Enhancing academic writing through collaborative discussions: a mixed-methods study with university EFL students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64171/JAES.6.4.95-103Keywords:
Academic writing development, Peer feedback, Mixed-methods research, EFL students, Higher education writingAbstract
This mixed-methods study examines how collaborative discussions enhance academic writing development among university EFL students. 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.” Paired-samples t-test results indicated statistically significant improvements in argumentation, coherence, and structure after the intervention (p < .001). The standard deviation decreased to 0.657, suggesting a more consistent performance among students.
Qualitative findings revealed that collaborative idea generation, peer feedback, and exposure to diverse perspectives played a significant role in improving students’ argumentation, coherence, and structural organization in academic writing. Group discussions also increased students’ confidence and motivation, although some participants reported time-management challenges, suggesting the need for more structured facilitation.
References
Bakhtin MM. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. University of Texas Press, 1981.
Berg EC. The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. J Second Lang Writ. 1999;8(3):215-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5.
Braine G. Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy. Ablex Publishing, 2001.
Bruffee KA. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Cho K, MacArthur C. Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Instr Sci. 2010;38(2):173-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9071-0.
Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications, 2018.
Harris M. Three ways to improve student peer response sessions. Coll Compos Commun. 1992;43(1):51-65. https://doi.org/10.2307/358761.
Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Gokhale AA. Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. J Technol Educ. 1995;7(1):22-30. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2.
Hyland K, Hyland F. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Laal M, Ghodsi S. Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci., 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.012.
Lave J, Wenger E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Leki I. The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Lang Ann. 1991;24(2):203-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x.
Leki I, Carson J. "Completely different worlds": EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Q. 1997;31(1):39-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587974.
Li M, Zhu W. Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Lang Learn Technol, 2017. https://doi.org/10.125/44682.
Lopatovska I, Chakraborty S. Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2016;232:466-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.064.
Liu Y, Hansen J. Peer response in L2 writing classrooms. J Second Lang Writ. 2021;52:100735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100735.
Mackey A, Gass SM. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Routledge, 2020.
Matsuda PK, Silva T. Culture and Writing: A Review of the Literature. ERIC Digest, 2005.
Mercer N, Howe C. Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learn Cult Soc Interact. 2012;1(1):12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001.
Mercer N. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge, 2000.
Palmer PJ. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life. Jossey-Bass, 2007.
Prior P. Writing/Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.
Ranalli J. Artificial intelligence and second language writing: Opportunities and challenges. J Second Lang Writ, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.100947.
Storch N. Collaborative writing. Lang Teach. 2019;52(1):40-59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320.
Topping KJ. Peer assessment. Theory Pract. 2009;48(1):20-27.
Tsui ABM, Ng M. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? System. 2000;28(2):147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00022-9.
Tuzi F. The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Comput Compos. 2004;21(2):217-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003.
Yu S, Lee I. Peer feedback in second language writing. Lang Teach, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481600016X.
Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, 1978.
Wegerif R. Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning. Springer, 2007.
Wells G. Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Wolfe JL. Interacting with peers in small groups: Costs, benefits, and implications for writing performance. J Second Lang Writ. 2003;12(1):3-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00106-4.
Wolfe JL. Peer Response in the Composition Classroom: Theory and Practice. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2016.
Zhang M, Hyland K. Fostering collaborative writing through peer interaction in digital learning environments. J Second Lang Writ, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.100937.
Zhou M. Collaborative writing and critical thinking: A case study. J Writ Res. 2018;10(3):479-503. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.10.03.03.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Vy Ngoc Nguyen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.