This paper aims to review the theoretical concept of interlingual interference of the mother tongue, Thai to the target language, English and intralingual interference found in EFL student writing in Thai context with the attempt to define the existence of errors according to their sources. This review article also exemplifies some frequent errors normally found in Thai student writing based on three perspectives of interlingual interference; lexical, syntactic and discourse interference and seven aspects of intralingual interference; false analogy, misanalysis, incomplete rule application, exploiting redundancy, overlooking cooccurrence restrictions, hypercorrection and overgeneralization. The pedagogical implication for EFL context is also discussed.

The present study aimed to compare between individual and collaborative writing (pair and group of four) activities of 72 EFL students. The subjects of the study were assigned to produce their tasks by these three activities. Qualitative method was employed by using interview of nine students drawn from students with different levels of English proficiency (low, fair and high). It was focused on their perspectives towards skills practiced during working on written tasks: writing, thinking, participation, communication as well as their satisfaction of these activities. The results from content analysis demonstrated that overall the students practiced participation skills when doing individual and pair work. The students practiced writing skills when joining group work. With regard to the students' satisfaction, low proficiency students in low group were likely to enjoy coauthoring activity either pair or group work. Their satisfaction seemed to increase according to the number of group members. This is important for writing teachers to provide this activity for low proficiency students as this may lower the students' anxiety and foster their self-confidence, compared with completing tasks individually. On the contrary high proficiency students seemed to enjoy writing alone and were fairly satisfied group work. These students were likely to be more confident when performing the tasks individually or experienced some problems that might impede working collaboratively."… this approach focuses on the need for providing a positive, encouraging, and collaborative workshop environment within which students, with ample time and minimal interference, can work through their composing processes. The teacher's role is to help students develop viable strategies for getting started (finding topics, generating ideas and information, focusing, and planning structure and procedure), for drafting (encouraging multiple drafts), for revising (adding, deleting, modifying, and rearranging ideas), and for editing (attending to vocabulary, sentence, grammar and mechanics)" (p. 15).Reid (1993) also values the writing process and emphasizes the focus of this approach to process teaching on how the process is related to writers approach tasks by problem-solving method in areas such as audience, purpose, and the situation for writing. Focusing on this approach, Hyland (2003) further emphasizes that writers are independent producers of texts and further addresses the issue of what teachers should do to help learners perform writing tasks. Hyland (2003) also defines this approach as "the numerous incarnations of this perspective are consistent in recognizing basic cognitive processes as central to writing activity and in stressing the need to develop students' abilities to plan, define a rhetorical problem, propose, and evaluate solutions" (p. 10).From this writing process approach, collaborative activity tends to be occurred when the students help each other to plan, write and revise their tasks. This can be an efficient learning process as i...

No abstract

The present study aims to explore critical thinking from EFL Thai students’ perspectives in collaborative writing activity. The subjects were 32 second-year English major students composing paragraph writing in the Writing II course. They were divided into three groups based on their English proficiency: advanced, intermediate, and novice, and data was collected using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The critical thinking skills questionnaire was utilized to collect quantitative data, and the results were analyzed using Mean and Standard deviation. For qualitative data, an interview was used to collect critical thinking skills practice of six students randomly selected. The quantitative results revealed that the highest critical thinking skills practice was found in analyzing (Mean=3.47, SD=1.15), followed by evaluating (Mean=3.44, SD=1.27), and creating (Mean=3.34, SD=.03), respectively. For qualitative results, it was found that the students in the high level of English proficiency group reported they practiced critical thinking by analyzing, evaluating, and creating. They produced a new sentence and a paragraph, selected the best ideas, and categorized the supporting details based on information and ideas from peers. Regarding intermediate and novice level groups, they reported identically that they frequently practiced analyzing and evaluating. Analyzing and assessing were two critical thinking abilities that were commonly utilized. They have to do with comparing and choosing content, as well as elements of arguments and supporting statements. As a result, collaborative writing appeared to promote pupils to use critical thinking skills when writing.

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