Integrating teacher-aided and technology-assisted

intervention into collaborative synthesis writing

Duo, Grace, Nannan, Qiuwen & Yishan

1. Literature Review
Forms of computer-assisted writing tools:
Combination (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996)

Word processor

Invention program

Revision program

Email

Real-time electronic message system (InterChange)Process-Writing Wizard (Leh, Yo, & Huang, 2011)

Outlining, composing, group chatting

Google Docs (Bikowski, 2017)

Collaboration Tools:
Blogs, Kami, Video Conferencing (Skype, Google Hangouts, etc.), Voicethread
1. Literature Review
The benefits of online collaborative writing:

Leh, Yo, & Huang, 2011

A more social...writing process
Greater space for collaborative knowledge synthesis
Teacher observation of student work
Online facilitators may help students to stay on task and create quality writing
Higher student interest in the task
Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016
Improvement in individual writing ability
Yim & Warschauer, 2017
Group computer-assisted writing yielded increasingly complex and coherent texts (from Mak & Coniam, 2008)
1. Literature Review
Considerations for online collaborative writing:

Writing quality improved with computer-assisted lessons vs. paper-based writing, but no difference in student
attitudes regarding the two media
Sullivan & Pratt (1996)

Lack of data on student interactions during collaborative online writing

Yim & Warshcauer, 2017
2. Research Questions
The current study will investigate how three kinds of intervention contribute to the collaborative writing for the
undergraduate international students. The following are the research questions:

1. How does each of the human-aided, technology-assisted and combined intervention improve the collaborative
writing from the beginning to end of the study? (3 groups individually: Pre-test to Post-test)
2. Is technology-assisted intervention more effective than human-aid intervention? (Group 2 vs. Group 1: score
improvement from Pre-test to Post-test)
3. Is the combination of technology-assisted and human-aided intervention more effective than either of the other
methods on its own? (Groups 1, 2, & 3: Pre-test to Post-test)
4. How do students attitudes in each group change regarding collaborative writing? Which intervention
influences participants attitudes most ? (Pre- and Post-surveys)
3. Procedure
4. Methodology
1. Setting

2. Participants

3. Pre-survey

4. Pre-test

5. Treatment

6. Post-test

7. Post-survey
4.1 Setting

1. Undergraduate ESL course: Composition for American Academic Communication

2. Focus:
a. Introduce English academic writing
b. Prepare students to compose academic research papers for mainstream courses across the curriculum
3. Three ESL sections with the same instructor
4. Timeline: The first half semester
a. Low possibility of prior training in college-level annotated bibliography writing
5. Both pre-test and post-test conducted in class (75 mins=class time)
6. Both pre-survey and post-survey conducted after class
7. Traditional classroom used for control group
8. Computer labs used for the two treatment groups
4.2 Participants
1. First-year international undergraduate students.
a. Various fields of study, social and cultural backgrounds, knowledge of different majors.
b. All demonstrate strong academic purpose to improve writing proficiency.
c. Average proficiency level: intermediate-high
i. TOEFL scores enrolment in XXX University
2. Three ESL sessions (18; 18; 20) with the same instructor (exclude variable factors)
3. 56 ESL students - 45 Participants
a. 3 students per group (6-7 groups of one section / class depending the total number of the students in the
roster)
b. 11 students excluded due to insufficient attendance or uneven grouping (variable)
4. Native English-speaking instructor with TESOL MA degree + five years working experience in the ESL
related fields
5. Two raters (ESL instructors) provided standard training for valid and consistent evaluation of pre- and post-
tests
4.3 Pre-survey
Homework: Due week before pre-test

5-Point Likert scale

Distributed before group assignment

All groups answer the same general questionnaire

Prior knowledge on annotated bibliography

Preconceptions about collaborative writing

 4.4 Grouping and Pre-test
1. 3 students / 1 group
a. Mean scores of first two assignments
b. Oral presentation score
c. Prior knowledge of annotated bibliography
2. Explicit instruction on Annotated Bibliography and models of qualified writings
3. Pre-test:
a. Uniform topic and related academic journal articles
b. Guideline
c. Two trained raters grade annotated bibliographies based on the rubric
i. Calculate and record two raters mean grade of each group.
d. Videotape in-class writing process
e. 75 mins in all: 25 mins instruction + 50 mins in-class writing
f. Pre-test will be conducted in regular classrooms
How to group the students?
The goal of the current study aims to test with teachers intervention, whether the technology assisted collaborative
work with facilitated interaction among learners will promote the writing process on a synthesis academic wiring.
When grouping the students, we need to make sure each of the group has similar proficiency levels.

a. According to the students mean scores of the first and second major assignments (primary concern)

a. According to the students scores of the oral presentation (important factor for interaction)

a. According to the students prior knowledge on annotated bibliography (pre-survey)

Guideline (from APLNG 412)
1. Summarize
a. What are the main arguments?
b. What is the point of this book or article?
c. What topics are covered?
d. If someone asked what this article/book is about, what would you say?
e. The length of your annotations will determine how detailed your summary is.
1. Assess: After summarizing a source, it may be helpful to evaluate it.
a. Is it a useful source?
b. How does it compare with other sources in your bibliography?
c. Is the information reliable?
d. Is this source biased or objective?
e. What is the goal of this source?
1. Reflect: Once you've summarized and assessed a source, you need to ask how it fits into your research.
a. Was this source helpful to you?
b. How does it help you shape your argument?
c. How can you use this source in your research project?
d. Has it changed how you think about your topic?
4.5 Post-test
1. Setting:
a. Regular classroom
b. 60 mins:
i. 10 mins instruction
ii. 50 mins in-class writing
2. Groups same as those for the pretest and treatment (three students per group)
3. Explicit instruction, guideline and introduction of each topic. (10 min)
4. Videotape the in-class writing process (50 min)
5. Collect the final papers for evaluation by trained graders
4.6 Post-survey
Last day of study, following post-test; 5-Point Likert scale

All groups:General questionnaire, identical to pre-survey (tenses adjusted)

Teacher only group:

+ Perceived effect of teachers assistance on the writing process and collaboration

Technology only group:

+ Perceived ease of use and usefulness of technology; attitude and intention to use the technology in the future

Combination Group:

+ Teacher-related questions

+ Technology-related questions
 Pre-Survey
5. Data Collection
Measurement of student writing performance
Pre-test Pre-Test
Post-test
Measurement of student attitudes towards collaborative
writing processes [Treatment]
Pre-survey
Post-survey
Video data from pre-test, treatment, and post-test to as a supplement
Post-Test

Post-Survey
6. Data Analysis
Quantitative Analysis
RQ1:Paired-samples T-test for the Pretest and Posttest scores (Three groups separately)
RQ2: Independent T-test for the improved scores (Group 1 vs. Group 2)
RQ3: Independent T-tests for the improved scores (Group 1 vs. Group 3; Group 2 vs. Group 3)
RQ4:Paired-samples T-test for the Pre-survey and Post-survey scores (Three groups
separately); One-way ANOVA (+ post-hoc pairwise comparisons: Tukey HSD) for the
improved scores of general surveys for all three groups
Research Questions:
1. How does each of the human-aided, technology-assisted and combined intervention improve the
collaborative writing from the beginning to end of the study?
2. Is technology-assisted intervention more effective than human-aid intervention?
3. Is the combination of technology-assisted and human-aided intervention more effective than either of the
other methods on its own?
4. How do students attitudes in each group change regarding collaborative writing? Which intervention
influences participants attitudes most ?
6. Data Analysis

Qualitative Analysis

Specific questions for each group respectively in the post-survey

Videotape
Appendix
Pre- and Post-Questionnaires

Annotated Bibliography Rubrics

Preferred Topic
References
Assessment Rubric for Annotated Bibliography. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2017, from
http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=A02FA463F7DB43C39FC46F1B8106961A&CID=0FC363C7A18A647330216989A0BB65D9&rd=1&h=_s7X44pJvOe9Gv
b7l69L6U618c1hPecir7Y_WeGI8IA&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2futminers.utep.edu%2fomwilliamson%2fengl1311%2fABrubric.doc&p=DevEx,5062.1

Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual l2 writing
development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79-99.

Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implications for writing assessment. Assessing
Writing, 11(1), 5-21.

Shibata, H., & Hori, K. (2008). Cognitive support for the organization of writing. New Generation Computing,
26(2), 97-124.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted
classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24(4), 491-501.

Yeh, S., Lo, J., & Huang, J. (2011). Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and
synchronous discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 397-419.

Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from
text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146.