers often mark, correct, make comments,

grade and return the paper to the student.

Many Spanish schools have recently updated their technology to include

interactive whiteboards (IWBs) with internet connection in classrooms. Some

schools also have school websites or portals with access for students and

teachers but on the whole this is usually for the purpose of storage of material,

grades and information, or for teacher – parent contact. Very few students

have had the experience of creating material online in their usual day-to-day

classes.

This study was conducted in a private English academy in Barcelona which

specialises in teaching English to young learners. The students who took part

in the project were from 13 to 16 years old and had a B1 level of English with

respect to the Common European Framework. This level is also defined as the

student being an “independent” user of the language (figure 1).

Page 11: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *"!

Figure 1. Stages in the CEF - Common European Framework. (Wikipedia, 2012)!

Typically Ss at this level will be aiming to take the FCE exam (upper B2 Level)

in two to three years time. Previous research at the centre had shown that

writing frequently scored lower than other areas and there was a need to

improve results in this area and to extend the teaching of writing to lower levels

and ages in preparation for these exams.

1.2: Rational

Ss at B1 level who aim to take recognised exams in English or to study or work

in an English speaking environment will need process writing skills for more

extended academic style texts. This requires process writing. However, it is

difficult to encourage process writing in teenage learners. Revision of errors

and rewriting of texts is unappealing unless there is a necessity for the

revisions, in that the final text will have some use other than to obtain a grade.

The fact is that often there is no audience for a final text which is produced by a

student other than a teacher. Furthermore recommendations for teachers from

the 2011 examiners report into examinees performance at FCE suggest that;

“Information about the target reader and the reason for writing is given in each

question to help the candidate, and this should be pointed out during classroom

preparation.”(p.9). Without an authentic audience for Ss writing, the notion of a

specific target reader may be difficult for Ss at a young age to conceptualise.

A wiki could be used to create a learning community for Ss aimed at improving

their written skills. A wiki may provide exposure for Ss writing and an audience

for student work who could “interact” with student created texts. In addition, the

main affordance of a wiki is built around the idea of group editing of documents.

In this way, wikis lend themselves to education and collaborative writing

Page 12: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *#!

projects. In the classroom wikis also allow for more scope than simple pen and

paper, they have the ability to extend communication outside the traditional

classroom walls and could allow communication between Ss in different

geographical areas thus providing a greater audience for work and a direct

necessity for written communication.

For teachers the availability of wikis in the classroom is a direct result

investment in ICT in the classroom. ICT has been heavily promoted in the

education of young learners in the belief that it is engaging and motivating for

them and will increase learning in the classroom. Indeed ICT, as the EU report

points out, is seen as a way to bridge the gap between adolescents real life

experiences and the classroom practices. In Spain this background has

resulted in many teachers being encouraged to include ICT into teaching, but

there is very little study into the effects of such policies with respect to

adolescents. Indeed, much of the research covering wikis and education have

focused on university adult students. There is very little research with respect

to adolescents and even less in the effect that using a wiki for the teaching of

writing would have in a L2 classroom.

1.3: Research aims

The aim of this research is to investigate the effect of using a wiki in the YL

classroom with regards to writing skills. In one sense a wiki could be used to

achieve a socially situated writing community. This community could be based

on the principles of intertexuality as defined by Myles (2002) and Storch (2011)

as a student created reading - writing message relationship. Therefore

intertexuality is the social nature of messages written and read by a specific

community. For an age group connected by social media, instant messenger

and text messages, intertextuality could be harnessed to provide a more

realistic context for writing and hence be more motivating and engaging for

teens.

In addition, a telecollabrative (Tc) writing project would possibly provide the

students with a genuine need for written communication and provide an ideal

Page 13: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *$!

platform for the instruction of writing extended texts. The ease of collaboration

and the editing function of wikis could possibly aid awareness of process writing

by providing a platform for the planning and revising of extended texts. In

editing for revision this could provide a greater awareness of grammar and

vocabulary (FoF) and content (FoM).

The research questions are therefore:

1. Will using a wiki as a tool to promote intertextuality with Catalan adolescents

learning English be successful?

2. Will using a wiki for a telecollaborative project aid the teaching of process

writing with Catalan adolescents learning English?

2: Literature review

Changes in the way we communicate through writing on a daily basis have

altered greatly with the advent of web 2.0. Interactivity with people posting

written content on the web for others to read, can be seen in the rise of blogs,

wikis, and social networking sites. At no other time in history has the written

word been so prolific and so public. Along with this there has been a growing

interest among educators to capture this phenomenon and exploit it in the

classroom. This review will specifically examine wikis and the affordances they

have for the second language (L2) classroom. As wikis are synonymous with

collaboration this review will look first at the history of collaboration in education

and SLA, after the approach to writing in the teaching of L2 and then the use of

wikis in the classroom. Finally, it will look at specific literature examining writing

with young learners in SLA.

Although the aim of the review is to gain insight into the teaching of teens

(adolescents aged13-17) in SLA, there is a lack of studies solely in this field and

as a result a number of resources and papers have been reviewed from

associated fields. Due to the difference in terminology within the papers,

teachers, instructors and educators will be referred to as teachers for the

purpose of this study.

Page 14: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *%!

2.1: Collaborative Learning in SLA: History and overview.

The notion of collaboration for educational purposes in general has seen a rise

in popularity in recent times. In more recent SLA literature this popularity is

often traced back to the ideas of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky, (Donato,

1994; Grant, 2009; Lee, 2008; Lund & Smordal, 2006; Kessler et al,

2012; Myles, 2002; Swain, 2010; Wheeler et al, 2008). Vygotsky speculated

that learning takes place when people construct meanings from the social

interactions around them and then internalise them (Matusov, 1998: 329).

Learning is therefore, socially situated in the first instance (figure 2).

Figure 2. Internalisation model of Development (Matusov, 1998: 329)

Page 15: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *&!

In addition, he proposed the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD), which he studied in children. Others have applied this idea to

adults “Vygotsky considered learning as a shared-joint process in a responsive

social context. In the Vygotskian framework, children are capable of far more

competent performance when they have proper assistance (scaffolded learning)

from adults.” (Gindus, 1999: 332).

In SLA these ideas have been explored by a number of researchers including

Donato (1994).. In his paper, “Collective Scaffolding in Second Language

Learning”, he described how, “the construct of L2 input and output in modified

interaction is the message model of communication. In this model, the goal of

conversational partners during a communicative event is the successful sending

and receiving of linguistic tokens”, (p.34). Here input can be defined as the

language the Ss receive and output is the language that Ss produce. This

study noted the verbal exchanges of 3 language students studying French. The

conclusions were that scaffolding in language learning could come not only

from the expert – novice model (teacher - student), but that more able partners

were capable of providing guided support to others. Donato used the

metaphor of scaffolding in SLA as a situation in which, “social interaction in a

knowledgeable participant can create, by means of speech, supportive

conditions in which the novice can participate in, and extend, current skills and

knowledge to higher levels of competence” (p.40). This is described as

“collective” scaffolding.

Swain in 2010 proposed that output is crucial in language acquisition as it

allows students to “notice gaps”. A message exchange must occur for students

to see a “hole” in their linguistic knowledge of L2 “as distinct from L1”; they then

recognise that they cannot express themselves fully at a particular moment in

time (p.100). As a result of this recognition of a gap, Ss must work hard to fill

these gaps as they build up their interlanguage. Interlanguage is defined by

Swain (2010) as being the student’s interpretation of L2 that the student adopts

before being a proficient, expert user. This will very often be an

approximation of L2 and it will preserve some features of L1.

Page 16: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *'!

Students will attempt to fill this gap by turning to an external resource e.g. a

book, a dictionary, a teacher, a peer and so on (p.100). Swain argues that

output therefore pushes the students to process language more deeply.

Swain also proposed that output can allow for “hypothesis” testing of the

language. Students can test their linguistic knowledge and errors which are

made by the students can help to negotiate internal understandings that the

students may have about how L2 functions. In this way students are actively

involved in problem solving with the language and verbalisation helps them to

internalise the language (p.109). Language related episodes or LREs (Swain,

2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2001), are when students take part in hypothesis testing

and pay attention to errors and discuss linguistic forms with peers or with

teachers. This can be seen as collaborative dialogue:

True language learning takes place during these as students can negotiate the

meaning, construct more accurate information and internalise

knowledge. LREs can take place in either L1 or L2. This type of interaction is

sometimes called metatalk, or metalinguistic analysis, and is seen as

collaborative peer scaffolding, and is interpreted as ZDP in action. (Chong &

Saeidi, 2005; Guerrero & Villamil, 2000). Some research points out however

that a certain linguistic level is needed for this and that while peer scaffolding

does take place, not all LREs result in accuracy (de la Carolina & Garcia Mayo,

2007; Kessler et al 2012).

A: You understand? You shouldn’t write I didn’t. You should write I did not. You can check in a

book and you’ll find no contractions.

B: Yeah, but if I write it like that, I find it somewhat,

I don’t know, unnatural (Guerrero & Villamil, 2000. P.57)

!

Page 17: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *(!

2.2: Writing in the L2 classroom.

Since the 70s current trends CLT - communicative language teaching - have

resulted in the popularity of pair work and group work in the L2 classroom. CLT

is based on communicative principles: “That is, language is seen as a social

tool that speakers use to make meaning; speakers communicate about

something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing.” (Savignon

& Savignon, 1983: 6)

However, as the previous quote implies, the focus on pair and group work has

usually been on speaking. Some authors believe that this is the result of

previous ideology in linguistics, which viewed the skill of writing as secondary to

speaking in communication and linguistic ability (Storch, 2011: 276; Harkau,

2002: 332). This ideology held that writing was not part of the internal language

system and that it was a relatively recent invention for “recording and

broadcasting what is spoken”. Therefore writing only encoded spoken

language and was not a form of communication in its own right (Harkau, 2002:

332). Harkau offers evidence of this influence; “Larsen – Freeman & Long’s

(1991) comprehensive overview of second language acquisition (which)

contains no explicit references to the effects of modality and its index includes

no mention of literacy, reading, writing or text.” (p.335).

Writing, it can be argued is socially situated (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Lee, 2010 a;

Mak & Coniam, 2008). As a result of developments in new technologies

through the reading and writing of texts - literacy - a “textual community” is

created which demands specific cognitive and linguistic skills. With the advent

of new technologies communication is now multimodal and a new notion of

“multiliteracies”, better describes the social communicative processes of today

(Harkau, 2002: 335). As such, writing should now stand “on equal footing with

face-to-face interaction as a “semiotic activity””. (Harkau, 2002: 341).

Page 18: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! *)!

Harkau (2002) claims we need to expand our idea of what constitutes writing in

the L2 classroom. There is a general tendency to define “writing” in L2 as

academic based (p.342). Educational establishments and the testing of L2

have given prominence to formal extended compositions. As an example,

Cambridge First Certificate (FCE) is a popular English exam popular with

teenagers in Spain. The writing section of the test consists of a report, an

essay, a formal letter, an informal letter, an article, a story and a book report. In

general and with respect to young learners (YLs), these extended texts are

what language Ss in Spain tend to regard as the “writing” component in English

L2 lessons.

Academic writing adds to the cognitive load on the L2 student. Students not

only have to process linguistic information in L2 for output but also academic

writing constraints, both linguistic and cultural that must be adhered

to. Appropriate register forms a large part of these constraints. At FCE level,

Ss can lose marks in exams for the use of inappropriate register in writing.

Register is defined as “the act of adjusting something to a standard”

(www.visuwords.com). The concept of “appropriate register” means that L2

students must also gauge their vocabulary and grammar choices to particular

specifications. (Harkau, 2002: 338). In addition, the style of academic writing

may also differ culturally. L2 learners when writing must also cognitively

exchange the writing preferences and requirements of L1 for L2 (Myles, 2002).

The method of creating formal written texts is complex and L1 students often

follow a specific process when constructing a text. This is known as “process

writing” where students plan, write, revise, rewrite, proofread and redraft a text

before arriving at a final copy. This involves a sophisticated level of text

analysis. Process writing is essentially an L1 skill that has been brought into

the L2 classroom. Process writing may be effective in the teaching of writing to

L2 students but if L2 writers’ linguistic abilities limit what they can do and if the

L2 linguistic level is not high enough, then teachers need to combine both

process instruction and attention to language development (Myles, 2002).

Page 19: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "+!

Producing L2, written or spoken, is cognitively complex as students are

consciously processing multiple factors. The result of this is that “in terms of

language production or comprehension learners must prioritise where they

allocate their attention, to form or meaning” (Serrano, 2007: 20). As a result,

when students verbally interact with peers, they have little time to reflect or plan

and as a result focus on meaning - FoM, takes over at the expense of focus on

form - FoF (McDonough, 2004; Swain, 2010). Often teachers and students feel

that with the speed of speaking accuracy is lost as students prioritise social

interaction and so focus on speed of fluency and content (McDonough,

2004). This contrasts with the time that is available when students write; they

have more time to plan and reflect on the language. (Harkau, 2002). As in

process writing, with more available time Ss can notice the gaps in their

knowledge, reflect on errors and give more time to FoF. In addition, without any

error analysis it is possible that fossilization of errors will occur whereby errors

become ingrained and continually appear despite correction (Myles, 2002).

Writing, however, does not only occur in formal contexts. Multiliteracies also

include short communicative texts e.g. emails and text (SMS) messages, and

students are often involved in these communicative exchanges in their daily

lives (Harkau 2002: 344). Practice in many alternative styles of writing is seen

as valid instruction (Myles, 2002) and repetition and practice is seen as key to

students’ improvement (Serrano, 2007). Students’ messages to peers in the L2

class and peer comments on students’ work may also contribute to Ss level of

literacy in both reading and writing. This student created reading - writing

message relationship is called intertextuality. (Myles, 2002; Storch, 2011)

Intertextuality is the result of cooperation by peers in L2 language

learning. This message relationship is more akin to Ss everyday use of

technology which is often used to connect with each other. Messaging has it’s

own conventions and while these are separate from the conventions of

academic writing they are often easier for YLs to construct.

Page 20: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "*!

Intertexuality is distinct from collaborative writing (CW) which is, “the joint

production or the co-authoring of a text by two or more writers”, here it is

important to note that joint production also means joint ownership (Storch 2011:

275). What collaborative writing may offer in the L2 classroom is to lessen the

cognitive load on students. In the study of writing extended academic texts Ss

may be able to jointly negotiate meaning and be able to produce more as a

group than individually by utilizing ZPD (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009).

2.3: Wikis for collaborative writing in L2

The first documented use of a wiki to be used in education was in late 1997

when CoWeb was developed by the Institute of Technology in Georgia. Since

then wikis have been used mainly in Higher Education (Forte & Bruckman,

2007: 33). Wikis are online applications which contain editable pages, the most

recognised of these being Wikipedia. Content within a wiki page can be

hyperlinked to other wiki pages, and to the Internet in general. Within the wiki

pages multimedia files can easily be uploaded or linked. Wikis can be classed

as open, as in available to all the public, or closed and password

protected. The word “community” is often associated with wikis because people

contribute and edit pages and pool their knowledge together.

What makes wikis useful from a SLA and collaborative writing point of view is

that pages can be added to, changed and deleted by many people, and all

these changes are logged (Lee, 2010 a). This means that changes are

transparent and allow for teachers to easily track edits made by Ss when writing

texts. (Coniam & Kit, 2008; Lee, 2010 a).

Page 21: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ""!

Figure 3. Conceptual model of wiki-based collaborative process writing

pedagogy (Li et al, 2012: 162)

Wikis seem to be ideal for collaborative writing in education (figure 3). Despite

the theoretical background which suggests collaborative work within a wiki

would have benefits, there are problems however which arise, and wikis do not

always guarantee genuine collaboration. In the reality of the classroom it can

be argued that it is not always inherently natural for students to collaborate with

their peers. (Lee, 2010 a; Lund, 2008; Kessler et al, 2012; Wang, 2009).

There is polarity between the individual and the collective. Formal education is

marked by exams and individual grades ranking students and thereby creating

Page 22: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "#!

a competitive environment (Grant, 2009; Lund & Smordal, 2006; Wheeler et al,

2008). Evidence would suggest that for collaboration in a wiki to succeed,

students must sacrifice the individual to the collective.

There has to be an epistemological shift within not only the students but also

the teachers if a collaborative task is to be successful. Simply reproducing the

traditional school formula directly into a collaborative wiki project will not likely

succeed in collaborative learning (Forte & Bruckman, 2007; Grant, 2009; Lund

& Smordal, 2006). Research points to the fact that students must be primed

first before the task takes place. It may be necessary for teachers to discuss

beforehand with students how they should approach collaborative learning

(Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Kessler et al, 2012; Wheeler et al, 2008). In

addition they should be coached in specific skills that are needed for

collaborative work and in some cases presented with models to follow (Coniam

& Kit, 2008; Grant, 2009; Lee, 2010 a; Wang, 2009; Wheeler et al, 2008).

A wiki however could also provide a platform to display student work and

provide an authentic audience where student writing can be viewed by

others, (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Lee, 2010 a; Mak & Coniam, 2008). An

authentic audience, public or otherwise, for student produced writing has been

shown to prove positive for students’ motivation. Self-correction and more

attention to content in creating reader focused texts are often noted However

in some cases, with younger students, it was noted that an eternal audience

was less important. It was the teacher who was the most important audience

and in a secondary school setting this was seen to be due to student concerns

over grades (Grant, 2009). Elsewhere in the literature higher-level students,

while also concerned about grades, were observed being more motivated to

write well when they knew their peers would be reading (Kuteeva, 2011; Lee,

2010 b). It is worth noting that in a few cases where the wiki was an open one,

viewable by the public, there were teacher concerns over student postings

(Forte & Bruckman, 2007; Wheeler et al, 2008)

Page 23: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "$!

An affordance of a wiki is that the writer, and the audience, can edit and add

comments to any work that is posted. In the case of peer comments on work

students’ reactions were mixed. Some studies reported that peer feedback was

positive and helped students to revise and improve their work (Kessler &

Bikowski, 2010; Kuteeva, 2011). However, student reaction to peer feedback

was not always welcome (Grant, 2009). In some studies it was speculated that

students see commenting and correcting errors within texts as the teacher’s

“job” (Coniam & Kit, 2008; Lee, 2010 a). Often students were simply not

comfortable or secure enough in their own linguistic ability to comment critically

on each other’s work and were uncomfortable doing so (Lee, 2010 a; Lee, 2010

b). Wheeler et al, (2008) point out that, unlike Wikipedia where editing

another’s writing is accepted, the writer / editor relationship is anonymous. This

contrasts with an educational setting where students in class know each other

and are involved in a learning community. A sense of “ownership” still prevails

and they are resistant to having their work altered by others (p.992). From the

opposite perspective students may also be wary of interfering with other

students’ work in order to avoid confrontation (Grant, 2009; Lee, 2010 a).

When students do peer edit studies have found that the nature of the edits can

differ. On the whole the edits are those that are the least invasive. Kessler

(2009) found that common changes in collaborative texts were word choice and

spelling (p. 85) and that students working in a wiki, as mentioned previously,

seemed to value FoM over FoF. This is at odds with other theories in

collaborative writing in the previous section where it was felt discussed that

writing would offer more time for students to be able to FoF. Often they

overlooked small grammar errors if they did not interfere with the overall

meaning. Mak & Coniam, (2008) found that students mostly added ideas to a

text and correcting grammatical errors was the least editorial change

(pg.451). Kessler et al (2012) reported that more text was added than deleted

(57%) and less was deleted (29%) than replaced (14%) (p.97). In some cases

Ss were motivated to individually FoF in their own writing but were unconcerned

about FoF in partners’ writing (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Kuteeva, 2011)

Page 24: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "%!

2.4: Wikis in the teaching of YLs in SLA

Most of the focus of the papers are university students and adults. However,

unlike adults teens are immersed in a very controlled school system. The

physiological makeup and the levels of maturity of teens are also somewhat

different to adults. In teenage years students are often working to “define who

they are and are acutely aware of the value of online self-presentation and

promotion among their peers” (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009: 136). Here we will

look at two papers dealing specifically with young learners and SLA.

Dooly (2011) observed a telecollaboration project with two groups of pre-teens

(10-11 year olds) from different countries (Spain and Czech) working on a joint

collaborative writing project. Dooly found that the move from a classroom

controlled environment to a more open environment in a wiki resulted in teacher

perceptions of students being mainly “off task”. Examination of students

however found that students were reading and producing the target language

but not within the bounds defined by the teacher. There was a gap therefore

“between the task-as-workplan, as conceived by the teacher and the task- as-

process, as interpreted and put into play by the students.” (p.85).

Lund and Smordal (2006) studied a collaborative writing project with upper

teens (17 year olds) studying English in an Upper Secondary School in

Norway. The task was for the students to collaborate on two writing projects in

a wiki. Each student had access to a laptop with internet connection and the

school had a policy of actively promoting group work. Despite this background,

the notion of joint ownership of work was difficult for the students to conceive

and students were reluctant to interfere with “somebody else’s

material”. Students were shown to have engaged with the project and

contributed out of school time although learners preferred “to go on creating

extensions indefinitely at the expense of rewriting, improving and editing one’s

own or a classmate’s contribution.” When edits were occasionally made they

were on FoF, and not FoM (p.41).

Page 25: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "&!

2.5: Conclusion

In general the literature is positive in the use of wikis in CW in SLA. However

there are many drawbacks and contractions between the expectations of the

teacher and the reality of the task in progress and the result. There are

challenges in that the expectations of the student may not be in line with the

task, or the expectations of the teacher. With the lack of studies specifically

concerned with young learners it is not clear what would be needed in order to

create an online environment that would encourage them to participate in CW in

a wiki.

As scaffolding and LREs in a large part of collaborative work in L2 it is not

known if students of this age would be engaged and benefit from peer

scaffolding. In the same vein, it is unclear if they could be guided to process

write and peer edit and benefit from peer error correction. Furthermore it is not

known if providing an audience for their work, which peers could then interact

with - intertextuality – would be engaging for the students.

3: Methodology

3.1 Action Research

This research is the result of the second cycle in a sequence of action research

(figure 4). Action research is participatory research where the researcher’s role

is seen as “facilitator, guide, formulator and summarizer of knowledge” (Cohen

et al, 2007: 301). Being cyclical and responsive in nature action research allows

for a previous pilot study to be seen as cycle 1, informing revisions for the

dissertation study, noted as cycle 2. The researcher was therefore embedded

in the research and facilitated the project.

Page 26: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "'!

Figure 4. Action research cycle (O’brien, 2001)

3.1.2: Cycle 1 and cycle 2: Action research.

!• The participants in cycle 1 reacted negatively to homework given online.

Therefore for cycle 2, all work was done onsite.

• As a result of cycle 1, a colour code for corrections was created. It was

found that the task of error correction without guidance in the form of

coloured highlights was cognitively too complex for the Ss linguistic

ability. (Appendix B)

• In cycle 1 computer access was limited and the “gap” times between the

different stages of the project were long and this had a negative impact

on student involvement.

• A layered marking scheme for the project, grading individual

performance and group contributions, was conceived in cycle one. In

this context however it was found to be redundant.

• A pre-course survey was developed as a result of the piloting of the

student survey. Cycle 1 had only one post course student survey.

However it was decided that a pre course survey would better illustrate

Ss backgrounds and experiences as they entered the project.

Page 27: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! "(!

• Cycle 1 involved only one teacher. Four teachers however were

involved in cycle 2 and all teachers had access to the wiki. In addition

teachers used the wiki in varying ways, from recording class information

to storing Ss work.

3.1.3: The participants:

A pre-course survey was conducted to gain some insight into the Ss

experiences and perceptions about a number of factors that would be involved

in the project. From this survey it transpired that Ss previous experience in

different styles of writing (formal letters, reports, essays, stories etc.) was

limited. When students completed written work it was generally the teacher

who made corrections on their work. However, some Ss had had experience of

teachers pointing out errors and Ss using this as a guide to self correct. All

students believed that student conducted error correction had validity for their

learning. In general Ss had little experience of having an authentic audience for

their written work which, one the whole, tended to be student – teacher based.

One student had previous experience working in a wiki for a French class,

although there are no details of what that experience was and whether it

involved Ss content creation. Despite the fact that many students had heard of

wikis, roughly only half had used them in school. However, this use was for

“searching for information”, leading to the conclusion that this may have been

research conducted on Wikipedia. Roughly only half of the Ss involved in this

study had done a collaborative writing project before in English. (Appendix D)

Page 28: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ")!

Table 1. Differences between cycle one and cycle two of action research:

Variables Cycle 1 - Pilot Cycle 2 - Research

Sample number 28

Class A - 13 students

Class B - 15 students

20

Class A - 10 students

Class B - 10 student

Age range of students ____________________ Male to Female ratio

Class A - 14 -15

(average)

Class B - 14 -15

(average)

____________________

12:16

Class A - 14 - 15

(average)

Class B - 13 – 14

(average)

____________________

11:9

Class frequency 3 hours / week

1 class / week

October – June

9 months

4 hours / day

5 classes / week

June – July

1 month

• Computer room

with internet

connection – 7

terminals.

• Limited access.

Access

timetabled- 2

slots/ per month.

• 30 minute slots

• Computer room

with internet

connection – 7

terminals

• Unlimited access.

Not timetabled -

available at any

time.

• 30 minute slots

Teacher Class A -1 teacher

Class B - 1 teacher

Class A – 2 teachers

Class B – 2 teachers

Total number of teachers involved

1 teacher 4 teachers

Page 29: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #+!

3.1.4: The project:

The project was conducted during an intensive course with Catalan teenagers

studying English. Four teachers were administrators on the wiki. Along with the

Tc project the wiki was used for recording lesson plans and homework and the

showcasing of Ss individual written work (figure 5).

Figure 5. PBworks: The wiki front page

Two teachers and their classes were involved in the Tc writing project and were

designated class A (blue class) and class B (red class). For the Tc project, five

groups were created with two Ss from each class in each one of the groups

(figure 6). There was some degree of familiarity between all participants being

in close proximity and being on the same intensive course. PBworks was the

chosen platform and from the outset, Ss were given an induction into managing

their profile and using the wiki.

Page 30: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #*!

Figure 6. Stages and groupings of the TC project.

To prepare Ss for the notion of interaction with texts and having an authentic

audiences for their work, a pre - collaborative task was introduced (topic: About

me - an individual writing task where Ss wrote a descriptive personal profile).

This was conducted separately in the respective classes. To engage with the

texts Ss were instructed to read other Ss introductory pages and add peer

comments using the “comment” function at the bottom of the wiki page. The

comment function is not editable.

Page 31: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #"!

Table 2. Information given to Ss for the project.

Article Essay (for and against)

Reader Someone buying a magazine

- It must be interesting and

easy to read. A less formal

style is needed

Someone who wants

information about a topic. It

must have fact about the

topic. These facts must be

positive and negative

(objective). A more formal

style is needed.

1st paragraph

Introduction: Questions and

interesting information in the

introduction can motivate the

reader to continue. it has

to be entertaining.

Introduction: An introduction

about the topic - general

"background " information

2nd paragraph

This should be an

introduction that explains

your topic on a basic level.

This should provide the

positive ideas about your

topic.

3rd paragraph

This should provide more

information about the subject

of the article

This should provide negative

ideas about your topic

4th paragraph

Conclusion - Here you

should give a summery and

a personal opinion about the

topic

Conclusion - Here you

should give a summery and

a personal opinion about the

topic.

More information.

CHECK PAGE 13 IN YOUR

STUDENT BOOK FOR

MORE INFORMATION

CHECK PAGE 63 / 64 IN

YOUR STUDENT BOOK

FOR MORE INFORMATION

HInts Hint: use adjectives to make

your writing more interesting

Hint: use facts to make your

writing more interesting to

the reader.

Page 32: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ##!

The aim of the Tc project was to create a student magazine written by groups

made up from the two classes. From the student content produced in the wiki a

hardcopy copy of the project was to be printed and made available on

completion. The Tc project was highly structured and Ss were asked to write

within the theme of the “Environment”. This was in part to recycle vocabulary

that had been taught in the book, with the additional rationale that it is a

popular topic in FCE exams. Ss were given models and information regarding

a discursive essay and a magazine article to provide choices for the style of

their writing. These were based on content from the text book (table 2).

The participants were first introduced to the theme and given a timeline of

events. Pairs were then assigned by the teachers from the two groups and

asked to negotiate collaboratively in order to chose a topic and decide who

would write individual paragraphs.

Time constraints meant that Group A was asked to choose from the first two

paragraphs and Group B from the second (table 2). Ss worked in pairs in their

respective classes but group work was conducted through the wiki. In this way

a combination of F2F(face to face) and CMC (computer mediated

communication) was employed for different stages within the project.

In class, Ss were given the pre task of a model error correction exercise

(Appendix E). After negotiation in groups, Ss then wrote individual parts and

added their individual contribution to the groups’ wiki page. Ts checked these

texts for errors which were highlighted using a colour code system (appendix

A). Class A performed the first round of error correction working in pairs on a

shared terminal. The unresolved errors were again highlighted by the T and

class B then completed a second round of error corrections.

Ss written content for negotiation and post editing comments were not checked

for errors and no emphasis was placed on accuracy for these exchanges. The

final versions of the texts were formatted and images added for the final copy.

The students were then encouraged to read the final copies of their peers’ texts

Page 33: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #$!

online in the wiki and to add personal comments about each others work in the

comment box. No homework was given to the students and all activities were

completed within the allocated time in the class or the computer room.

In addition to this research project, Class A was also among a number of other

classes from the intensive program at the academy to be included in an on-

going study funded by the Spanish government and conducted at the

Universitat de Barcelona. As part of this study they were given pre and post

course level tests in speaking / reading / writing and listening. The results of the

pre writing tests and post writing tests are included in this study by kind

permission of the principal researcher R. Serrano.2 This set of data is inclusive

of nine Ss from class A. It needs to be noted that Class B was not involved in

this particular study.

3.1.5: Ethics and project design:

!Given the age of the participants and the lack of research with this age group

within the literature it was important to consider the responsibilities that are

involved when teaching adolescents. These can be very different from those

involved in teaching university Ss or in adult education. With regard to

adolescents, Greenhow & Robelia maintain that “educators must help students

enact legal, ethical, responsible, safe, and advantageous online community

practices” (2009: 136).

For this to take place the project was informed by the work of McMillian and

Chavis in 1986 who developed a descriptive analysis of Sense of Community

(SOC), which was built upon by Wright (2004: 12) and further expanded to

include online communities (Koh & Kim 2003).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"! Universitat de Barcelona, Departament de Filologia Anglesa i Alemanya. Title: Adquisicion del ingles a diferentes edades en contextos de exposicion intensiva extraescolar y escolar. Principal Investigator: Raquel Serrano Other Researchers: Elsa Tragant, Àngels Llanes, and Anna Marsol Reference: FFI2010-18006 !!

Page 34: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #%!

These concepts are known as Sense of Virtual Community (SOVC) and are

defined by:

1. Membership—people experience feelings of belonging to their virtual

community

2. Influence—people influence other members of their community

3. Immersion—people feel the state of flow during virtual community

navigation.” (Koh & Kim 2003: 77)

Additional concepts are:

a. Boundaries

b. Emotional safety

c. A sense of belonging and identification

d. Personal investment

e. A common symbol system

Koh & Kim maintain that membership to a virtual learning community was

“significantly affected by 1. leaders’ enthusiasm, 2. off-line activities and 3.

enjoyability”. (2003: 86).

In order to facilitate this and to ensure safe practice a number of steps were

taken.

• The notion of writing online and the responsibilities and consequences

that entails were discussed in class F2F. A “Code of Practice” outlining

guidelines for working within the wiki was discussed and signed by all Ss.

• Ss were encouraged to upload an icon to the wiki in order for

personalisation to take place and to encourage collective ownership of

the space.

• Special attention was paid to The British Council guidelines on social

networking (based on Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU )

with the aim of reducing risk, ie. bullying or abuse. The students were

instructed to set their controls in their private pbworks account to ensure

their individual email addresses (private contact details) were hidden.

Page 35: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #&!

• The dialogue and interaction online were closely monitored by the

teachers involved.

• Ss were encouraged to follow up on messages and postings that other

students had left.

• The wiki was “closed” and password protected. Students were given

writer status, four teachers had administration rights and two senior

teachers had access.

3.2: Data Collection !Action research can be vulnerable to the subjectivity of the researcher and in

order to achieve objectivity triangulation of data collection was employed. In

addition a blend of both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods

were used as this would also enable more objective results (Nigas, 2000). The

data collection consisted of:

• A survey for Ss perceptions (pre and post course).

• Content analysis on the written output of the students during the Tc

project.

• Tabulation of discrete data on the editing process (peer error correction)

of written work produced for the Tc writing project.

• A post course interview with the teacher of class B.

• Observations of critical incidences that occurred during the project.

Although the sample size was small the researcher, as the teacher of class A

and facilitator of the project, had total access to the data. As a result it was

possible to gain 100% coverage of the sample. Due to the age of the

participants much of the methodology of the data collection was built around

anonymity to protect the identity of the participants.

3.2.1: Participant survey

!Student perceptions were collected to enhance “reflexivity” within the research.

This was to enable the participants to have a voice and thereby aspire to a

more democratic viewpoint of the study (Cohen et al, 2007: 310). Data was

Page 36: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #'!

collected via an online self completion survey tool (Survey Monkey). This

online tool was chosen over interviews or paper questionnaires as this format

has been seen to promote more honest responses. (Randolph, 2008: 75) In

addition the researcher deemed a self completion survey to be less intrusive

than paper questionnaires as it could be undertaken anonymously within class

time and with the minimum of disruption to the class.

The design of the pre and post course questionnaires were based on numerical

strategies and closed questions with occasional open questions for added

insight. An online survey was chosen in order to aid anonymity and for ease

and speed of response. The survey was conducted in English (L2) and closed

questions have the added advantage that they “do not discriminate unduly on

the basis of how articulate respondents are” (Cohen et al, 2007: 321). In

addition the questions allowed for a fusion of quantitative and qualitative

measurement (Cohen et al, 2007: 321). Open questions were used sparingly

to add optional information but they were kept to a minimum as they take more

time and respondents may not have the linguistic knowledge to express their

ideas (Cohen et al, 2007: 331). The language was framed in structures that Ss

would be familiar with (table 2). Note that the responses from the participants to

the open questions have been reproduced entirely, thus there are errors in

grammar and vocabulary in the text of this data.

Both surveys - pre and post course - were designed to take ± 10 minutes to

complete and participation was optional. Within the survey all questions were

also optional. For this reason the data for the survey does not have 100%

coverage. However, response levels were high and coverage could be seen to

be inclusive.

During adolescence, a small difference in age can lead to a difference of

perception and understanding. Classes A and B were formed on the basis of

age with class A having a older profile (average 14 - 15 years) than class B

(average 13 - 14 years). Thus, although the same survey was given to both

classes the results were tabulated separately to detect whether the age of the

respondents affected response.

Page 37: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #(!

After a pilot of the original survey in cycle 1, the survey was revised and a pre

and post course survey designed for cycle 2 (see 3.1.2.). A number of

numerical methods were used for questions which were set out either

individually or in a matrix format. The questions were comprised of:

1. Rating scales

2. Likert scales

3. Dichotomous questions

4. Open questions

Although every effort was made to make the survey as clear as possible

linguistically for the Ss to understand (table 2), there is the possibility that the

wording or layout could have been confusing. Moreover, there is the danger

that the respondents may not have interpreted the questions or scales as they

had been intended. In addition there were open questions for the Ss to add

more information. The language used was L2 and respondents were directed

to answer open questions in L2. Ss may therefore, not have been able to

express themselves as fully in L2 as they would have done using L1.

Table 3. Vocabulary used for Likert scales.

Likert scale

Never Hardly

ever

Sometimes Usually Always

Likert Scale

I really

don’t like

it

I don’t

like it

It’s ok I like it I really

like it

Likert scale

I learn a

lot

I learn

some

I learn a

little

I don’t

learn

anything.

Page 38: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! #)!

3.2.2: Content Analysis

Content analysis is regarded as a useful research technique for “making

replicable and valid inferences from texts to the contents of their use” (Cohen et

al, 2007: 475). Content analysis can be described as an “unobtrusive technique

that focuses on the language and linguistic features”, (Cohen et al, 2007: 477).

For the coding, text was broken down into units of analysis, these were blocks

of words which were separated into language functions (appendix F). The

frequency of these blocks were then measured with word counts and the

correlation between them was interpreted in a pie chart.

Reliability here may have been compromised in the researchers’ interpretation

of the text. This is known as witting and unwitting evidence: “witting, is that

which was intended to be imparted; unwitting evidence is that which can be

inferred from the text, and which may not be intended by the imparter.” (Cohen

et al, 2007: 490). Vocabulary may also be interpreted differently and this may

have affected Ss understanding of the questions (appendix G).

3.2.3: Qualitative analysis of peer error correction

Discrete data was taken from the texts which had been created in the wiki using

the page history function. The frequency of errors was calculated with the types

of error as variables.

• Round 1 – Group A - Total number of highlighted errors = number of

correct peer corrections + number of incorrect peer errors + number of

unresolved errors (errors which remained the same and were not altered

by the student)

• Round 2 - Group B - Total number of highlighted errors = number of

correct peer corrections + number of incorrect peer errors + number of

unresolved errors (errors which remained the same and were not altered

by the student)

• Final numbers of unresolved errors remaining.

Page 39: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $+!

Variables were the types of errors which were categorised and colour coded.

The raw data Is included in the study (appendix C)

These results were then also cross tabulated to achieve a comparison between

classes A and B). This data was then represented graphically within a bar chart

and pie chart using Excel for ease of interpretation.

Reliability with this data collection could have been affected by human error

during the collection of this data through the page history functions and the

comparisons of texts at various stages. Also, there were certain anomalies that

occurred between the texts when a correction from class A, round 1, altered

meaning and then created different errors in round 2 (appendix C). There was

no measurement of complexity of errors.

3.2.4: Observations and Interview:

In action research, researchers are both participants and practitioners. They

are part of the social world they are studying (Cohen et al, 2007: 310). In cycle

1, no other teachers were involved with the project. In cycle 2 however, the two

classes had four separate teachers, two of which were involved in the Tc

project; the researcher (class A), plus one other T (class B). A semi structured

interview was conducted post course with the teacher of class B to collect T

observations of class B . This data was also sought to gain a balanced

understanding of the project and allow for internal validity of the results. The

interview was recorded and transcribed (appendix H).

From this interview as well as from the content analysis, observations were

made for critical incidences. This was in order to gather “live” data which was

socially situated and experienced first hand. Reporting of these occurrences

was under the premise that “Sometimes one event can occur which reveals an

extremely important insight into a person or situation” (Cohen et al, 2007: 404).

3.2.5: Validity

This is a small scale study and as action research it was conducted in a very

socially situated context. This should not be seen as research into the reaction

Page 40: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $*!

of adolescents to collaborative writing in a wiki as a whole, but rather as a

description of the affects of this project with a specific set of participants at a

particular point in time. This can be vulnerable to change as changes because

availability and prior knowledge to technology amongst adolescents is rapidly

changing. In addition culturally accepted practices with technology and

exposure to technology can alter greatly amongst different cultural

communities.

In addition while the researcher has made every effort to be objectively factual,

there may be times when bias may have altered findings. To facilitate a more

objective vision a blend of qualitative and quantitative methods of data

collection were employed and internal validity sought with a peer interview. It is

however, entirely possible that some things have been overlooked and some

readings misinterpreted.

All data have been anonymised and stored in a data base for later checks.

3.2.6: Limitations

This study was designed to examine the effects of using a wiki for collaborative

writing with adolescents and the potential of using wikis for peer scaffolding. It

is not within the scope of this study to ascertain whether students would

progress more in their level of writing using wikis as opposed to using other

online platforms or indeed more “pen and paper” styles of teaching.

3.2.7: Ethics

As noted the project was set up with particular attention paid to facilitating safe

working practices for communication on line (see 3.1.5). Anonymity for

participants and lack of obstruction into the natural rhythm of the class was

central in the choosing of the data collection and analysis methods. The study

was conducted with the full knowledge and support of the teaching centre and

in accordance to the teaching centre policy in data protection and the wiki will

be destroyed after 6 months. Also in agreement with the teaching centre no

identifiable student writing from the project has been used in this dissertation.

The researcher received permission from the interviewee for the full use of this

interview in this study.

Page 41: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $"!

4: Findings

4.1: Participant Survey. !In both the pre course and post course survey the students were questioned on

their perception of the level of difficulty within the various aspects of studying

English. The variables were:

a. speaking; b. grammar; c. vocabulary; d. writing; e. listening and f. reading.

The pre course survey (figure 7), shows that speaking is the seen as the most

difficult for Class A whereas grammar was on the whole, the most difficult for

Class B. With a ranking scale of 1 being for the easiest, and 6 for the most

difficult, mean values were calculated. In general, for both classes writing

scored a mark of ± 3 in the pre course survey. Post course data demonstrated

that this level dropped to ± 2.5 (figure 8), showing a general perception of

writing as being less difficult than previously thought. In group A writing

dropped to least difficult of all at the expense of grammar which increased in

value. This is in contrast to class B where grammar remained constant. Levels

for vocabulary remained constant in both classes with class A showing ± 2.75

and class B showing ± 2.5.

Figure 7. Perceived level of difficulty in various aspects of English pre course.

Class A Class B

Question: In your English studies what is the easiest (1) to the most difficult (6)

for you? Put them in order.

Variables:

a. speaking; b. grammar; c. vocabulary; d. writing; e. listening and f. reading

Page 42: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $#!

Figure 8. Perceived level of difficulty in various aspects of English post course:

Class A Class B

Question: Have your ideas changed? Now at the end of the what is the easiest

(1) to the most difficult (6) for you? Put them in order.

Variables:

a. speaking; b. grammar; c. vocabulary; d. writing; e. listening and f. reading

At the end of the course the students were asked to evaluate their individual

progress in writing. All students perceived some progress made in their level of

writing (figure 9).

Figure 9. Ss’ thoughts on individual progress made in writing during the course.

Class A Class B

Question: Do you think your writing has improved during the course?

Variables: Yes, a lot – Yes, some – Yes, a little - No

Page 43: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $$!

On the whole, students’ reactions to having an audience for their written work

were generally positive. However, some Ss were also a little ambivalent (it’s

OK) about having an audience. (figure 10).

Figure 10. Ss’ reactions to having an authentic audience for their work with

colour key.

Colour key

Class A Class B

Column 1 shows the Ss’ reactions having an audience for their written work.

Column 2 shows Ss’ reactions to receiving peer comments on their written

work.

Ss were also asked about their thoughts on reading other students’ work. This

also produced a more positive result indicating that Ss enjoyed reading their

peers’ work more than having their own work read (figure 11). This could

indicate the acute awareness of self presentation that is noted with this age

group (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009).

Page 44: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $%!

Open questions were also asked here to give further insight (see the box

below). Note that in reporting these data, the comments have not been divided

in to classes (A and B). For a full representation of this data see appendix 8.

Open question:

This self awareness could also account for the differences in the attitude to

leaving comments for their peers. This evidence proves to be more mixed. It

is important also to note that there are a mix of ages here with some Ss as

young as 13 in class B and some Ss as old as 16 in class A. The variation in

data could have been a result of the combination of different age groups and

differing levels of maturity within the sample.

• In the wiki do you like it when other people read and comment on your written work?

• Well, depending. I've I had done a good work yes, but if not no. I like reading their comments.

!!

Page 45: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $&!

Figure 11. Ss’ reactions to reading and commenting on peer written work in the

wiki, with colour key for variables.

Colour key.

Class A Class B

Column 1 shows Ss’ reactions to reading peer work.

Column 2 shows Ss’ reactions to leaving comments on their peers’ written work.

Open question:

!• In the wiki do you like it when you read and

comment on other student’s work?

• I like reading other students work, because reading it I learn other styles of writting. I also like congratulating them or saying what I don't like about their work.

• because the other people can know the opinion

• I don't like making comments.

!

Page 46: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $'!

Generally speaking, Ss were positive about when asked about working

asynchronously with each other (figure 12). More negative responses were

recorded in Class B which also had a younger profile. One limitation of the

study was that some of the students involved knew each other outside the class

and the classes were geographically close (see 3.1.4). As a result this may

have altered the dynamic of necessity of need for communication using the wiki

as a medium.

In addition, an open question was also included for more information. From

these answers there is an indication that “meeting others” was a significant

motivating factor for their involvement.

Figure 12. Ss’ thoughts on working with another class asynchronously for the

Tc writing project.

Class A Class B

Question – For the environment project did you enjoy working with students

from the other class in the wiki?

Variables: Yes – No – Don’t know

Page 47: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $(!

Open question:

Questions were also included with the object of gaining insight into Ss attitudes

towards the peer correction of errors. In the pre course survey all Ss felt that

correcting and revising errors in their written work had educational value for

them (appendix D). In the post course survey questions were prompted to give

a value to peer corrections (figures 13 & 14).

• What did you think about What did you think

about working with other students in the other class during "The Environment" project?

• I think it's really interesting meet new people and see the way to write from the other people.

• Is a good way to know people and to work as a group

• It's a good idea, because you can know how the other students work!

• I think we did good work with them.

Page 48: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! $)!

Figure 13. Ss’ perceptions of how much they learn by correcting other Ss’ work.

Class A Class B

Question: How much do you think you learn from correcting other students’

written work?

Variables: I learn a lot – I learn some – I learn a little – I don’t learn anything

Figure 14. Ss’ perceptions of how much they learn when other Ss’ correct the

errors in their writing.

Class A Class B

Question: How much do you think you learn from other students correcting your

work?

Variables: I learn a lot – I learn some – I learn a little – I don’t learn anything

The result is generally more positive when Ss are involved in correcting peer

errors as opposed to having their work corrected by peers.

Page 49: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %+!

An open question was asked about the Ss opinion of the wiki in general. Some

key points that appear are that Ss like reading peer work, and having an

authentic audience for their work. A number of respondents mentioned peer

correction and FoF.

• In general, what do you think of the wiki that

we used in class?

• It's really interesting. I like reading the other students work. I think that this wiki is really usefull and really good.

• it was a useful instrument to comunicate with other students and to learn some kind of things, grammar, vocabulary...

• It's a good idea because all people can see your work, and you can see the work of other people

• it's very useful I think. !

• It's a good way to learn and know class mates thinks.

!• I think that the wiki is very good because you can

learn somethings about your classmates mistakes.

!• ok and it's a good way for learn and change your

errors at the same time !

• It's a different form to learn english. !

• It's very good and I enjoyed with the wiki !

Page 50: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %*!

4.2 Content Analysis

The codes were intended to show specific written functions (appendix F).

The results are shown in figure 15. It is worthwhile noting that Grammar* and

Content* were single exchanges that were unique within the sample (see

critical incidences below). It is also worth noting that “peer comments” occurred

post production when the texts had been finalised. In these comments, the

focus was mainly on the content of the text, the nature of the chosen topics

themselves and Ss opinions towards the topics. In only one of these

exchanges did a comment dedicated to FoF appear. This was however, in

humour as the students from the two groups involved in this exchange were

acquainted (see 3.1.4). In this exchange the humour took the form of expert

(comment author) to novice (text author).

Interview T class B:

Some of them knew each other and when they did a humour element sort of

crept in. I think one of them wrote a bit of a negative comment that I was a bit

worried about, but they showed me a previous comment that they had got from

them and they said they were good friends, and that was quite obvious. And, it

was almost as if they had adopted a teacher’s role and they were writing

teacher like comments about their work.

Page 51: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %"!

Figure 15. Content analysis of total written output in Tc project.

Overall, the Tc project generated a lot of written English in various forms. Only

the extended texts were emphasised for accuracy and these texts accounted

for 59% of the total written activity. 41% of writing was in more socially situated

exchanges which were content focused.

4.2.1: Critical incidences in content analysis:

!The two Grammar* and Content* exchanges provide some interesting insight

into the students behaviour:

Content* Grammar*

We have a plan to do the artcile. Imtroduction: -pesent the thopic -talk about why their are becoming extinct Part 1 Why there are becoming extinct Part 2: Ideas on how to protect the animals Conclution: -Summary and opinion

Comment box 1: what you prefer? Comment box 2: sorry I mean : what do you prefer? !

Page 52: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %#!

The incidence in Content* occurred when Ss were negotiating which topic and

paragraph to write. It shows evidence of awareness of planning.

The incidence in Grammar* was written in the comment box section of the wiki

which has no editing function. It shows awareness of grammar and attention to

self correction. This was in a situation where FoM was emphasized and FoF

was not.

4.3 Qualitative analysis of peer corrections From discrete data taken from the wiki page revisions function the results were

tabulated into graph form and two important trends were revealed. In

completing the error correction exercises, types of errors were noted and

plotted in Excel against number of errors. It shows that the most significant

error by far is vocabulary and this was also the category which noted the most

number of unresolved edits at the end of the editing period (figure 16).

Figure 16. Results of peer correction by error type.

Page 53: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %$!

Here the number of peer corrections are described as “rounds”. Thus round 1

indicates class A’s first attempt at peer correction and round 2 describes class

B’s attempt at peer correction.

In figure 16, verbs and nouns are reported separately although grammar is

often described as the combination of the two. These two factors were then

combined to give a more comprehensive overview of the categories of grammar

and vocabulary (figure 17). In this way the new factor grammar, as a whole,

had more errors in round one than vocabulary. In spite of this vocabulary errors

had a higher incidence of being unresolved both in round 2 and as a final

unresolved error count. This would point to the fact that vocabulary errors are

more troublesome for Ss to peer correct and grammar is easier to peer correct

both in round 1 and round 2.

Reliability here may be influenced by the category of “word order” as these

errors in themselves could contain errors in either grammar or vocabulary. No

distinction is made in word order as to the type of error. As it is, there are no

occurrences of unresolved errors for word order which limits the effect that this

may have had on the final results for grammar and vocabulary.

Figure 17: Comparisons of errors for grammar and vocabulary.

Page 54: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %%!

As group A were first to take part in the error correction process, they had a

greater number of errors to peer correct in round 1 than group B had in round 2.

In round 2 it may have been that the remaining errors were more complex as

they had been left unresolved by class A. However, complexity of error is not

included in the data and so this can not be substantiated.

Figure 18. Cross tabulation of data for group comparisons in peer error

correction.

Despite the difference in quantity of errors the pattern of error correction

remains similar for both groups (figure 18). The pie charts below (figure 19),

shows the result of the percentage of the number of correct corrections,

incorrect corrections and unresolved errors which remain at the end of the

editing phase.

Page 55: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %&!

Figure 19. Comparison of peer correcting activity with class A, round 1 and

class B, round 2.

Class A Class B

On the whole Ss were able to achieve a high rate of peer error correction

although two rounds were necessary for the text to be seen as “accurate”. At

the end of both editing phases the number of unresolved errors lay at 15. The

number of recorded attempts at solving errors was recorded at 180. This left a

92% accuracy rate when Ss in two rounds worked to peer correct.

This error correction was completed in pairs with a T present to provide support.

Ss requests for support often took the form of asking for confirmation rather

than asking for answers. This indicates that Ss were fully capable of correcting

peer errors which were within their ZPD.

Page 56: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %'!

4.3.1: Critical incidences reported in peer error correction analysis: Table 4. Critical incidents from content analysis

Incident Group Class Type Indication

1 Group 1 Class B Added content to class

B paragraph during

their editing phase in

round 2.

Ownership of

text.

2 Group 4 Class B Corrected unidentified

errors in a class B text.

Ownership of

text.

3 Group 3 Class A Final paragraph

deleted from class B’s

contribution.

Deletion of

another’s

work.

4 Group 2 Class B Did not complete the

error correction

activity in round 2.

Technical error.

Technical

problems

which

interfere with

Ss work.

5 Group 2 Class B Text was added which

was cut and paste from

Wikipedia.

Cut and paste

(hyperlink)

culture.

Class A Ss

requiring

permission to

alter and

delete text.

Ownership of

text indicated.

Page 57: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %(!

Incidences 1 and 2 would show that Ss were editing errors or adding content

beyond the remit (the highlighted code). It is clear that the class who went

beyond this remit were also the authors of the text in question. As students

were working in pairs it is not clear whether the Ss who were involved in these

edits were the authors or the partners of the authors. What is clear is that Ss

are going beyond what they were expected to do and this shows an interest in

the texts. It also shows an element of ownership of the text.

Conversely, only one incident of text deletion was noted. In incident 3, it is not

known if the Ss in class A accidently or purposely erased the text from class B.

Ss from class B did not inform the class teacher of this omission and this text

was not restored and included in the final version. This was the only incidence

of text deletion of a text from another author.

To support the ownership of text theory, in one case, 5, class B cut and paste

text from Wikipedia which did not fit the context of the text. Only with the

teacher’s implicit permission did the students in class A alter this text in a final

editing round.

In incident 4, the students had been working on the text in question but it a

technical error had frozen the screen and their edit was not saved. Technical

errors while editing the wiki pages occurred a number of times while working on

the shared computers. In response, Class A completed round 2 of the peer

correction.

4.4: Observations and critical incidence: Interview. !These are extracts from a recorded interview the T of class B (table 5). From

this interview Ss engagement in the project was noted. In addition, some

incidences of language awareness and interest in the language with regard to

FoF were recorded. Also of interest, are observations on the difference

between the conventions of the traditional classroom compared with the reality

of Ss everyday life and the polarity between the two worlds. The social nature

of the writing which took place is also a theme here. The full version of this

interview is included in the appendix, (appendix H).

Page 58: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! %)!

Table 5. Critical incidents reported from T class B’s interview.

Theme Observation

Ss motivation The general impression I got was quite positive,

the only negative behaviour really was probably

from students who were less able, they tended to

write less. Having said that they I thought they

were writing more than they would’ve done if it

just been a pencil and paper activity in the

classroom, the communicative element they

definitely responded well to.

!.But I’m just pleased that they are writing and

there are elements of pleasure there.

!!! they were generally engaged. They were

reading the other groups’ comments and then

building from that so it wasn’t that they went in

and did their task in isolation and there was one

point when they were correcting the others’

paragraphs and I was quite surprised how

motivated they were.

Incidence of LRE and extension of knowledge

some of the mistakes they were making were

above their level. They were using language that

they hadn’t learned yet, they hadn’t acquired,

whether it was like word order or whatever.

Actually, I remember there was one opportunity

there was, I think it was to do with reporting

verbs or something came up and I said, “that

needs an object after” and they actually asked

about “what other words follow this rule?”, which

I thought was quite good, I mean they are

actually asking there about grammar.

Page 59: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &+!

Theme

Observation

Authentic audience for Ss work

(On Ss having an audience for their work)

It was a good thing, it makes you realise that in

the classroom they don’t, I don’t know whether

it’s ‘cos it’s the electronic medium and it’s the

generation where they are used to responding in

this way. I mean traditionally you’d write a

composition you can’t then sort of write in

conversational comments after the writing and

this was a lot better because they could. It

evolved, it was a bit more organic, the

exchanges afterwards.

4.5: Data from the Universitat de Barcelona. !Ss undertook a timed writing task pre and post course. This involved a timed

writing task. Ss were instructed to write a narrative based on a comic strip.

These texts were analysed for data. For a full explanation of the data analysis

in this data refer to Serrano (2011: 127-128).

4.5.1: Measure of written fluency.

One method was for lexical fluency which was based on word count (tokens).

The blue line indicates the pre course result and the red line indicates the post

course result. The data shows an increase in written fluency on the whole with

eight out of nine Ss improving in this area (figure 20)

Page 60: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &*!

Figure 20. Levels of written fluency pre and post course. The Pre course

results are represented by the blue line, the post course by the red.

4.5.2: Measure of lexical richness

The study also used a measurement called Guiraud’s index to calculate lexical

richness or complexity of vocabulary. Neither test measures grammatical

complexity. The pre course and post course levels of lexical richness are not as

clear as written frequency and show scattered improvement (figure 21). While

there was improvement on the whole a few Ss (1, 5, 7, 9) have shown minimal

progress post course (5 & 9) or even regression (1 & 7).

Page 61: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &"!

Figure 21. Levels of Lexical richness pre and post course. The Pre course

results are represented by the blue line, the post course by the red

5: Discussion

5.1: Student perceptions

From the literature review, some research found that Ss preferred individual

work to collaborative work (Forte & Bruckman, 2007; Grant, 2009; Lund &

Smordal, 2006) and that collaboration does not always succeed (Kessler et al,

2012; Kuteeva, 2011). Despite this research, these findings indicate that in this

instance the Ss were in favour of collaborative work and were motivated by

peer corrections. This could, in part, be attributed to the system of T highlights

on the texts to pinpoint errors for correction. It could be argued that with

highlighting Ss are given implicit permission by the T to change and alter peer

texts and in this way traditional classroom hierarchies are upheld. Grant (2009)

and Lee (2010a) found that Ss were wary of editing peer work to avoid

confrontation with peers. T highlighting may remove pressure from Ss when

peer editing. Furthermore, Ss vary in ability and T highlighting may give Ss the

confidence that is necessary to peer correct as shown by Kessler & Bikowski,

(2010). This would seem to be supported by class B T’s insight when asked

Page 62: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &#!

about the level of T support the Ss required during the peer correction phase.

On the whole, the Ss asked for confirmation on the accuracy of their edits:

Moreover, Coniam & Lee (2008) and Lee (2010a) speculate that Ss see

correcting as the teacher’s role. Ss in this study were motivated to peer edit

although the teacher’s role in the editing process may still have been seen by

the Ss as conforming to the traditional teacher – student role.

As mentioned in the literature review, Ss are often motivated by having an

audience for their work. The findings here agree with this and Ss are

particularly motivated by reading and interacting with each other’s writing. What

the findings also suggest is that Ss are less keen on displaying their work than

reading and interacting with peer work. This may be due to self consciousness

which is often associated with this age group. Indeed there is evidence to

support the idea that for Ss, having good examples of their work on the wiki is

seen as important in order to present a good image to their peers.

It is also important to note however that for all Ss this was the first time that they

had ever done a Tc project for writing in a wiki. Only one student had

experience of using a wiki in school. It may be then that the Ss interest in

writing in the wiki could have been the novelty of the experience. It could also

however have been connected to the fact that the writing done on the wiki does

connect more with their everyday experiences of written communication.

In the wiki, do you like it when other people read and comment on your written work? Student: Well, depending. I've I had done a good work yes, but if not no. I like reading their comments. !

T class B: Some of them did, yeah (ask for support), but generally they would ask, “Is this alright?”.

Page 63: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &$!

Despite this interest, some of the critical incidences noted in table 4 (4.3.1),

would suggest that although a high percentage of Ss were engaged, not all Ss

may have had the same level of engagement.

5.2: Collaborative writing and ownership of texts. !Storch’s (2011) definition of collaborative writing as joint production and joint

ownership of text may be unachievable at this age. Although Ss did edit errors

from peer texts they also displayed tendencies to “own” their particular

paragraphs. Beyond the highlighted errors, additional editing only happened on

owned tests. T permission was sought for deletion or content alteration of a

peer’s text. Rather than meshing text together as a whole, Ss approached each

paragraph as having independent authors. This may have also have been a

result of the task as Ss were directed to write independent paragraphs and

afterwards join them together to make a whole text. This may have reinforced

ownership of paragraphs. However, given that the traditional competitive

environment of a school is at odds with true collaboration (Grant, 2009; Lund &

Smordal, 2006; Wheeler et al, 2008), it is possibly far out of the Ss’ ZPD to

consider joint ownership. These findings agree with Lee (2010 a), in that Ss do

find it a challenge to relinquish ownership of text. While cooperation is possible

and can work well, collaboration as defined by Storch may not be attainable in

this context.

5.3: Student confidence in writing. !Comparisons of the pre and post course survey show that Ss viewed writing in

English as less difficult post course than pre course. This would indicate that

levels of confidence in their ability to write had increased over the course. This

increase may have been the result of a combination of more practice in writing

in general, in the form of social written exchanges as well as more practice at

writing and creating extended texts. Content analysis of the written output

shows 41% of content generated was for social reasons, with 59% attributed to

the writing task. This supports previous research, (Myles, 2002. Storch, 2011).

Myles (2002) proposed that Ss are able to communicate more effectively in

writing if they are exposed to different models and not only paragraphs and

Page 64: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &%!

extended texts. Higher levels of student confidence would seem to support

this.

The data provided by the Universitat de Barcelona!on the progress made in

written fluency in class A (figure 20) would also seem to support this. Eight out

of nine Ss made progress in this area, whereby under timed conditions Ss

wrote more post course than pre course. This is not to say that Ss were more

accurate or complex in their writing but it may suggest a more positive approach

to writing in English.!

5.4: Peer correction and peer scaffolding. Ss in pairs averaged around a 67% accuracy rate (class A 64% and class B

69%) . This agrees with de la Carolina & Garcia Mayo (2007) and Kessler et al

(2012), as not all LREs are successful. Nevertheless, when conducted in

groups with two rounds this overall level of accuracy rises to 91%. This agrees

with the findings of Fernández Dobao (2012) that groups are more accurate

grammatically than pairs or individuals when working on texts: “Collaboration,

whether in pairs or in small groups, resulted in greater grammatical and lexical

accuracy. Although group work offered fewer opportunities for individual

participation, it had a positive impact on collaborative dialogue. Learners

working in small groups paid more attention to language and were more

successful at solving language-related problems than learners working in pairs.

Subsequently, they were also linguistically more accurate.” (p.55). Although it

can be seen that the level of accuracy upon completion of the text was high, it is

not within the scope of the study to assess whether all Ss actually benefitted

from these peer corrections. As the error correction was completed

asynchronously with two groups of pairs, not as a whole group together,

individuals within the groups may not have had the group collaborative dialogue

as reported by Fernández Dobao.

In spite of this, the overall ability in accurately correcting work may well be a

result of the fact that linguistically, peer errors are an excellent match for Ss

abilities. Perhaps because of this Ss were engaged and motivated and, in

Page 65: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &&!

addition, perceived it as being valid for their learning. This agrees with the

findings of Shehadeh (2011) who investigated Ss perceptions of a collaborative

wiki project. Shehadeh reported that peer correction was seen as enjoyable,

and therefore a positive learning experience and that Ss felt it contributed to

their learning.

What is surprising is that contrary to student perceptions that grammar is very

difficult for them to learn (figure 8), the data from the error correction suggest

that Ss were able to accurately correct many of these grammar errors. What

these figures also suggest is that vocabulary has the lowest level of accuracy in

peer correction with a number of unresolved errors remaining in the final edit

(figures 16 & 17). Despite this, Ss perceive that grammar is more difficult than

vocabulary. The level of difficulty Ss accredited to vocabulary changed very

little, pre and post course (figure 7 & 8). This may be the result of the focus and

importance placed on grammar in in Spanish classrooms concerning English as

a second language and the undervaluing of vocabulary.

A possible explanation for the relatively high success rate of grammatical peer

error corrections may be that grammar tends to be formulaic with rules that can

be followed. This was also noted by Nuwar (2011) with first year university Ss

learning English. According to Swain (2010), Ss working together can test their

hypothesis about the language, verbalise, negotiate and construct meanings

together and then internalise knowledge. It maybe that with regard to grammar

this is effective. The LRE that was noted by the T of class B, was grammar

based and the T was able to verbalise the formula of the grammar to the Ss in

question.

T class B:

I think it was to do with reporting verbs or

something came up and I said, “that needs an

object after” and they actually asked about

“what other words follow this rule?”

Page 66: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &'!

In the above quotation a formula is being described and because of this Ss

themselves may find it easier to verbalise formula to discuss grammar points

with each other. In contrast, vocabulary by it’s very nature does not always

follow set patterns. Vocabulary can also alter it’s definition depending on it’s

context and there may be no clear descriptors for Ss to be able to verbalise and

negotiate meaning. The very factor that affects reliability in content analysis,

i.e. “that words are inherently ambiguous and polyvalent” (Cohen et al, 2007:

490), may be at work here. For example, even a relatively simple vocabulary

item such as the word “school” may have many different uses (appendix G).

Added to this, the age range of the group may also have some effect. With

limited life experience some more abstract lexis may be harder for the Ss to

conceptualise. Ss results in the lexical richness test from the data provided by

the Universitat de Barcelona (figure 21), also appear to show that Ss have

difficulty with lexical complexity. The period of hypothesising, verbalising,

negotiating and constructing meaning with a peer or teacher may take longer to

complete as Ss struggle to internalising meaning. !

5.5: Focus on form and focus on meaning.

Having an authentic audience for their work is noted as a motivating factor for

Ss, who at times are more disposed to self correcting errors and, at times

focusing on content (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Kessler, 2009; Kuteeva, 2011; Lee,

2010 b; Li et al, 2012). In the literature, collaborative writing within in a wiki has

shown two main trends with regards to this focus, either on form or on meaning

(content). Some research points to Ss having more involvement in FoM (Mak &

Coniam, 2008; Kessler 2009). Other research points to Ss concern with self

correction of their own text for grammar and vocabulary, but little concern for

FoF in a partners text, (thereby also displaying ownership of text). (Elola &

Oskoz, 2010; Kessler, 2009; Kuteeva, 2011; Lee, 2010 b; Li et al, 2012).

As noted, most of the studies in the literature have been conducted with

university Ss with higher linguistic levels This research however would suggest

that adolescent Ss at lower linguistic levels are less concerned with content

(FoM) than with grammar (FoF). This can be seen in the content analysis of Ss

writing. There is very little talk of content apart from the negotiations that took

Page 67: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &(!

place for the choice of topic. Only one group did put forward a basic plan for

content (see 4.2.1). Ss may have strived for content individually while planning

their contribution but this is not recorded in any data. Comments on content on

peer work only occurred post production in the comment boxes beneath the wiki

pages. They were mostly general comments and were not critical of meaning

or did not comment on the style that the Ss in that group had used. They

concentrated more on giving their own personal opinion on topics that had been

discussed in the texts (see 4.2). It may have been that the task given to them

had been had focused on linguistic error correction and less emphasis and T

feedback given on the content. In the event of communicating in an online

space in the classroom, a new experience for most Ss, they may have looked to

the T to provide a model of what to do (Salmon, 2003). In that case there was

more feedback on form and this may have informed their input into the wiki.

6: Conclusion.

To conclude this study we will return to the original research aims and

questions.

1. Will using a wiki as a tool to promote intertextuality with Catalan adolescents

learning English be successful?

From this study it appears that in this socially situated context, using a wiki to

promote intertexuality in the L2 classroom is largely successful. This was

however a very controlled environment. The messages sent between Ss were

closely monitored. There was a blended learning aspect to this study which

had a combination of F2F and CMC. It is unclear whether an online writing

community in this context would be able to exist without the level of F2F input.

In addition, Ss were working in pairs at all times during this Tc project and this

was a result of limitations in computer access. The amount of non extended

text produced in the wiki, in the form of negotiations and comments, may have

been greater had Ss had individual access to a computer and internet

connection. On the other hand Ss may actually prefer to complete comments in

pairs. It appears that Ss valued the project and had a very positive view to

reading peer written work and posting and receiving messages. It is worth

Page 68: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! &)!

bearing in mind that there were problems in cycle 1 of the action research,

where computer access was restricted, as Ss had to wait a long time for peer

responses. This had a negative effect on the timing of the project and Ss

motivation. In contrast, cycle 2 benefitted from unlimited computer access. With

less time to wait for responses, Ss were more involved in the project. It would

suggest that using a wiki is successful in harnessing intertexuality as a tool for

the teaching of writing but this is dependant upon speed of response.

2. Will using a wiki for a telecollaborative project aid the teaching of process

writing with Catalan adolescents learning English?

In the second question, the wiki did help to promote the teaching of process

writing. Ss displayed signs of being more aware of planning and error

correction and the task of revising and re-revising text. In completing error

correction in groups and in rounds, this enabled the Ss to break down the task

to more manageable sections and therefore it led to a more positive approach

to revising work. Furthermore, the authentic audience for the final text

provided the “real world” motivation the Ss needed to develop a final copy that

was seen to be ready for a target reader.

An unexpected outcome in relation to this question is that the wiki makes T

analysis of Ss activity possible. Using a wiki does not only aid the teaching of

process writing to the Ss but it also makes information readily available to the T.

This information may provide specific insights into Ss strengths and

weaknesses. With regard to the data analysis of the errors for example, while

Ss were capable of peer correction, not all errors were successfully resolved

and that T should be aware of the limits of this. With this awareness however, T

can alter their expectations of what Ss are capable of performing.

Nevertheless, with a small sample size, caution must be applied, as the findings

might not be transferable to all situations with adolescents and it appears that

many factors, from computer access to the task given, will affect results.

!!

Page 69: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '+!

!!!6.1: Recommendations. !As a result of this study certain recommendations have been made for future research,!!

• This study was completed with Ss from the same cultural and socio

economic backgrounds. Further research should be done to investigate

the effect of intertextuality that takes place among adolescent Ss where

background and culture are distinct factors.

• Also this study found vocabulary to be particularly difficult for Ss to

assimilate. This was also recorded by Nuwar (2011). The speculation

here is that it is more difficult for Ss to construct meanings for

vocabulary at this linguistic level. This being because vocabulary lacks

rules which do not able descriptors for student assimilation. However,

Further work is required to establish this.

• In addition, T time is not infinite and a wiki can grow fast. It can become

impossible for Ts to cover and monitor all Ss activity. This study involved

a small group of participants. Even with this small group some important

events went unnoticed (see 4.3.1 incident 4). With larger groups Ss

activity would result in lot of data for a Ts to examine. Research has

pointed to a certain level of success in peer evaluation during a

collaborative project taking place within a wiki with university level Ss (De

Wever et al, 2011). Further research should be done to investigate the

quality of peer evaluation within a wiki based project in order to extend

the notion of responsibility, ownership and collaboration with this age

group.

Page 70: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '*!

Bibliography

Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, P. (2013). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. Alshumaimeri, Y. (2011). The effects of wikis on foreign language students writing performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 755-763. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.139 Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. Bernard, R., & de Rubalcava, B. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260-277. Chong, L., & Saeidi, M. (2005). Focus on Form Approach in an EFL context. Paper presented at the 9th conference Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics (pp. 280-289). Tokyo: Waseda University Media Mix Corp.. Cohen, L., L. Manion and K. Morrison (2007). Research Methods in Education, 6th!ed., Routledge, New York. De Guerrero, M. C., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68. Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939-954. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.012 Department of Education and Training (2006). Understanding Year 9 Students. A Theoretical Perspective. Paper No. 8 Part A. April 2006. Melbourne http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/publ/UnderstandingYear9_PartA-rpt.pdf Donato, Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Ablex Pub. Dooly, M. (2011). Divergent perceptions of telecollaborative language learning tasks: Task-as-workplan VS. Task-as-process. About Language Learning & Technology, , 69. EU High level group of experts on literacy (2012). Executive summary 2012. Retrieved 15.09.2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/literacy/index_en.htm Elgort, I., Smith, A., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work. Australasian Journal of Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(24), 195-210.

Page 71: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '"!

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51-71. Ferrance, E. (2000). Themes in Education. Action Research. First Certificate in English Examiners Report 2011. Retrieved 10.09.2012, from https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/exams/generalenglish/fce Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2007). Constructing text:: Wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?) learning. , 31-42. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119-140. doi:10.1080/17439880902923580(online Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 329-350. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research. pp. 1-25). London: Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). COLLABORATIVE WRITING AMONG SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN ACADEMIC WEB-BASED PROJECTS. About Language Learning \& Technology, , 91. Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning \& Technology, 13(1), 79-95. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183-199. doi:10.1177/1362168810388711 Koh, J., & Young-Gul, K. (2003). Sense of Virtual Community: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-93. Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44-57. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.007 Li, X., Chu, S., Ki, W., & Woo, M. (2012). Using a wiki based collaborative process writing pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among Chinese primary school students. Australasia Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 159-181. Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning \& Technology, 12(3), 53-72.

Page 72: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '#!

Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. Calico Journal, 27(2), 260-276. Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22(02), 212-227. doi:10.1017/S095834401000008X Lund, A. (2006). Is there a space for the teacher in a WIKI? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 international symposium on Wikis (pp. 37-46). Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: a collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(01) doi:10.1017/S0958344008000414 Lund, A., & Smordal, O. (2006). Is there a space for the teacher in a WIKI? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 international symposium on Wikis (pp. 37-46). Odense, Denmark: ACM. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437-455. Matusov, E. (1998). When Solo Activity Is Not Privileged: Participation and Internalization Models of Development. Human development, 41(5-6), 326-349. doi:10.1159/000022595 Mawlawi Diab, N. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38(1), 85-95. McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207-224. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003 Meishar!Tal, H., & Gorsky, P. (2010). Wikis: what students do and do not do when writing collaboratively. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), 25-35. doi:10.1080/02680510903482074 Niglas, K. (2000). Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001544.htm O’Brien, R. (2001) An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. In Roberto Richarson (Ed.) Theory andPractice of Action Research http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html Randolph, J.J. (2008). Multidisciplinary Methods in Educational Technology Research and Development.

Page 73: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '$!

Finland. HAMK University of Applied Sciences. Julkaisija. Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research and Education, 14(13) Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating. Routledge. Savignon, S., & Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice. Communicative competence pp. 288). McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. Serrano, R. (2007). Time Distribution and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Doctora en Filologia Anglesa, Univerisitat de Barcelona, Spain. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305. Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000079 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. Researching pedagogic tasks pp. 258). Pearson Education. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. Researching pedagogic tasks pp. 258). Pearson Education. Swain, M. (2010). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education pp. 192). Multilingual Matters Limited. Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1138-1146. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.023 Wang, Q. (2010). Using online shared workspaces to support group collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1270-1276. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.023 Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artefact: the emergent semiotics of web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27 doi:10.1017/S0267190508070013 Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–Peer Interaction between L2 Learners of Different Proficiency Levels: Their Interactions and Reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 64(4), 605-635.

Page 74: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '%!

Water- Adams, S. (2006). Action Research in Education Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/actionresearch/arhome.htm

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987-995. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. doi:10.1177/0265532209104670 Wikipedia. Retrieved 18.08.2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages

!

Page 75: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '&!

Appendix Appendix A: Styles of writing for the FCE. Appendix B: Code for error correction Appendix C: Raw data for qualitative analysis of error corrections: Appendix D: Ss pre –course survey

Appendix E: Model error correction given to Ss as a pre task in a F2F environment:

Appendix F: Coding of content analysis.

Appendix G: Problems with reliability in content analysis and the interpretation of vocabulary.

Appendix H: Transcribed interview with T of class B. Appendix I: Full responses to open questions asked in the post course survey for Ss. _______________________________________________________________

Page 76: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ''!

Appendix A: Styles of writing for the FCE. From FCE examiners report (2011: 11).

https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/exams/generalenglish/fce

Appendix B: Code for error correction Rational for categories: Although these descriptors are broad in definition past

experience with students at this level (B1) has been that descriptors which are

too precise can be confusing for the student. Therefore the descriptors were

defined in broad categories.

Page 77: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! '(!

Colour

Significance Definition Reliabilty

RED Verbs / grammar Problems with

verb tenses /

adjectives and

adverbs

Some problems

with verb tenses

could interfere

with nouns e.g.

plurals and

singular.

BLUE Nouns / singular

/ plural

Problems with

nouns / singular

and plurals /

pronouns /

articles

Some errors

could be seen as

verbs errors, e.g.

the cars was / the

cars were / cars

was / the cars

were.

GREEN

Spelling Incorrect spelling 100%

PURPLE Vocabulary Word choice or

word

combinations (+

prepositions /

Some choices of

verb + preposition

could have been

seen as a verb

error.

ORANGE Word order Incorrect

placement of

verbs / nouns /

auxiliary verb /

pronouns etc.

Some errors

could be altered

by adding

grammar words

or vocabulary

======= Missing word E.g. missing

auxiliary verb /

missing pronoun

or preposition

Some errors

could be

corrected by a

single word or by

rearranging the

sentence and

altering other

Page 78: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ')!

Appendix C: Raw data for qualitative analysis of error corrections.

In counting errors from round one to round two, there are a number of

anomalies. Some new errors could be formed by the editing of the text and so

some work on round one could lead to new errors in round two:

E.g. Group B: “for our sons and grandsons” (vocabulary error) Spanish

translation: (hijos y nietos). Intended meaning is “for our children and grandchildren”. It is altered by group A in round one as “for our descendant.” The new vocabulary is deemed as correct however this now

becomes a noun error as a plural is needed for the context. Our descendants. This error now means that a vocabulary error has been solved but instead a

new noun error has appeared which would later appear in E2 error

calculations.

Page 79: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! (+!

Appendix D: Ss pre - course survey. Scale:

1. Ss previous experience of different writing styles in English

Class A (14 -15 ) Class B (13 – 14)

Question: In your English class at school what kinds of writing to you do?

Variables:

Stories – letters – essays –articles – dialogues – messages to other students

2. Audience for Ss written work: Class A Class B

Question: In your English class at school who reads the writing that you do?

Variables:

Your teacher – your classmate – family – friends – other students at school.

Page 80: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! (*!

3. Error correction of student work: Class A Class B

Question: In your English class at school who corrects your written work?

Variables:

SS self corrects – teacher only – teacher highlights errors and SS corrects –

teacher highlights errors and peers correct – peer correction only

4. SS perception of the value of error SS revision of errors in written work: Class A Class B

Question: Do you think that you learn anything from revising and correcting your

written work in English?

Variables: Yes – No – Don’t know

Page 81: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ("!

5. Ss previous experience of collaborative writing projects.

Class A Class B

Question: Have you ever done a group writing project in your English class?

Variables: Yes – No

6a. Open question: Ss previous experience of collaborative work:

Class A Class B

• "!#$%&'!• (&)$*!#%+*!,)#$%&)*#-!&*#.+)/0!$,*+-!*123)/)/0!$,*+4!

• 5)"3%0.*#!

• 6'!3"#$!2&%7*8$-!9"#!"/!"&0.+*/$!:*;*/:)/0!$,"$!0,%#$#!*1)#$4!

• (*!9&)$*!"!/*9#!2"2*&!$%!*123")/)/0!#%+*$,)/0!$,"$!,"22*/*:!3%/0!"0%!%&!8%.3:!<*!)/=*/$*:!

• !

Page 82: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! (#!

7. Ss previous experience of working with a wiki in school. Class A Class B

Question: In any of your classes at school have you every used a wiki?

Variables: Yes / No

7b. open question - SS previous use of a wiki in school.

Class A Class B

Question: What did you use the wiki for?

• >%!3*"&/!;&*/8,!• 3%%?)/0!;%&!)/;%&+"$)%/!

!

• #*"&8,!)/;%&+"$)%/!• $%!#*"&8,!)/;%&+"$)%/4!• $,*'!0)=*!.#!$,*!+"&?#!• !

Page 83: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ($!

Appendix E. Model error correction given to Ss as a pre task in a f2f environment.

Page 84: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! (%!

Appendix F. Coding of content analysis. Categories Function Examples Reliability Extended text Task given – a

discursive essay or a magazine article.

Texts on the subject of the environment. Four paragraphs. I from each student.

100%

Social English Greetings 100% Peer comments Post task

comments on the final version of the collaborative text

Written comments about the content of the text or whether the group had done a “good job”. One comment left in humour commenting on the ”bad” grammar of the text.

100%

Negotiation All language pre writing, relating to the choice of topic.

There is an overlap between negotiations and questions.

Content How to write the text. Only one group left a message proposing a plan for writing.

Basic essay plan. This category was separated from to Ss post writing remarks on the content. This appears in comments.

Grammar Discussion of grammar.

One comment left by a Ss to self correct a message in the absence of an edit function in the comment box.

Much of the grammar discussion was done verbally F2F in pairs while correcting errors. Error correction data has been collected separately.

Questions Direct questions left for group members.

Questions about the choice of topic or the task.

There is an overlap with the category of negotiation.

Page 85: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! (&!

Appendix G. Problems with reliability in content analysis and the interpretation of vocabulary.

Words are inherently ambiguous and polyvalent (the problem of homographs):

for example, what does the word “school” mean: building; a group of people; a

particular movement of artists (e.g. the impressionists school); a department (a

medical school); a noun; a verb (to drill, to induct to educate, to train, to control,

to attend an institution); a period of instructional time (“they stayed after school

to play sports”); a modifier (e.g. a school day); a sphere of activity (e.g. “the

school of hard knocks”); a collection of people adhering to a particular set of

principles (e.g. the utilitarian school); a style of life (e.g. “a gentleman from the

old school”); a group assembled for a particular purpose (e.g. a gambling

school) and so on. (Cohen et al, 2007: 490)

Appendix H. Transcribed interview with the teacher of class B. Questions by the researcher are in bold. Responses from the T of class B are in italics.

The start activity – about me – the students were guided to read and comment on the other students work. – what was your impression of the students doing that?

Their reaction was!. One comment I want to make on that is: it is difficult when

you are in a class to actually sit down and sort of see what rational they are

using or how they are interacting with it; the only feedback you get with it is

really what they write but yeah they were generally engaged. They were

reading the other groups’ comments and then building from that so it wasn’t that

they went in and did their task in isolation and there was one point when they

were correcting the others’ paragraphs and I was quite surprised how motivated

they were.

So there was more a social exchange going on?

Page 86: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ('!

Yes, I think there is quite a lot going on – there was social exchange , there was

peer correction there was!Yes, it was interesting.

What was the students response to working with the other class?

A couple of things were going on. It depended on whether the student they

knew the other person in the other class.

Yes, ‘cos some of them knew each other didn’t they? Some of them knew each other and when they did a humour element sort of

crept in. I think one of them wrote a bit of a negative comment that I was a bit

worried about but they showed me a previous comment that they had got from

them and they said they were good friends and that was quite obvious and it

was almost as if they had adopted a teacher’s role and they writing teacher like

comments about their work. Other’s tended to be more, rather than analysing

their work, tended to be on the task and just responding to what they said so if

they were being asked about an opinion on their work they would generally go

“ok , we like your idea, here are some of our suggestions” so yeah..

You said (previously) when the roles came out, as my class was in the morning and had the first slot and the way that it was set up that they got the introduction and first paragraph that you said that some of your students wanted to have those roles, can you tell me about that? I think that is a teenage thing as well, I think when you get choices and some

choices have already been eliminated even before they start I think some of

them questioned that. On reflection what would have been good would have

been good would have been more of an open debate between them to decide

those roles I mean that would have taken longer, and possibly under the time

constraints not something that was really feasible, but that I think would have

produced quite a bit of language as well. Which also makes me think that I

should have concentrated on language purely for agreeing and disagreeing, as

that would have been quite functional.

Page 87: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ((!

When the project was underway was there anything that you noticed in particular positive or negative that you remember from the computer room when they were doing their parts, writing or error correction or!.you mentioned that they would have liked more choice but was there anything else that you can remember? No nothing springs to mind. The general impression I got was quite positive,

the only negative behaviour really was probably from students who were less

able, they tended to write less. Having said that they I thought they were writing

more than they would’ve done if it just been a pencil and paper activity in the

classroom, the communicative element they definitely responded well to. Oh,

one negative part was that I caught some students using an online translator.

They were going into whichever topic they were writing about and they were

going into Wikipedia and then they were cut and pasting sections of that and

putting into and translator and then cut and pasting into the wiki, but that is just

a matter of monitoring.

Did you get them to write their parts in the class first and then get them to write it into the wiki later in the computer room or did you go into the computer room and write it straight into the wiki?

Generally we just went straight in. There was one we did some preliminary

work on but the problems is because a lot of the time is because they are

responding to what they others have written so they generally have to view that

first and if they are just viewing that as a task then what do they do the rest of

the time? The logical thing is that they respond in that time so generally it was

in the computer room. The only one that we did some preparation was for the

introductions. But once they were doing the topic discussions, the two

paragraphs and stuff it was straight in.

In the computer room while they were doing the error correction did they ask you for a lot of support? Some of them did yeah, but generally they would ask, “Is this alright?”.

Page 88: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! ()!

For clarification? Yeah, and well, there are different ways to point out that that errors are still

there – one of them would be, “OK, second line there are two mistakes” or

“there is a problem there with tense” or, and some of the colour coding that you

used was a good way to identify vocabulary mistakes. Generally I would refer

to the sentences.

But, for example, they didn’t ask you straight off, “what’s wrong with this?” they tried to do it and then they asked for clarification? Yeah, I mean some of the mistakes they were making were above their level.

They were using language that they hadn’t learned yet, they hadn’t acquired,

whether it was like word order or whatever. Actually, I remember there was

one opportunity there was, I think it was to do with reporting verbs or something

came up and I said, “that needs an object after” and they actually asked about

“what other words follow this rule?”, which I thought was quite good, I mean

they are actually asking there about grammar. But, generally a lot of them

would say, “is that alright?”. Some of them, I would just point to the word and I

would just say “ come on you know the answer to this” and just sort of push

them a bit and they could actually correct it themselves without actually

identifying if it was a vocabulary or grammar or!

Eventually we gave them a printed copy of this, a real world copy of this (work), what was their reaction to this?

Well yeah, I remember, a couple of the students actually left theirs; they didn’t

take them with them but the others yeah, they wanted copies to the point of

reminding me that they wanted their copy.

Do you see them looking at it, reading it or going through it? Within the class yeah, but whether they take it home and then look at it I don’t

know.

Page 89: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! )+!

Was there anything you thought could have improved it more? Not really, well, in some way give them greater ownership of the site, but how

you can do that I’m not sure. As you say there was very limited time. And it

was collaborating with another class. Probably giving them more choice, they

had very limited choice in which paragraph to write. Maybe giving them two

compositions, more choice – the only thought that I had was that you could

gameify it and making the peer correction a bit more points based. But I’m just

pleased that they are writing and there are elements of pleasure there.

What do you think about Ss reading and commenting and actually having an audience for their work? It was a good thing, it makes you realise that in the classroom they don’t, I

don’t’ know whether it’s ‘cos it’s the electronic medium and it’s the generation

where they are used to responding in this way. I mean traditionally you’d write

a composition you can’t then sort of write in conversational comments after the

writing and this was a lot better because they could. It evolved, it was a bit

more organic, the exchanges afterwards.

Page 90: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! )*!

Appendix I: Full responses to open questions asked in the post course survey for Ss.

Question Group A Group B

Do you think putting your work into the wiki is useful? Why?

because all of the class

can comment and give

their opinion

Well sometimes yes,

because you can look at

your mistakes and learn

more.

Because you learn and

the other people can

comment the errors

you practice your writing

and you can see what

the other people say

about the composition

'Cause it makes me see

my mistakes and learn

all the new that I put.

I learn more

because the other

people can see it and

can comment!

some people read

In the wiki do you like it when other people read and comment on your written work?

Because this is a good

way to learn more things

Well, depending. I've I

had done a good work

yes, but if not no. I like

reading their comments.

because it's interesting

to know the opinion of

other persons

Because i like when

people give me their

opinions.

you can learn your faults

Page 91: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! )"!

In the wiki do you like it when you read and comment on other student’s work?

Because they can learn

as I when they correct

my errors

I like reading other

students work, because

reading it I learn other

styles of writting. I also

like congratulating them

or saying what I don't

like about their work.

because the other

people can know the

opinion of the other

students.

I don't like making

comments.

they can learn , i do it

because i like that they

do it to me

It's a great idea

What did you think about What did you think about working with other students in the other class during "The Environment" project?

It's ok to knowing other

students.

i was OK

It was really good. I

specially liked my

group's topic because it

was not the tipic one

like: pollution or that

stuff.

I think it's really

interesting meet new

people and see the way

to write from the other

people.

I think we did good work

with them.

Page 92: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! )#!

Is a good way to know

people and to work as a

group

it was great!

It's a good idea, because

you can know how the

other students work!

I think that it's a great

idea.

it was very good!

i prefer another subject

good idea.

it's OK

In general, what do you think of the wiki that we used in class?

It's useful, specially to

look the grammar part.

It's really interesting. I

like reading the other

students work. I think

that this wiki is really

usefull and really good.

ok and it's a good way

for learn and change

your errors at the same

time

it was a useful instrum

ent to comunicate with

other students and to

learn some kind of

things, grammar,

vocabulary...

It's veery good and I

enjoyed with the wiki

I think that the wiki is

very good because you

can learn somethings

about your classmates

mistakes.

It's a different form to

learn english.

it's OK

Page 93: Collaboration and cooperation:  The use of wikis with teens for second language writing

! )$!

It's a good way to learn

and know class mates

thinks.

it is good

It's a good idea because

all people can see your

work, and you can see

the work of other people

it's very useful I think.

Very good

It's fine and it's easy to

use it.

its nice