1. A blended collaborative approach to writing: Implications for second language learning and teaching Yue-en Anita Pu 2016 CARN Waikato Symposium

2. Overview 1.Research significance 2.Main research objectives 3.The research intervention 4.Data collection tools 5.Preliminary findings

3. Significance Focus Integration of face-to-face (FTF) and network-based (NWB)* collaborative writing Research spaces 1.Both FTF and NWB learning platforms used to complete the same collaborative writing tasks 2. The use of triads 3. Action research

4. Main Research Objectives To explore the perceptions and practices of the participants regarding 1)face-to-face 2)network-based 3)blended collaborative writing

5. The Research Intervention ❖ A two-cycle action research project ❖ A 7-week voluntary academic writing course ❖ Two 90-minute face-to-face sessions every week ❖ One-two hours of homework using Google Apps for Education ❖ Collaborative writing in triads

6. The Research Intervention Cycle One Participants ❖ 15 WPC English language learners ➢ 4 from Level 4 (Intermediate) ➢ 3 from Level 5 (Upper-intermediate 1) ➢ 6 from Level 6 (Upper-intermediate 2) ➢ 2 from Level 7 (Advanced 1) ❖ 5 nationalities ➢ 10 Chinese (2m/7f) ➢ 2 Saudi students (2f) ➢ 2 Korean (1m/1f) ➢ 1 Taiwanese (1m) ➢ 1 Samoan (1f)

7. ❖ Semi-self-selected triads ClassDojoClassDojo ➢ The Anonymous ➢ The Blessed Sisters ➢ The Ladies ➢ The Riddle ➢ The Smarts ❖ 4 withdrawals The Research Intervention Cycle One Participants

8. The Research Intervention An Example Task 1.IELTS Task 1 - Sequential Graphs handouthandout 1.Teacher-student - language 2.Student-student - practice writing draft 1 3.Group-group; teacher - feedback 4.Student-student - practice writing draft 2 5.Individuals - your favourite essay

9. Research Methodologies ■ Interpretative ■ Action research ■ Multi-method

10. Data Collection Tools 1.Pre- and post-course essays 2.Pre- and post-course narrative frames 3.Audio recordings of group discussions 4.Students’ ongoing writing assignments (both in class and online) 5.Focus groups 6.Researcher’s reflective journal and audio recordings of teaching

11. Main Data Collection Tools

12. Narrative Frames A written story template that has numerous incomplete sentences followed by empty spaces to guide the research participants to express their learning stories or experience, so that they can concentrate on the stories and not be distracted about the organisation of the writing. (Barkhuizen, Benson, & Chik, 2013; Barkhuizen & Wette, 2008; Hiratsuka, 2014)

13. Extract of Post-course NF

14. Preliminary findings 1.Participants’ perceptions of face-to-face collaborative writing All Positive – 11 out of 11 “… more effective because we can brainstorm more different ideas.” “... a good method because we can exercise critical thinking and oral skill.” “… more convenient because we can discuss and focus on the topic without delayed the time.”

15. Preliminary findings 2.Participants’ perceptions of network-based collaborative writing Somewhat positive – 6 out of 11 “… good because we got time to consider to ourselves...” “... saving time because I can do my important studying first then talk with my partner at late night.” “… a modern method because members who are in different levels can exchange views any time.”

16. Preliminary findings 3. Participants’ perceptions of network-based collaborative writing However, three participants commented … “… a sort of wasting time because I have to wait until others finish the other parts of the assignments.” “... not good because it is really hard to reach agreement and difficult to understand others’ opinions.” “...not easy because it is difficult to express my opinions and takes too much time.”

17. Preliminary findings 3. Participants’ perceptions of blended collaborative writing Mostly positive – 10 out of 11 “… useful and effective because it helps you to learn faster.” “... not a bad choice because it can improve our interesting on study and gain support from each other.” “... not very bad because it can improve our relationship.” “... great because if I forgot something others will mention me and help me fix my mistakes.”

18. Conclusion ➔ Blended collaborative writing… ◆ makes learning more fun ◆ pools ideas and knowledge from different people ◆ gives more opportunities for interaction ➔ Using ONLY NWB collaborative writing might not be a good idea in an ESL context

19. References Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2013). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research. New York, NY: Routledge. Barkhuizen, G., & Wette, R. (2008). Narrative frames for investigating the experiences of language teachers. System, 36(3), 372-387. Hiratsuka, T. (2014). Understanding the perceptions and practices of team teachers and students in Japanese high schools through exploratory practice (EP). Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, New Zealand

20. Questions/ Suggestions