Promoting Foreign Language Learners� Writing: Comparing the Impact of Oral Conferencing and Collaborative Writing

Abstract

This study is an attempt to compare the effect of oral conferencing alongside collaborative writing on writing skills of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. For this purpose, a piloted sample of the Preliminary English Test (PET) was administered to 90 intermediate female EFL learners, between 20 and 32 years old (Mage = 26). The results of this test enabled the researchers to select 60 homogenous individuals who were then randomly assigned into two experimental groups of 30 named �oral conferencing group� and �collaborative writing group�. To ensure the homogeneity among the participants in terms of their writing ability before the treatment, their scores on the writing section of the PET test were analyzed in isolation and it was considered as the pretest of the study. Oral conferencing included the discussions and negotiations among the participants and the teacher before and after writing activities followed by live teacher-student as well as student-student feedbacks. In the collaborative writing group, the participants wrote compositions in groups based on the same topics introduced in the oral conferencing group. At the end, both groups were given another piloted writing section of the PET test as the posttest. The analysis of the test scores using an independent sample t-test and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that there is a significant difference between the effect of oral conferencing and collaborative writing on EFL learners� writing skills. Finally, it can be concluded that EFL learners� writing skill was more affected by applying oral conferencing rather than collaborative writing.

Investigating conference feedback in Cambodian EFL class: students’ writing accuracy improvement and their views of the feedback

“…Through the interview responses, the low-achieving language students felt less appreciative about their involvement in the conference, as they sometimes felt it was stressful and inconvenient to ask questions, to give their responses, and to talk about their mistakes. Nosratinia and Nikpanjeh (2015) emphasized in this light that the low-proficiency writers work more effectively with written feedback than other feedback types since the students need to identify specific errors for improvement. Conference feedback thus should be combined with other feedback techniques, for instance, a portfolio (Atai & Alipour, 2012), a reflective inquiry (Bitchener et al, 2005;Ferreira et al, 2007;Ferris, 2007), and/or collaborative feedback (Nosratinia & Nikpanjeh, 2015) to enhance the students' writing accuracy.…”

“…Nosratinia and Nikpanjeh (2015) emphasized in this light that the low-proficiency writers work more effectively with written feedback than other feedback types since the students need to identify specific errors for improvement. Conference feedback thus should be combined with other feedback techniques, for instance, a portfolio (Atai & Alipour, 2012), a reflective inquiry (Bitchener et al, 2005;Ferreira et al, 2007;Ferris, 2007), and/or collaborative feedback (Nosratinia & Nikpanjeh, 2015) to enhance the students' writing accuracy. A combination of other feedback approaches help mixed-level ability students improve content and language accuracy in the texts (Bitchener et al, 2005).…”

“…Although several researchers, for example Demirel and Enginarlar (2016), Ho et al (2020), Huisman et al (2019), Klimova (2015), Angel et al (2017), Nurie (2020), Sotoudehnama and Pilehvari (2016), and Yamalee and Tangkiengsirisin (2019) argued that any kinds of feedback helps students become better writers in class and beyond, conference feedback has a distinct feature, as a process-oriented technique, for enhancing students' writing abilities to improve language accuracy and meaning in the written texts (Atai & Alipour, 2012;Chandler, 2003;Ekmekci, 2015;Lerner, 2005;Sotoudehnama & Pilehvari, 2016). In addition, this feedback focuses not only on teacher's feedback but also on teacher-student interactions along a writing process (Eckstein, 2013;Lerner, 2005) which helps develop students' writing skills and speaking abilities (Hyland & Hyland, 2006;Nosratinia & Nikpanjeh, 2015). However, the study on the effects of conference feedback on Cambodian students' EFL writing has never been conducted in Cambodia although it has been widely recognized (Eckstein, 2013;Klimova, 2015;Nosratinia & Nikpanjeh, 2015;Sotoudehnama & Pilehvari, 2016) as an effective strategy for the writing classes.…”

“…In addition, this feedback focuses not only on teacher's feedback but also on teacher-student interactions along a writing process (Eckstein, 2013;Lerner, 2005) which helps develop students' writing skills and speaking abilities (Hyland & Hyland, 2006;Nosratinia & Nikpanjeh, 2015). However, the study on the effects of conference feedback on Cambodian students' EFL writing has never been conducted in Cambodia although it has been widely recognized (Eckstein, 2013;Klimova, 2015;Nosratinia & Nikpanjeh, 2015;Sotoudehnama & Pilehvari, 2016) as an effective strategy for the writing classes. Without any preliminary studies, the teacher-researcher conceptualized conference feedback as a conversational-process design with a clear purpose, structure, and role for the teacher and the students to work on improving the accuracy of the written texts.…”

Google Docs: Students’ Perceptions as Online Collaborative Tool in Learning Writing Skills

“…It should centre on helping students become better writers and not solely looking at upgrading their writing scores. It is unjust to determine students' writing abilities when they have different proficiencies but rather measure the writing improvement they made (Mcdonough & Sunitham, 2009;Noonan & Coral, 2013;Nosratinia & Nikpanjeh, 2015).…”