Volume 07 Issue 08 August 2024
Le Thi Tuyen
Thang Long University, Hanoi, Vietnam
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i08-60Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This research investigates the effectiveness of writing workshops in enhancing the writing proficiency of first-year university students at Thang Long University. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the workshops' impact. A total of 167 students participated in the study, undergoing pre-test and post-test assessments to measure improvements in organization, clarity, grammar, and argumentation using standardized rubrics. Quantitative results from paired samples t-tests revealed significant improvements across all assessed aspects of writing, with mean differences indicating enhanced writing skills post-intervention. Qualitative data, collected through interviews, focus groups, reflective journals, and observations, corroborated these findings and provided deeper insights into the specific components of the workshops that were most effective. Students highlighted the value of peer review for receiving diverse feedback, the detailed guidance from instructor feedback, the collaborative learning fostered by group writing exercises, and the continuous improvement encouraged by iterative drafting. The integration of qualitative and quantitative findings suggests that each component of the writing workshops contributed uniquely to the overall improvement in writing proficiency. Despite the overall positive impact, challenges such as variability in peer feedback quality, the need for more frequent instructor interactions, and the time-intensive nature of iterative drafting were identified.
KEYWORDS:writing workshop, peer review, instructor feedbacks, iterative drafting
REFERENCES1) Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., & Robinson, A. (2017). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 21-32.
2) Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2013). Writing instruction that works: Proven methods for middle and high school classrooms. Teachers College Press.
3) Atwell, N. (2015). In the middle: A lifetime of learning about writing, reading, and adolescents. Heinemann.
4) Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
5) Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635-652.
6) Calkins, L. (2014). The art of teaching writing. Heinemann.
7) Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
8) Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.
9) Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426.
10) Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education.
11) Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers & children at work. Heinemann.
12) Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford University Press.
13) Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 5(2), 5-22.
14) Klinger, C. M. (2018). Formulaic writing across hollow writing. The English Journal, 108(2), 92-94.
15) Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
16) Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375-401.
17) Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
18) Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139-158.
19) Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
20) Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148-156.
21) Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
22) Thaiss, C., & Zawacki, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life. Boynton/Cook.
23) Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. ASCD.
24) Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 105-125). Academic Press.
25) Wingate, U. (2012). "Argument!" helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154.