The Uses of Group Discussion to Improve the Teaching and Learning of Academic Writing
Abstract
This study investigates how the utilization of group discussions improves students' academic writing skills, focusing on both quantitative and qualitative outcomes. A total of 147 university students participated in pre-test and post-test assessments to measure their writing performance before and after engaging in group discussions. The pre-test results revealed that students’ writing skills were rated between “fair” and “good,” with a mean score of 2.41 and a high degree of variability (SD = 0.985). After the intervention, the post-test showed a significant improvement, with the mean score rising to 3.40, indicating writing abilities between “good” and “very good.” The standard deviation decreased to 0.657, suggesting a more consistent performance among students.
Qualitative data collected from focus group discussions further illuminated the benefits of group discussions in enhancing writing skills. Students reported that collaborative idea generation, peer feedback, and exposure to diverse perspectives played a crucial role in improving their writing, particularly in terms of argumentation, coherence, and structure. Group discussions also boosted students' confidence and motivation. However, some students identified time management challenges, indicating the need for better facilitation.
References
2. Berg, E. C. (1999). The Effects of Trained Peer Response on ESL Students' Revision Types and Writing Quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.
3. Braine, G. (2001). Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy. Ablex Publishing.
4. Brown, H. D., & Larson, A. (2016). Collaborative Learning in Higher Education: Group Discussions as a Learning Tool. Education Journal.
5. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Johns Hopkins University Press
6. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student Revision with Peer and Expert Reviewers: From Symbiosis to Work Time Management. Instructional Science, 38(2), 173–198.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
8. Harris, M. (1992). Three Ways to Improve Student Peer Response Sessions. College Composition and Communication, 43(1), 51–65.
9. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
10. Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30.
11. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.
12. Lee, H., & Lee, J. (2020). Exploring the Role of Collaborative Learning in Enhancing Writing Skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 590-605.
13. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(2), 203-218.
14. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69.
15. Lopatovska, I., & Chakraborty, S. (2016). Peer Feedback in Learning English Writing: Advantages and Disadvantages. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 466–472.
16. Liu, Y., & Hansen, J. (2021). Peer Response in L2 Writing Classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100735.
17. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2020). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Routledge.
18. Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (2005). Culture and Writing: A Review of the Literature. ERIC Digest.
19. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge.
20. Palmer, P. J. (2007). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life. Jossey-Bass.
21. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the Dialogic Processes of Teaching and Learning: The Value and Potential of Sociocultural Theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12-21.
22. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (2017). Enhancing Academic Writing through Peer Interaction. Journal of Higher Education Studies.
24. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
25. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
26. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). The Impact of Peer Feedback on Writing Performance. System, 28(2), 217–239.
27. Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235.
28. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
29. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning. Springer.
30. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge University Press.
31. Wolfe, J. L. (2003). Interacting with peers in small groups: Costs, benefits, and implications for writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 3-24.
32. Wolfe, J. L. (2016). Peer response in the composition classroom: Theory and practice. Bedford/St. Martin's.
33. Zhou, M. (2018). Collaborative Writing and Critical Thinking: A Case Study. Journal of Writing Research, 10(3), 479-503.
34. Zhu, W. (2021). Exploring the Impact of Group Discussions on EFL Learners’ Writing Skills. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 120-140.
Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.