The Effects of Blog-supported Collaborative Writing on Writing Performance, Writing Anxiety and

303 Pages·2015·4.68 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff SSoouutthh FFlloorriiddaa
DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmoonnss @@ UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff
SSoouutthh FFlloorriiddaa
USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations USF Graduate Theses and Dissertations
4-9-2015
TThhee EEffffeeccttss ooff BBlloogg--ssuuppppoorrtteedd CCoollllaabboorraattiivvee WWrriittiinngg oonn WWrriittiinngg
PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee,, WWrriittiinngg AAnnxxiieettyy aanndd PPeerrcceeppttiioonnss ooff EEFFLL CCoolllleeggee
SSttuuddeennttss iinn TTaaiiwwaann
Hui-Ju Wu
University of South Florida, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd
Part of the Education Commons, and the Modern Languages Commons
SScchhoollaarr CCoommmmoonnss CCiittaattiioonn
Wu, Hui-Ju, "The Effects of Blog-supported Collaborative Writing on Writing Performance, Writing Anxiety
and Perceptions of EFL College Students in Taiwan" (2015). USF Tampa Graduate Theses and
Dissertations.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/5600
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the USF Graduate Theses and Dissertations at
Digital Commons @ University of South Florida. It has been accepted for inclusion in USF Tampa Graduate Theses
and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University of South Florida. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
The Effects of Blog-supported Collaborative Writing on Writing Performance,

Writing Anxiety and Perceptions of EFL College Students in Taiwan

by

Hui-Ju Wu

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Secondary Education
College of Education
and
Department of World Languages
College of Arts and Sciences
University of South Florida

Co-major Professor: Wei Zhu, Ph.D.
Co-Major Professor: Camilla Vasquez, Ph.D.
Yi-Hsin Chen, Ph.D.
Glenn Smith, Ph.D.

Date of Approval:
April 9, 2015

Keywords: computer-mediated communication (CMC), online collaborative writing,
EFL, blog, writing performance, writing anxiety

Copyright © 2015, Hui-Ju Wu
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables v

List of Figures ix

Abstract x

Chapter One: Introduction 1
Background to the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 9
Research Questions 9
Theoretical Framework 10
Collaborative Learning 10
Computer-Mediated Communication 21
Significance of the Study 23
Definition of Terms 24
Organization of the Dissertation Study 26

Chapter Two: Literature Review 27
The Nature of Writing 27
Writing Approaches 28
Cognitive, Affective and Social Aspects of Writing 31
Collaborative Writing 36
Defining Collaborative Writing 36
Research on Collaborative Writing 38
Computer-Assisted Writing 46
Research on Computer-based Writing 46
Research on CMC Writing 47
Online Collaborative Writing 55
Research on Online Collaborative Writing 55
i
Significant Differences or No Significant Differences 62
Blogs 66
Definitions of Blogs 66
Types of Blogs 67
Features of Blogs 69
Issues Concerned 74
Research on Blogs in L2 Learning 75
Concluding Remarks 79

Chapter Three: Methodology 81
Setting 82
Participants 83
Role of the Teacher 86
Role of the Researcher 87
Research Design 88
Materials 89
Data Collection 89
Treatment 92
Collaborative Writing task 92
Blog v.s. Paper-and-pencil 96
Blog-supported Collaborative Writing Process 98
Traditional Collaborative Writing Process 107
Data Collected 112
Pre- and Post-test Individual Writing Tasks 112
Pre- and Post-test Writing Anxiety Measure 112
Background Survey 113
Collaborative Writing Questionnaire 114
Interview 114
Students’ Group Blogs and Notebooks 115
Data Analysis 116
Quantitative Analysis 116
Qualitative Analysis 119
Pilot Study 121
Test-retest Reliability 122
Internal Consistency Reliability 124
Validity of the Instruments 126
ii
Summary of the Chapter 127

Chapter Four: Results 128
Quantitative Results 128
Writing Performance 128
Writing Anxiety 141
Perceptions of Collaborative Writing 142
Qualitative Results 155
Function of Collaborative Writing 159
Features of the Media 170
Difficulty of Collaborative Writing 176
Factors Influencing Motivation 181
Suggestion 187
Summary of the Results 189

Chapter Five: Discussion 201
Discussion of Quantitative Results 201
Collaborative Writing Performance 201
Individual Writing Performance 204
Writing Anxiety 206
Students’ Perceptions 208
Discussion of Qualitative Results 211
The Improvement of Writing Performance 211
The Decrease of Writing Anxiety 214
Ease of Use 216
Interaction 216
Difficulty of Collaborative Writing 218
Factors Influencing Motivation 220
Suggestion 222
Implications 223
Suggestions for Future Research 227
Internal Validity 228
Limitations 230
Conclusion 232

References 237
iii
Appendices 251
Appendix A: The Classroom and Lab in the Private University 252
Appendix B: The Syllabus of the English Course 253
Appendix C: Instruction on Setting up and Using Blogs 255
Appendix D : Instruction for Collaborative Writing 261
Appendix E : The Sample of Collaborative Writing Prompt 263
Appendix F : Group Evaluation Form 264
Appendix G : Individual Writing Tasks 266
Appendix H : Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) 267
Appendix I : The Chinese Version of the SLWAI 269
Appendix J : Permission Letter from Dr. Cheng 271
Appendix K: Background Survey 272
Appendix L: Collaborative Writing Questionnaire 273
Appendix M: Interview Permission Form 277
Appendix N: Interview Questions 278
Appendix O: Rating Scale for Traditional Paragraph Writing 280
Appendix P: Analytic Writing Rubric 282
Appendix Q: Approval from the IRB (The Pilot Study) 284
Appendix R: Consent Form (The Pilot Study) 286
Appendix S: Critique Sheet 288
Appendix T: The Approval from the IRB 289

iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The Comparison Between Blogs and Paper-and-pencil 74
Table 3.1 The Background of the Participants 85
Table 3.2 Data Collection Timeline 97
Table 3.3 Research Questions, Data Collection, and Data Analysis 120
Table 3.4 Test-retest Reliability (r) of the Traditional Collaborative Writing
Questionnaire 123
Table 3.5 Test-retest Reliability (r) of the Blog-Supported Collaborative Writing
Questionnaire 124
Table 3.6 Reliability of Each Dimension of the Traditional Collaborative Writing
Questionnaire 125
Table 3.7 Reliability of Each Dimension of the Blog-supported Collaborative
Writing Questionnaire 126
Table 3.8 Reliability (α) of Each Dimension of the Chinese Version of the SLWAI 126
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics on the Writing Quantity of the CW Tasks 129
Table 4.2 The Summary of the Gain Score on the Writing Quantity
of the CW Tasks 130
Table 4.3 The Difference of Gain Scores on the CW Quantity Between Classes 130
Table 4.4 The Inter-rater Reliability Regarding the Quality of CW 132
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics on the writing quality of the CW tasks 133
Table 4.6 The Range of the Gain Score on the Writing Quality of the CW Tasks 133
Table 4.7 The Difference of Gain Scores on the CW Quality Between Classes 133
v
Table 4.8 The Differences in the Six Graded Areas of Collaborative Writings
Between Classes 134
Table 4.9 The Writing Performance Between Classes Before the Treatment 136
Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics on the Writing Quantity of the
Individual Writing 137
Table 4.11 The Summary of the Gain Score on the Writing Quantity of the
Individual Writing 138
Table 4.12 The Differences of Gain Scores on the Quantity of Individual Writing
Between Classes 138
Table 4.13 The Inter-rater Reliability Regarding the Quality of Individual Writing 139
Table 4.14 Descriptive Statistics on the Writing Quality of the Individual Writing 139
Table 4.15 The Range of the Gain Score on the Writing Quality of the
Individual Writing 140
Table 4.16 The Difference of Gain Scores on the Quality of Individual Writing
Between Classes 140
Table 4.17 The Differences in the Six Graded Areas of Individual Writings
Between Classes 140
Table 4.18 Writing Anxiety Between Classes Before the Treatment 141
Table 4.19 Descriptive Statistics on the Writing Anxiety of the Two Classes 142
Table 4.20 The Range of Gain Score on the Writing Anxiety of the Two Classes 142
Table 4.21 The Difference of Gain Scores on the Writing Anxiety
Between Classes 142
Table 4.22 Perceptions of the Collaborative Features of Blogs (Experimental Class) 144
Table 4.23 Perceptions of the Writing Performance (Experimental Class) 145
vi
Table 4.24 Perceptions of the Writing Anxiety (Experimental Class) 146
Table 4.25 Perceptions of the Future Motivation (Experimental Class) 147
Table 4.26 Perceptions of Collaborative Feature of Paper-and-pencil (Control Class) 148
Table 4.27 Perceptions of Writing Performance (Control Class) 149
Table 4.28 Perceptions of Writing Anxiety (Control Class) 150
Table 4.29 Perceptions of Future Motivation (Control Class) 151
Table 4.30 The Comparison of Students’ Responses Between Classes 152
Table 4.31 The Difference of Students’ Responses Between Classes in Terms of
the Four Sections 154
Table 4.32 English Study Background of the Students in the Experimental Class 157
Table 4.33 English Study Background of the Students in the Control Class 158
Table 4.34 The Range of Scores for the Largest, Medium and Lowest Gains
in Both Classes 158
Table 4.35 The Number of the Responses Between Classes 161
Table 4.36 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Largest Gains 161
Table 4.37 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Medium Gains 162
Table 4.38 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Lowest Gains 162
Table 4.39 Students’ Responses about What Factors Lead to the
Improvement of Writing 163
Table 4.40 The Number of the Responses Between Classes 167
Table 4.41 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Largest Gains 167
Table 4.42 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Medium Gains 168
Table 4.43 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Lowest Gains 169
Table 4.44 The Number of the Responses Between Classes 171
vii
Table 4.45 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Largest Gains 171
Table 4.46 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Medium Gains 171
Table 4.47 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Lowest Gains 172
Table 4.48 The Number of the Responses Between Classes 174
Table 4.49 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Largest Gains 174
Table 4-50 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Medium Gains 175
Table 4.51 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Lowest Gains 176
Table 4.52 The Number of the Responses Between Classes 178
Table 4.53 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Largest Gains 179
Table 4.54 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Medium Gains 179
Table 4.55 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Lowest Gains 180
Table 4.56 The Number of the Responses Between Classes 183
Table 4.57 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Largest Gains 184
Table 4.58 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Medium Gains 184
Table 4.59 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Lowest Gains 186
Table 4.60 The Number of the Responses Between Classes 188
Table 4.61 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Largest Gains 188
Table 4.62 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Medium Gains 189
Table 4.63 The Responses of the Students Who Made the Lowest Gains 189

viii