پایان نامه با موضوع pair، collaborative، pairs، In

. (1993) notes for students and teachers, who have not had a lot of experience with small group writing and pair writing, that it can be a bit frightening at first. However, by introducing small group writing and pair writing in small doses both teachers and students will soon see the benefits of these activities.
Furthermore, Brown et al. (1993) support the use of small group writing and pair writing stating that students often carry out peer correction in these activities and this is more productive than teachers always correcting students. Finally to repeat a point made earlier in this paper, we learn more effectively from our errors because we are more inclined to remember them.
In a study titled “How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs”, Storch and Wiggleworth (2012) stated that a common teaching strategy in the language classroom is to assign students to work on a task in pairs or small groups. Research on group/pair has shown that such classroom organization promotes speaking practice and negotiations of meaning.
2.10. A large number of literature supporting pair work
Researchers in the field of second language (L2) writing such as Peregoy and Boyle (2001) pointed out that pairing students up in writing is an ideal way to promote learning effectiveness. This not only gives teachers more qualitative time to work with students but also provides students with lots of chances for brainstorming ideas as well as learning from each other. In this regard, students in the peer response groups need clear guidelines to provide their partners with constructive feedback to be aided by their partners’ writing.
Moreover, working collaboratively learners create dialogue (Swain, 2002). Collaborative dialogue is co-construction of language knowledge, and is consolidative (Swain et al., 2002).
In this paper, we explore the findings from the studies which have examined the effect of learners’ working in pairs or small groups on writing tasks, and the extent to which working predominantly in pairs, and receiving feedback on their writing in pairs, can enhance the language learning opportunities for learners through their ability to scaffold each other’s contributions and knowledge. We argue that learners working on writing activities in pairs can enhance learning by providing opportunities for the discussion of language. Search findings on collaborative writing have been positive. Wells, Chang and Maher (1990) argue students should write collaboratively, the singular text/plural authors approach, assisting students’ competency in content, structure, and language. Storch (2002) shows that, in the process of co-authoring, learners consider not only language but also the discourse.
Aiming at finding the effect of group work on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy, Jafari (2012) chose sixty Iranian EFL learners as the subjects of his study. She divided them into two groups. Then, experimental group wrote collaboratively but the control group did individual writing tasks. Two groups participated in writing sessions with four essays. The subjects wrote based on the same topics and genre. The results revealed that the students in the collaborative writing group have better performance than the students in the control group, emphasizing the significant role of collaboration in L2 writing.
In a study titled “A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student assessment”, Mulligan and Garofalo (2011) reviewed a collaborative writing methodology designed for the authors’ EFL university classes in which students work in pairs to produce co-authored paragraphs and essays. Throughout the step-by-step procedure, students use the target language to plan, negotiate, draft, and revise their writing assignments, and thus make meaningful, task-oriented use of multiple skills at all stages of the process. At the end of the year-long course, the authors asked their students to submit written feedback about their experience in order to assess the efficacy of the collaborative approach. This paper provides background information on collaborative writing, outlines the actual program put into place, analyzes student feedback and concludes with suggestions for improvements that could be made to the program. Papers exceeded the expectations, and more than 70% of the first drafts submitted required no rewrites. In the first two groups, first semester, students were required to write paragraphs that focused on process, classification, cause and contrast. Group three, which was a lower level, worked on these types of paragraphs for the whole of one semester. The fourth group, composed of second-year students, was expected to write process, classification, cause/ effect, comparison/contrast essays, as well as a problem-solution paper, which was a ten-page research effort. In examining the positive comments provided by students, they could be placed clearly into five discrete categories. The categories identified from their comments were: (1) social skills development; (2) stress reduction and time-saving benefits; (3) motivational effects; (4) improvement in the content of their writing; and (5) gains in grammatical and structural proficiency. Finally, it was clear that gains had been made in structural and grammatical proficiency thanks to this approach. Among the comments was the remark that they could find mistakes more efficiently. Another wrote that it improved the accuracy of their paper. The approach helped another to organize and edit papers well. Lastly, through the process of revising each other’s drafts, they could learn words and phrases that they did not know beforehand. It became clear from the student surveys that one aspect that needs to be considered a new is the issue of how students should be paired to ensure fairness in the amount of work done for each task. In conclusion, collaborative writing is a nonthreatening approach for students that results in purposeful usage of the target language across skills and demonstrable improvements in writing. By providing methodical guidelines and lending support, the teacher can execute this approach without major logistical drawbacks. It is important to give students a chance to assess the method, as through careful analysis of student feedback, the instructor can ascertain those features of the process that were not beneficial and make necessary modifications in the program’s design.
Wiggleworth and Storch (2009) conducted a study to probe the advantages of pair writing in ESL class among 48 groups of pair writers. For this purpose, they compared writings of the learners working in pairs with individual writers via measures such as accuracy, fluency and complexity of given texts. They wanted students to write an argumentative essay in which they were asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of exam-based evaluation. Accordingly, 48 pairs of students with 48 individuals undertook their writing tasks. Based on the findings, a positive effect of collaboration on accuracy, not on fluency or complexity was found.
Leki (2001) examined the impact of collaboration on L2 writing. His results revealed that although group work needs encouragement, but it sometimes is not a positive learning experience for students.
Using a peer-assisted writing activity to promote ESL/EFL students’ narrative writing skills in Chung Shan Medical University (Taichung, Taiwan), Adeline (2001) developed a structured and well-identified peer writing activity for the lack of structures in many existing paired writing methods. His designed structured guidelines which were listed in the activity to fortify ESL students’ narrative writing skills. In the author’s idea, this activity is proper for all grade levels.  He concluded that when a peer-assisted writing activity is utilized in an ESL/EFL context, teacher’s intervention as well as direct feedback can assist writers in facing problems like grammatical errors and learning how to produce ideas for qualitative content
s. Writing is a delicate problem-solving process; thus, teachers can intervene at points in the writing process that can help writers in their tasks. According to the results, this peer assisted writing activity can help promote ESL/EFL student’ narrative writing skills at all grade levels. To achieve its optimal effectiveness, teachers should provide students with constant modeling of the strategies in each step of the activity. Furthermore, teachers should ensure that they constantly promote a trusting relationship between the writing partners throughout the writing process.
In their study , “Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners” , Swain and Watanabe (2007) investigated the effects of second language (L2) proficiency differences in pairs and patterns of interaction on L2 learning, making use of both qualitative and quantitative data. They designed the study in such a way that four different core participants interacted with higher and lower proficiency non-core participants. These learners engaged in a three-stage task involving pair writing, pair comparison (between their original text and a reformulated version of it), and individual writing. The core participants also engaged in a stimulated recall after the task. They analyzed each pair’s collaborative dialogue in terms of language-related episodes and patterns of pair interaction as well as each learner’s individual post-test score. The first two research questions addressed how proficiency differences affect LREs and post-test scores. In terms of LREs, the core-high pairs produced a greater frequency of LREs than that of the core-low pairs. This could suggest that the core participants benefited more from working with their higher proficiency partner. However, the trend indicated that the core participants achieved on average higher post-test scores when working with their lower proficiency partners than their higher proficiency partners. In other words, the core participants learned more when working with lower proficiency peers than higher proficiency peers, suggesting that there is certainly value for more proficient students to be paired with less proficient peers. This led to the third and fourth research questions, which addressed the effects of patterns of pair interaction on LREs and post-test scores. In post-test scores, they found that both of the pair members achieved higher post-test scores when they engaged in the collaborative pattern of interaction, whereas both achieved lower scores when they engaged in the dominant/passive or expert/passive patterns. Proficiency difference in pairs does not necessarily affect the nature of peer assistance and L2 learning. The data also suggested that grouping different proficiency learners is conducive to L2 learning when they are collaborative. Thus, it is important to pay close attention to the pattern of interaction and how these patterns form.
Regarding individual versus collaborative pair work, Storch (2005) studied the effectiveness of collaborative writing on L2 argumentative essays. The study was classroom based, and the participants (23) were adult ESL students completing degree courses. Students were given a choice to write in pairs or individually. Although most chose to work in pairs, some chose to work individually. All pair work was audiotaped and all completed texts collected. All pairs were also interviewed after class. The study compared texts produced by pairs with those produced by individual learners and investigated the nature of the writing processes evident in the pair talk. The study also elicited the learners’ reflections on the experience of collaborative writing. The study found that pairs produced shorter but better texts in terms of task fulfilment, grammatical accuracy, and

این نوشته در پایان نامه ها و مقالات ارسال شده است. افزودن پیوند یکتا به علاقه‌مندی‌ها.

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *