(PDF) EFL Students' Perceptions and Chal

(PDF) EFL Students' Perceptions and Challenges of Computer-Mediated Collaborative Writing in Academic Writing Courses at Van Lang University
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Literature Review
Research Questions
Methods
Pedagogical Setting and Participants
Design of the Study
Data Collection and Analysis
Results/Findings
Qualitative Analysis (Research Question 1)
Obstacles Related to Behaviors
Discussion
Conclusion
Limitations
References
All Topics
Literature
Rhetoric and Composition
EFL Students' Perceptions and Challenges of Computer-Mediated Collaborative Writing in Academic Writing Courses at Van Lang University
Trí Phạm
2023, Atlantis Press
visibility
description
21 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
The aim of the research is to discover the challenges regarding computer-mediated collaborative writing (CMCW) EFL learners encounter in academic writing courses and investigate their perceptions about CMCW activities via online applications. The researchers used qualitative and quantitative methods by carrying out questionnaires and interviews with 80 freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors (interviews for 15 students) at the Faculty of Foreign Languages of Van Lang University (VLU) in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The findings of the study suggest common difficulties EFL learners face when taking part in CMCW activities to help improve lecturers' teaching writing methods as well as students' writing performance during their learning process.
Figures (4)
The researchers chose 80 participants who were EFL freshmen, sophomores, juniors. and seniors at the Faculty of Foreign Languages of VLU in the academic year 2021- 2022. Specifically, there were 63 female and 17 male participants (10 freshmen, 12 sophomores, 48 juniors, and 10 seniors). They also took online writing courses (Writing 1 to Writing 5) and joined CMCW activities in class. 80 participants were asked to fill in the surveys, and then the researchers selected 15 participants who volunteer to take part in the interviews (Figs. | and 2).
Table 1. The perceptions of EFL students about computer.mediated collaborative writing that giving or receiving feedback helps them improve their writing skills. Specifically, 73.8% of students in item 3 can avoid making mistakes and make progress by correct- ing others. Moreover, 63.8% of students felt comfortable when being criticized by the group members because they can know wrong things in their writing and remove them in the future (item 4). The results showed that participants find CW useful in enhancing
able 2. The challenges of computer.mediated collaborative writing regarding interaction According to Table 3, Another factor affecting the quality of collaboration is mem- bers. Dividing parts of the task can make leaders have difficulties deciding who will take responsibility for their work. Work division in writing tasks is not simple because not every learner gets a suitable in item | asserted that members’ speed of working a evel of writing. Accord ing to Table 3, 60% of participants nd levels of writing has impacts on the product of the whole group. If any members have limited writing skills, it means they make the small part of t in a group are responsible an making group work unfair. 71 he essay unsuccessful. members tending to ignore t Everything can be fair if all people d work together. However, item 2 showed some bad sides .3% of participants claimed that there existed irresponsible heir duties because of being lazy or passive. The kind of people is also the main reason leading to conflicts and arguments in the group work relationship. Also, they must not be good members, and more importantly, they give rise to unfair teamwork and scores. When it comes to the same scores for teamwork, 53.8% of participants in item 3 described them as an unfair thing as all members do not make equal contributions. Another nroblem exists 1n oroiuns that have clear distinctions hetween low-level and
Table 3. The challenges of computer.mediated collaborative writing regarding members
Related papers
The Effects of Collaborative Writing on EFL Learners’ Writing Skills and Their Perception of the Strategy
yenni rozimela
Journal of Language Teaching and Research
This mixed-method study observes the effects of collaborative writing strategy on EFL learners’ writing skill and their perception of the strategy. The population consists of 80 students from a public senior high school in West Sumatra, Indonesia. The samples, which were selected by using cluster random sampling, were categorized as the experimental and control class. Each class were taught with different teaching strategies, experimental class was taught by using collaborative writing strategy and the control class was taught by using conventional teaching strategy. The data were collected through writing tests and interviews to measure the students’ writing skill and their perception of collaborative writing. The result of the analysis reveals that collaborative writing strategy has helped students in generating their writing ideas and activating the students’ background knowledge of the topics assigned to them to develop in their writings. The result of this study also highlights...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Exploring virtual collaborative writing in the EFL classroom
Margarita Vinagre Laranjeira
Taalas, P., Jalkanen, J., Bradley, L.& Thouësny, S. (Eds). Future-proof CALL: Language learning as exploration and encounters, 2018
With the integration of new technologies in the foreign language classroom, the practice of collaborative writing has gained renewed attention, although some questions still remain unanswered regarding the extent to which these tools help learners in their writing when compared to more traditional learning contexts . In order to explore these issues, we analysed the written production of 84 undergraduate students of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) using the LIWC2015 4 software. The analysis revealed significant differences in categories such as word count, clout, emotional tone, or analytical thinking when comparing the texts written by an experimental and a control group. Moreover, regarding discourse, some differences were observed in terms of the way information was presented and structured. 4. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Software published by Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc, Austin, TX, USA. For more information go to http://liwc.wpengine.com/how-it-works/
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Integrating online collaborative writing and communication in EFL: interaction, feedback and group-based learning [Norman Fewell and George MacLean]
Norman Fewell
Proceedings of the KOTESOL International Conference, 2016
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a gradual shift away from lone computer use and a convergence towards web-based collaboration. In response to the popularity of social networking platforms, high-tech developers have come to the realization that user preferences favor the human inclination of socialization as opposed to seclusion. As a result, platforms now often include a web-based collaborative option. These additions to the repertoire of educational tools have caught the interest of scholars in search for effective ways to enhance learning. Although collaborative learning is an age-old concept that has been deliberated in much detail (e.g., Vygotsky, 1934/1987), its application with web-based tools introduces a new environment with incalculable possibilities. In this study, an online collaborative project encompassing writing and communication was undertaken by Japanese university EFL learners. The element of peer feedback and assessment was integrated into the project as well.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Online collaborative writing in an online EFL writing class
Burcu Ocak Kılınç
Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning
Most learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) consider writing a challenging task, and they experience difficulties such as organizing thoughts, selecting relevant words to represent their views, and producing rhetorical patterns specific to the target culture. Research into L2 writing suggests that collaboration in the classroom can assist students to set goals, generate ideas, write and edit, and reflect on the task. The effects of collaboration in online classes, however, remain unknown. This quasi-experimental study aims to examine the effect of online collaborative writing (OCW) in an online EFL writing class on students’ writing performance in terms of syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, and fluency. A four-week OCW intervention was carried out with 26 university students enrolled in an online English writing course at A2 level in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Data were collected using writing tasks administered as pre- and post-...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Comparing Collaborative Writing Activity in EFL Classroom: Face-to-Face Collaborative Writing versus Online Collaborative Writing Using Google Docs
Jitlada Moonma
Asian Journal of Education and Training
Collaborative writing is acknowledged as one of the most beneficial writing exercises for improving writing skills. This study aimed to look at the errors of online collaborative writing using Google Docs and face-to-face collaborative writing, as well as to find out how satisfied students were with both modes. Purposive sampling was used to pick 32 Thai second-year English major students (19 females, 13 males) from Writing II. A record form of the error kinds derived from Norrish (1983) a questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview were used as instruments. Frequency and percentage were the statistics used. The data revealed that 346 errors were discovered in online mode, while 389 errors were discovered in face-to-face mode, which was at a higher level. The most common types in the online mode were sentence fragments, while the most common kinds in the face-to-face mode were determiners. Grammars were presented to students in both modes, followed by lexis and mechanics. Further...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Who Are Active and Inactive Participants in Online Collaborative Writing? Considerations From an EFL Setting
Nakhon Kitjaroonchai
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2023
This study investigated learners' online collaborative writing (CW) behaviours. The participants were 115 EFL students from different Asian countries at a private international university in Thailand. The quantitative data was collected from students' writing contributions on two collaborative writing tasks: descriptive and argumentative essays. Data was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Bonferroni Post Hoc Test. The analysis from the one-way ANOVA test revealed a significant difference between groups regarding percentage of text contribution in CW tasks. Qualitative data was also collected from students' reflective journals and observations, where factors that influenced team collaboration were examined. The qualitative findings showed that students with higher language proficiency levels were the prominent authors who contributed more text to their group tasks. Elements affecting learners' active and inactive participations in team collaborations include student language proficiency, individual goal, designated roles, collaboration platforms, learning preference, topic familiarity, and influence of teacher. Some implications of the findings are discussed.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Exploring Acehnese EFL College Students’ Perceptions on Collaborative Writing
Zulfikar Zulfikar
Wanastra: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 2020
Applying collaborative approaches in teaching writing has been shown to have a myriad of advantages. Most of the studies on collaborative writing in language teaching, however, have focused on second language rather than foreign language contexts. This study investigated perceptions of Acehnese EFL college students toward the implementation of collaborative writing in their EFL classrooms at
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Exploring Students' Attitudes Towards The Implementation of Collaborative Writing: The case of 3rd Year students at Oran2 University
TRANSLANG JOURNAL
Traduction et Langues Vol24N°01, 2025
Collaborative learning is a crucial social-affective strategy in EFL classes, fostering shared expertise and decision-making among researchers in knowledge construction and language skills development, especially in academic writing. Good writing calls for good writing techniques, including collaborative writing. This approach encourages teamwork, critical thinking, and active engagement towards creating a well-structured piece of writing. Using collaborative writing in the classroom makes students more involved in all the writing processes—that is, in brainstorming ideas, compiling and arranging data, drafting, editing, and rewriting. Thus, the current investigation examines the attitudes and experiences of third-year English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students at the University of Oran 2, Algeria, toward collaborative writing and its effect on overcoming writing limitations. Using a mixed-methods approach, the researcher collected data through a four-section questionnaire administered to one hundred (100) students, semi-structured observations of collaborative writing projects, and analysis of student-generated essays. The quantitative analysis revealed that most students had participated in collaborative writing tasks. Though they had some reservations about time constraints and unequal participation, students generally expressed positive attitudes towards its advantages of English language learning and error correction. Qualitative data highlighted different interaction patterns and the negotiation of meaning within the group. Analyzing students’ papers revealed notable increases in organizational skills, comprehension and analysis, production standards, and discourse coherence. Although students preferred group projects to individual assignments, issues with group coordination and unequal contribution became clear as primary concerns for pedagogical relevance. The study found that the students often struggle with academic writing due to various reasons. However, implementing collaborative writing positively impacted students' attitudes towards academic writing, especially for weaker and average students. This approach helped overcome challenges such as time constraints, understanding objectives, structuring, presentation, and methodological issues. Collaborative writing significantly improved students' logical structure, clarity, understanding, analysis, production standards, and communication skills. The results imply that, in this EFL environment, collaborative writing has a significant potential to improve academic writing abilities; nevertheless, organized implementation is necessary to address the inherent challenges.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Exploring male students' perceptions in doing collaborative writing in an EFL writing course
Yoana Vincentia Tjawan
Literature informs that writing collaboratively can help students to interact more in class, lower their anxiety about completing tasks alone, and raise their confidence. However, despite the benefits of collaborative writing, not all English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students enjoy writing in a group. This study aimed at exploring male university students' perceptions of doing collaborative writing in their EFL online writing class using Google Docs. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with ten male university students at a private university in Central Java, Indonesia. The analysis results of this study indicate that most students showed a positive perception of their collaborative writing activity, such as getting useful and immediate feedback, fostering the exchange of knowledge, information, and experience, and getting the work done faster. This study is expected to offer some insights for EFL teachers to design more effective online collaborative writing activities in EFL writing classrooms, specifically in an Indonesian higher education context.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Strands and Findings of Recent Research on Technology-enhanced Collaborative Writing in EFL Setting: A Systematic Review
Parlindungan Pardede
Journal of English Teaching, 2024
More and more researchers and educators have recently focused their attention to technology-enhanced collaborative writing (TECW) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting. Yet, the updated review focusing on research in this field is meager. This study aims at helping researchers and educators get a deeper understanding of the features and development tendencies of recent research on TECW in EFL setting. It systematically reviewed 45 empirical studies published from 2014 to 2023, focusing on strands and findings. In terms of research strands, the results showed the writing process, outcomes, and students and teachers' perceptions and attitudes. In terms of research findings, the review results showed that TECW was effective in enhancing students' writing performance, developing a sense of community, engagement, motivation, collaboration, and satisfaction. The studies' findings also revealed that students and teachers demonstrated a strong disposition towards TECW practices.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges
of Computer-Mediated Collaborative Writing
in Academic Writing Courses at Van Lang
University

Pham Manh Tri , Nguyen Thi Thanh Van , and Cao Thi Xuan Tu(B)

Faculty of Foreign Languages, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
[email protected]
Abstract. The aim of the research is to discover the challenges regarding
computer-mediated collaborative writing (CMCW) EFL learners encounter in aca-
demic writing courses and investigate their perceptions about CMCW activities
via online applications. The researchers used qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods by carrying out questionnaires and interviews with 80 freshmen, sophomores,
juniors, and seniors (interviews for 15 students) at the Faculty of Foreign Lan-
guages of Van Lang University (VLU) in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The findings
of the study suggest common difficulties EFL learners face when taking part in
CMCW activities to help improve lecturers’ teaching writing methods as well as
students’ writing performance during their learning process.

Keywords: academic writing · computer-mediated collaborative writing ·
challenges · perceptions · EFL students

1 Introduction
The English language is widely used to exchange ideas, data, and knowledge related
to every aspect all over the world [5]. In Vietnam, this language is considered the core
subject in education systems because of being taught and learned to help the Vietnamese
interact with native speakers and experience new things [40]. When it comes to English
skills, perhaps writing skills are the most challenging for individuals to master and
teach [42]. Wee et al. [46] stated that notwithstanding the long process of studying
English, learners or even EFL ones are more likely to make mistakes when writing. In
order to reduce written errors as well as improve writing skills, EFL instructors have
applied numerous teaching methods. One of the most effective ones is that students are
allowed to work in groups and negotiate with their classmates. Also, the method is called
“collaborative writing”, allowing students to share and do writing tasks together to make
their writings more accurate and concise with peer feedback.
Each person has his or her own perspective, so it is thought that practicing writing
is only suitable for working individually. Nonetheless, according to Vygotsky [44],
learners can join hands with their tasks by talking about the topic, exchanging ideas,

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 35

and supporting each other to come up with more meaningful and fascinating concepts
upon collaborating. As a result, collaboration is described as an advantageous way for
students’ learning process [30]. Except for collaborative learning, collaborative writing
(CW) assists EFL students in improving their writing skills [17]. Besides, CW motivates
learners to collaborate and discuss with group members during activities [29].
In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has had significant impacts on education
across the globe. Hence, education systems must turn face-to-face classes into online
ones [31]. Regarding online methods, e-learning applied at Van Lang University (VLU)
is the best option in the pandemic. Studying from home makes learners use educational
applications such as Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and so forth [9]. In terms of CW, EFL stu-
dents have to become accustomed to computer-mediated collaborative writing (CMCW);
therefore, it is essential for undergraduates to utilize online applications or social media,
namely Facebook, Zalo, Microsoft Teams, Google Docs, etc. to create CMCW activities.
Some studies showed that CMCW has more merits than CW in some aspects. Com-
pared with CMCW, students have limited time to finish their work in CW activities,
but CMCW permits them to work together more freely [30]. Learners enhance knowl-
edge construction [48], fluency, and grammatical accuracy [20] in online collaborative
environments where they exchange information, share ideas, as well as have group
discussions about writing assignments. Moreover, CMCW is reported to improve the
accuracy of student writing and help learners to meet the accuracy criteria [6].
The research was conducted with two main purposes. The first one is to find out the
challenges of online writing collaboration EFL students face to enhance their writing
skills in academic writing classes. The second one is to discover their perceptions about
using online platforms with a view to joining CMCW activities. The results of the
paper recommend common difficulties EFL students overcome upon getting involved in
CMCW activities so as to help educators build up more effective teaching strategies as
well as improve learners’ writing performance during their learning process.

2 Literature Review
2.1 Collaborative Writing
The significant role of writing skills is undeniable in academic success and professional
fields [14]. There are several arguments about writing skills as a critical skill in academic
and professional fields [28, 33, 36]. In most curriculum programs, writing assignments
are especially focused on and utilized in most majors with the aim to help students
practice their data analysis ability, information research skill, essay writing, argument
construction, and several written tasks belonging to different particular subjects [47].
CW is the cooperation between two or more people in creating a writing text by the act
of exchanging ideas and giving contributive opinions on the text so that they will have
shared responsibility. Storch [38] defines CW as a writing text that is written by more
than two people. The writing procedure can be conducted on online platforms that are
equipped with technology tools and mediums.
According to Chapelle and Douglas [12], students’ learning can be activated through
the act of arguing about the content and ideas of the text. The empirical research of
Vygotsky [44] suggests that critical thinking, solving skills, and language knowledge are

36 P. M. Tri et al.

basically formed through daily talking, discussing, and argumentative activities. From
that, CW is a proper study method that provides students with learning opportunities
through discussing tasks. Besides, there are many constituents that affect CW such as
differences in the abilities, English levels, and background of the student [21]. Moreover,
Roberson [35] states that CW facilitated an environment suitable for the Communicative
Language Teaching method for students as real English conversations are essential to
CW.
Online collaborative writing (OCW) applications allow learners to join in an open
online forum where they can discuss with multiple people to complete the joint writ-
ing task. However, learners cannot depend largely on these tools to achieve a successful
project because there are many constituents that affect the learning such as their perspec-
tives on OCW, their engagement in the work project, their connection between group
members, and learning environments [7, 19].

2.2 The Effects of Collaborative Writing
A large number of scholars in the world discovered the positive effects of group inter-
active writing activities compared to individual writing ones. Most of them agreed that
CW tends to be more positive than personal writing. Students joining CW can develop
much better ideas, vocabulary, and accuracy [37]. Similarly, Kim [25] also agreed that
students’ vocabulary usage in collaboratively written products became superior in the
posttests. Learners who discuss with group members to compose essays together learn a
lot from others, leading to better results of posttests [18, 45]. Additionally, CW creates
a supportive learning environment to improve learners’ writing quality [39]. According
to Hodges [23], CW can make students become active in learning and develop student
creativity and ways to perceive an object. CW helps to develop learners’ knowledge by
learning from their peers [34]. Caspi and Blau [10] also say CW gives students opportu-
nities to develop teamwork skills. Ellis and Goodyear [19] state that taking part in CW
can make students more knowledgeable and professional.
Many researchers have pointed out the advantages of CW on students in academic
writing performance. Students who get involved in CW platforms such as Google Docs
are measured to have higher scores than those who work in groups in a real interactive
classroom. Students’ perceptions of the concept of CW are also positive [41]. CW pro-
motes active learning by providing students with autonomous abilities for their learning
and improving critical thinking skills on emerging issues when having a shared written
text with the groups [41]. Social skills such as decision-making, group management,
and interaction are increased in writing collaboratively. Students will verify their initial
ideas before sharing them with other members of the groups. Through implementation
and assessment of their peers, the initial ideas can be contributed to various aspects that
are objective.
Villarreal and Gil-Sarratea [43] conducted a classroom-based study to discover the
effects of CW on EFL settings in 2019. The participants of the study took part in two
groups. The first one was the control group to write an argumentative essay individually,
and the second one was the experimental group to work in pairs with the same task. They
concluded that CW helps students produce more accurate and more lexically and gram-
matically complex essays to get higher scores in contents, structures, and organizations.

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 37

Moreover, CW brought students chances to collect ideas, consider the use of language
carefully, and give others feedback.
In addition, Anggraini et al. [3] carried out their mixed-method study to investigate
the influences of CW strategies on EFL students’ writing skills and their perceptions of
the strategies. The participants were 80 students from a public senior high school in West
Sumatra, Indonesia. The researchers chose the samples categorized as the experimental
and control class by using cluster random sampling. The students in the experimental
class were taught by using CW strategies, and the students in the control class were
taught by using conventional teaching strategies. After that, data collection consisted of
writing tests and interviews to evaluate the students’ writing skills and their perceptions
of CW. The scholars pointed out that learners can generate their ideas and activate their
background knowledge about the topics to develop their written products thanks to CW.
In 2021, Pham [32] investigated CW’s effects on students’ writing fluency. The
participants of the study included 62 sophomore EFL students at a university in Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam. Collecting data was from students’ pretests and posttests of both
individually and collaboratively written essays and from semi-structured interviews. In
particular, there were 27 students from the control group that wrote essays individually
after discussing ideas with group members to make an outline, and there were 35 ones
from the experimental group that wrote essays collaboratively. In addition, he suggested
an efficient framework for CW activities lecturers teaching writing skills can apply
to writing courses. The results of the research showed that CW can improve learners’
writing fluency regarding the number of words in individually and collaboratively written
papers.
Recently, Anshu and Yesuf [5] have examined the influences of CW on EFL learners’
paragraph level writing performance with respect to the two aspects of writing: content
and coherence. The researchers invited students at Felegebirahn Secondary School in
Amhara Region, Ethiopia to participate in two groups (experimental and control) to
gather data. The students in the experimental group were asked to practice paragraph
level writing tasks collaboratively, whereas the rest in the control group were asked to
practice the same writing tasks alone for 12 weeks. Anshu and Yesuf’s data collection was
paragraph writing tests and the participants’ questionnaires and semi-structured inter-
views related to attitude towards CW. After the investigation, the results demonstrated
that the learners joining CW activities had more significant improvements regarding
the content and coherence of the paragraphs compared with the rest. In particular, CW
activities in EFL classes improved learners’ writing performance to develop relevant
and coherent ideas when writing paragraphs. Also, the participants in the experimental
group had positive attitudes towards CW. Specifically, they seemed eager to write in
English owing to CW.

2.3 The Challenges of Collaborative Writing
Although CW has benefits as well as positive impacts on students’ writing skills, there
remain numerous studies showing problems, difficulties, or challenges learners some-
times encounter during CW activities. Al Ajmi and Ali [1] and Ansarimoghaddam et al.
[4] reported that learners had many different opinions about some problems in CW, so
they might not get on well with others. Moreover, Al Ajmi and Ali [1] acknowledged

38 P. M. Tri et al.

that unproductive or bossy group members and conflicting opinions affect students’ CW
experience. The causes of the problems might be due to members’ language proficiency
level, their personality, their cultural background, and their understanding of the CW
tasks. Grimes and Gold [22] also showed some common challenges regarding CW: (1)
problems scheduling regular times to brainstorm ideas and develop narrative, (2) issues
among members in deciding who does what, (3) challenges from members understanding
their action items and deliverables, (4) difficulties with members meeting deadlines, and
(5) struggles with members feeling isolated and overwhelmed and thus losing writing
momentum.
Alkhalaf [2] conducted a study to discover EFL students’ attitudes towards CW and
its challenges. The researcher applied the quantitative method to 50 Saudi female EFL
learners. The results demonstrated that students’ thoughts about CW are positive, but
they faced problems regarding learners’ behavior, assessment, and time management.
Specifically, most group members’ contribution is unequal because all of the members
have the same score, which is unfair. Moreover, dominant members tend to control the
group’s discussion, and some of them decline other opposite perspectives. In spite of
being EFL learners, students use their native language to express ideas during group
work activities like CW, which may make them lose the opportunities to enhance their
language skills. Concerning time management, 40% of the students agreed CW is time-
consuming, whereas 38% chose “disagree”. Alkhalaf [2] reported that students’ attitudes
about writing tasks can increase or decrease activities’ time. For example, while passive
students are likely to avoid collaboration and discussions, those who frequently spend
more time are ready to discuss and share opinions.
In 2021, Chanwaiwit and Inpin [11] carried out their research to investigate EFL
instructors’ perceptions and challenges of teaching OCW with the solutions to the prob-
lems. The study applied classroom observations and interviews, including 24 participants
(as well as EFL instructors) from 15 regional universities in Thailand to collect data.
They acknowledged that teachers failed to motivate students to interact and collaborate
with their partners due to the lack of online pedagogical and technological skills, giving
rise to bad collaboration. The findings demonstrated that lecturers could not observe
students’ real writing performance. There is no doubt that it is simple for students to
cheat or copy texts/essays from websites and online resources. Furthermore, the par-
ticipants will fail to assess learners’ writing performance and development accurately
if students are allowed to work in groups. The scholars suggested that EFL lecturers
should develop their teaching quality in terms of student engagement, goals, content,
tools, classroom management strategies, instructor and student roles, CW activities, and
assessment. According to Li [27], lecturers ought to utilize diverse synchronous learning
technologies and teaching methods in pre-, while-, and post-writing activities to enhance
their writing skills.
Furthermore, a study conducted by Bui [8] demonstrated the challenges EFL students
at VLU faced when taking online writing courses via Microsoft Teams. She asked 96
third-year students from two online 10-week writing courses to complete a 10-item
questionnaire. After gathering the data, she claimed that there were common challenges
learners faced such as technical problems, lack of concentration, lack of interaction, time
management, health problems, gaining knowledge, motivation, psychological problems,

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 39

and collaboration. In terms of writing collaboration, learners failed to work in groups
with their classmates in online environments. Lecturers’ and peers’ feedback might be
slow, and students lacked communication skills development in online writing courses.
Besides, the students could not exchange with others, make friends or contact them in
case they wish to ask about lessons.

2.4 Students’ Perceptions About Collaborative Writing
In research done in Arab, Deveci [16] used the qualitative and qualitative model to
investigate Arab students’ perceptions of CW activities in the project-based course. The
previous studies claimed that writers in fact have their own groups in which they can
exchange ideas and interact socially with their peers during their writing process. Sixty-
four students at Emirati university had participated in the research to give their opinions
on CW in class using Project Based Learning. The survey found that students’ attitudes
towards CW are positive. Students agreed that CW is beneficial in improving critical
thinking, teamwork skills, English learning, and technical ability during the process.
Students have also realized the effects of CW on encouraging them to learn actively and
be autonomous in learning.
Alkhalaf [2] used a quantitative model to interview Saudi female EFL learners about
their experiences on CW and address the challenges they face during the process. In
this study, 50 female EFL learners were asked to answer a questionnaire about their
opinions on CW. The participants responded that they have positive attitudes toward
CW along with some emerging obstacles they face related to behavior, assessment, and
time management in the writing process. Participants all agree that CW helps promote
motivation and develop communication skills, and critical thinking skills. Accordingly,
80% of learners agree that CW helps them practice analyzing the topic from multiple
views. In addition, CW improves their grammar and enriched vocabulary. Consequently,
EFL learners all recognized the crucial role of CW in their writing learning.
In another research done at Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Lemma
and Bogale [26] investigate the perceptions of 19 first-year engineering students towards
the effects of using Wiki-based CW in EFL writing. A qualitative and quantitative model
was used to study how students respond to this new CW tool. They found that 90% of
students agree that CW helps them write more easily and productively. Moreover, 60%
of students are aware that CW is useful for their writing learning such as enabling them
to easily work in groups, receive encouragement in the process, and feel comfortable in
the CW environment. Besides, the flexibility of allowing everyone to edit the writing
text at any time is highly valued by students. Therefore, that leads to a better experience
in comparison to face-to-face work. In conclusion, students have interested in using CW.
Nonetheless, there are still some difficulties when applying CW in practice. Accord-
ing to the research of Chen and Yu [13], the study explored students’ attitudes toward
CW implications in the classroom where students focus fully on their teacher. In this
study, purposive participants are chosen, and the scholars gather information from a
group of three learners with similar backgrounds. Several methods were conducted on
students such as recordings, interviews, recall interviews, and response papers. The
research reported that students agree that CW implication in the teacher-centered class-
room is useful for learning writing skills, practicing organizing ability, reducing stress,

40 P. M. Tri et al.

and building social relationships. However, the downside is that students are not facili-
tated to build confidence and lack chances to learn how to face struggles. In addition, it
can cause stress when students engage in CW activities for the first time. They also feel
shy, which causes inactive contributions. In summary, CW helps develop writing skills
but gives limited chances for students to think and fix.
In Malaysia, Jalleh and Mahfoodh [24] used data collected from pre-university Chi-
nese ESL students at a college to discover their perceptions of the practical CW impli-
cation on academic writing performance. The survey was conducted using a qualitative
method. The research found that Chinese ESL students are aware of the critical role of
CW, they consider CW as a supportive tool in which they can exchange ideas, improve
and be confident about their writing. Moreover, the study found that the CW approach
can be used to help students practice negotiating, and face different views and work-
related problems. Nevertheless, students also identify some difficulties in the process of
getting used to this new method. They have some worries due to not having enough time
or having different levels. To sum up, they have positive opinions on CW, but they have
yet to adapt to CW.

2.5 Research Gap

Although the previous studies examined the effects, challenges, and students’ opinions
of CW, there exist a few ones associated with the challenges and perceptions of EFL
undergraduates when taking part in CMCW or OCW activities to date. The research
aimed to fill the gap in order to discover EFL students’ perceptions and challenges
of computer-mediated collaborative writing in academic writing courses at VLU in
Vietnam.

2.6 Research Questions
Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of EFL students about computer-
mediated collaborative writing?
Research Question 2: What are the challenges EFL students face during computer-
mediated collaborative writing activities?

3 Methods

3.1 Pedagogical Setting and Participants

The study was carried out at the Faculty of Foreign Languages of Van Lang University,
Ho Chi Minh City. The Faculty of Foreign Languages of VLU was established in 1995
with great success in education. At the Faculty of Foreign Languages, there are two
main bachelor’s programs: English Language and Chinese Language. With regard to the
English Language, there exist five majors including English for Teaching, English for
Business, English for Tourism, English for Translation and Interpretation, and English-
Chinese for Business.

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 41

Fig. 1. Participants’ year of study

Fig. 2. Participants’ gender

The researchers chose 80 participants who were EFL freshmen, sophomores, juniors,
and seniors at the Faculty of Foreign Languages of VLU in the academic year 2021–
2022. Specifically, there were 63 female and 17 male participants (10 freshmen, 12
sophomores, 48 juniors, and 10 seniors). They also took online writing courses (Writing
1 to Writing 5) and joined CMCW activities in class. 80 participants were asked to fill
in the surveys, and then the researchers selected 15 participants who volunteer to take
part in the interviews (Figs. 1 and 2).

3.2 Design of the Study

With quantitative and qualitative methods, the researchers conducted semi-structured
interviews and surveys to find out students’ challenges and perceptions regarding
CMCW. The participants were required to provide their personal information such as
name, gender, and age. Their responses and data were used just for the purpose of the
paper.

Quantitative Research. In terms of the quantitative method, the scholars used Google
Forms to design online questionnaires with the 5-point Likert scale (SD = Strongly
Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree). The study

42 P. M. Tri et al.

aimed to conduct surveys with 80 EFL students at the Faculty of Foreign Languages of
VLU. The participants had five to ten minutes to fill in the survey. The researchers spent
about three weeks gathering sufficient responses from the participants.

Qualitative Research. The researchers invited 15 EFL students to join interviews to
talk about their perceptions of CMCW as well as challenges they faced during CMCW
activities. Because of technologies’ convenience, online interviews were carried out
rather than face-to-face ones. The participants had rights to choose online platforms
they would like (Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Zalo, Facebook Messenger, etc.).

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis
In order to respond to the research questions, the researchers applied various ways to
present the results of the study with comparing to other previous studies.

Questionnaires. The questionnaires were designed and delivered to 80 random partici-
pants. They had about ten minutes to finish their surveys. The questionnaire list included
two parts: (1) The perceptions of EFL students about computer-mediated collaborative
writing and (2) The challenges EFL students face during computer-mediated collab-
orative writing activities. After collecting enough data, the researchers created tables
to summarize and present the findings from responses with percentages/numbers and
explanations.

Interview. 15 students were chosen to be interviewed via online applications. Each
online interview lasted about five to ten minutes and was recorded. During the process of
the interviews, what interviewees said would be noted carefully. After that, all interview
answers were presented with explanations. Here are the interview questions:

1) Do you think lecturers should apply computer-mediated collaborative writing more
frequently during writing courses? Why?
2) Do you think you face more challenges when joining computer-mediated collabo-
rative writing compared with face-to-face one? Why?

4 Results/Findings and Discussion
4.1 Results/Findings
Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of EFL students about computer-
mediated collaborative writing?

Quantitative Analysis (Research Question 1). As shown in Table 1, the students’ per-
spectives tend to be positive. From the student’s perspectives in items 1 and 2, most
students realized their positive change in writing performance with 57.5% of students
assuming to get higher scores when working collaboratively. In addition, about 70%
of students agreed that working in groups helps them have better ideas. Regarding stu-
dents’ perspectives on peer assessment in CW (items 3 and 4), most students agreed

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 43

Table 1. The perceptions of EFL students about computer.mediated collaborative writing

No. Items SD D N A SA
1 Many people make better decisions than a 0% 2.5% 27.5% 41.2% 28.7%
person in selecting suitable writing ideas.
2 Collaboration can lead to a better score than 2.5% 5% 35% 37.5% 20%
working individually.
3 Correcting others’ mistakes helps you avoid 1.3% 2.5% 22.5% 50% 23.8%
those mistakes in the future.
4 It’s normal for group members to criticize your 1.3% 5% 30% 45% 18.8%
writing.
5 Working in groups can create the environment 1.3% 3.8% 25% 45% 25%
where members support each other when having
trouble, helping to enhance problem-solving
skills.
6 Working in groups can create the environment 0% 2.5% 23.8% 41.3% 32.5%
where members discuss or debate together,
helping to enhance critical thinking skills.
7 Working in groups can create the environment 0% 5% 25% 36.3% 33.8%
where members share opinions and listen to
others, helping to enhance social skills.
8 If your writing ideas are better, you will ignore 20% 35% 22.5% 16.2% 6.3%
others’ ones.
9 If your writing ideas are better, you will try to 1.3% 8.8% 33.8% 38.7% 17.5%
persuade others.
10 Collaborative writing helps your writings be 2.5% 6.2% 32.5% 38.8% 20%
more accurate and complex
11 Collaborative writing helps learning writing be 3.8% 7.5% 28.7% 40% 20%
less boring and motivates you to write.
12 Collaborative writing helps you understand, 1.3% 5% 26.3% 35% 32.5%
consider, and deal with different perspectives on
each particular topic
13 Writing collaboration helps you improve writing 0% 2.5% 28.7% 30% 38.7%
abilities regarding many linguistic and writing
aspects (such as vocabulary usage, grammar
points, planning organizational skills, essay
development, etc.)

that giving or receiving feedback helps them improve their writing skills. Specifically,
73.8% of students in item 3 can avoid making mistakes and make progress by correct-
ing others. Moreover, 63.8% of students felt comfortable when being criticized by the
group members because they can know wrong things in their writing and remove them
in the future (item 4). The results showed that participants find CW useful in enhancing

44 P. M. Tri et al.

problem-solving skills (by assisting others in groups), critical thinking (by discussing
and debating together), and social skill (by sharing ideas and listening to others) (items
5, 6, 7). In terms of contentment with other students, the findings indicated that students
respect others’ perspectives in CW even if they have better ideas (items 8 and 9).
In addition, the findings indicated that CW has a positive influence on students’
writing skills. Students thought that peer assessment can help improve their linguistic
and writing aspects. Specifically, 68.7% of students in item 13 agreed that they can
learn from others about vocabulary, grammar, planning skills, and essay development.
In fact, 58.8% of students thought they can write more accurately and complexly (item
10). 60% of students felt eager and less bored when writing collaboratively with others
based on item 11. Furthermore, 67.5% of students in item 12 agreed that CW helps them
understand, assess, and cope with multiple views on each topic.

Qualitative Analysis (Research Question 1)

Interview question 1: Do you think lecturers should apply computer-mediated collab-
orative writing more frequently during writing courses? Why?
When asked about students’ attitudes towards CMCW, most of the students agreed
that they consider CMCW useful in various ways. These were identified as writing more
convenient and productive. The following excerpts represented these perspectives.

Convenient writing and assessment
Many participants believed that CMCW is convenient to follow because members
can be more comfortable regarding time and destinations. CMCW also gives teachers
convenience to check groups’ products and provide quick comments.
Setting up online writing groups helps students take advantage of both study space
and time, not only in class but can go home or go anywhere at any time. As long as you
have the time and ideas to write by the deadline. Instructors can actively offer topics
or support students anywhere and at any time, then evaluate your writings quickly and
accurately, and give feedback as well as appropriate advice to help you improve your
writing. (Student 6, interview extract)
Online collaborative writing has developed into a potential research area because
of its writing interaction, composition reflection, and distinct differences in qualities.
For example, one advantage of using tools like Google Docs is that you may complete
the full writing process using them, including task negotiation, language use, text co-
construction, revision, and editing, and creating the finished piece of writing. Online
collaborative writing projects over a while, as opposed to face-to-face collaborative
writing, also reflect a true group writing experience activity as in a real-life professional
career. (Student 9, interview extract)
In my opinion, teachers should apply CMCW more often in writing classes because
people can find materials quickly. Working where they want to be will lead to better
results. Those who are afraid to meet face-to-face can also easily exchange ideas on the
online platform. (Student 12, interview extract)
Personally, I totally agree that lectures should using modern machines for teaching
writing frequently because it brings more convenient such as showing more sample
essays, correcting students’ assignments, etc. (Student 13, interview extract)

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 45

Lectures should apply computer-mediated collaborative writing more frequently dur-
ing writing courses simply because teachers often don’t have enough time to give assign-
ments and correct students in writing classes. The application of computer-mediated
collaborative writing makes it easier for students to exchange work and it also helps
teachers to ensure that everyone’s homework is corrected. (Student 15, interview extract)

The development of teamwork skills
With the use of digital tools, working in groups can be easier compared with traditional
approaches. Moreover, CMCW makes students comfortable to work together, leading
to high-qualified writings. If students’ experience of teamwork is superior, they may
enhance their teamwork skills.
I believe CMCW helps students practice teamwork skills. Working in groups to do
assignments in class is necessary because lecturers can observe the ways each student
does or the ways leaders manage the group and divide the works. (Student 1, interview
extract)
They can gain more experiences of organizing group work while working with each
other. (Student 3, interview extract)
Working in an online writing group helps you improve your soft skills, increasing
the likelihood of a student’s job after graduation. (Student 6, interview extract)
Online collaborative writing projects over a while, as opposed to face-to-face col-
laborative writing, also reflect a true group writing experience activity as in a real-life
professional career. (Student 9, interview extract)

Avoiding unintentional mistakes
Working in groups helps improve the quality of writing because each member will be
responsible for the task, reducing unforeseen mistakes. Also, by working with others,
students can learn a lot from their peers and develop their writing skills automatically.
By doing this, learners can support each other more throughout the process. With
many members, they can point out everyone’s advantages and disadvantages, and from
that make up for each other’s flaws and improve themselves. (Student 3, interview extract)
Because I think the knowledge of every member in the group will be improved during
the collaboration. Also, they may find out some unintentional mistakes of each other
when learning writing together. (Student 4, interview extract)

Sharing ideas
Writing individually is a way to express the writer’s own view. Nonetheless, depending
on a view of a person is insufficient. Students also need partners to support each other.
Particularly, they can discuss with others by sharing many opinions, which is a way to
expand students’ views.
When teachers come up with any writing topics, we tend to get stuck. Grouping will
help students discuss with their classmates and get better at writing. I’m not saying that
we completely imitate other people’s opinions. From those opinions, we can see more
diverse opinions on the topic. (Student 10, interview extract)

46 P. M. Tri et al.

Besides, some participants demonstrated the challenges of CMCW. A greater part of
the students encountered some challenges at different levels. These were recognized as
obstacles related to behaviors. The following excerpts represented these perspectives.

Obstacles related to behaviors
Working online is convenient, but some students still encounter negative things. For
example, members tend to ignore their work; some members must finish others’ work
due to individual problems. Students’ experiences are good or bad, relying on the peers
whom they work with.
I may become lazy if I just study online. For instance, my leader gives me a topic for
an essay, I usually do it late, maybe near deadline. (Student 5, interview extract)
Although I have recently gradually accustomed to this manner of working due to the
extended length of working from home, I still don’t particularly enjoy working online.
I feel like I get stuck physically and mentally. I don’t want to remember those days.
(Student 7, interview extract)
When it comes to my experience, my friend and I had to do the whole assignment by
ourselves because all members ignore their responsibilities with the reason that is not
knowing how to write. Moreover, each member only finishes a small part of the paper,
then combines with other parts from other members. It means that the product of the
whole group will contain not only good parts but also bad ones. (Student 8, interview
extract)

Obstacles related to teamwork
Teamwork helps save students’ time and effort to do writing tasks; however, perhaps it
is challenging to unify plenty of views and make the right decision. Furthermore, the
context of the obstacle is online collaboration, so working online might be harder for
members to get on well with each other.
Another problem is that no one is like-minded; everyone has a different way of
approaching and writing. So computer-mediated collaborative writing is not recom-
mended by me. (Student 4, interview extract)
I think lecturers should not apply CMCW because it affects learning styles, per-
sonalities, and each individual’s differences. Also, it’s difficult to unify members’ ideas
together. (Student 14, interview extract)

Research Question 2: What are the challenges EFL students face during computer-
mediated collaborative writing activities?
Quantitative Analysis (Research Question 2)
Based on Table 2, in item 1, most participants (57.6%) agreed that when working
online, there were some members delaying their work, causing the slow progress of
group work. This is a negative side of CMCW because leaders are unable to control
the whole group and fail to remind irresponsible members to finish their work. Based
on item 2, 50% of participants reported that they had difficulties in explaining to other
members. Compared to face-to-face CW, writing online collaboratively might be hard
for most students to adapt because members only use text languages to discuss without
any chances to meet together in real life.

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 47

Table 2. The challenges of computer.mediated collaborative writing regarding interaction

No. Items SD D N A SA
1 Due to online collaboration, members respond 0% 13.8% 28.7% 33.8% 23.8%
slowly, which affects the progress of group work.
2 It is hard to make others understand what you 1.3% 17.5% 31.3% 33.8% 16.2%
mean during online collaboration.

According to Table 3, Another factor affecting the quality of collaboration is mem-
bers. Dividing parts of the task can make leaders have difficulties deciding who will take
responsibility for their work. Work division in writing tasks is not simple because not
every learner gets a suitable level of writing. According to Table 3, 60% of participants
in item 1 asserted that members’ speed of working and levels of writing has impacts on
the product of the whole group. If any members have limited writing skills, it means
they make the small part of the essay unsuccessful. Everything can be fair if all people
in a group are responsible and work together. However, item 2 showed some bad sides
making group work unfair. 71.3% of participants claimed that there existed irresponsible
members tending to ignore their duties because of being lazy or passive. The kind of
people is also the main reason leading to conflicts and arguments in the group work
relationship. Also, they must not be good members, and more importantly, they give rise
to unfair teamwork and scores. When it comes to the same scores for teamwork, 53.8%
of participants in item 3 described them as an unfair thing as all members do not make
equal contributions.
Another problem exists in groups that have clear distinctions between low-level and
high-level students. Item 4 demonstrated that most students depend on others thanks
to the latter’s good writing skills (63.7% agreed with the point). This problem happens
when there exist low-level students who are bad at academic writing. Besides, high-level
students are responsible for decision-making, which leads to good scores for the whole
group. Nonetheless, this will be unfair as item 11 showed above. Moreover, item 5 showed
that 51.2% of participants were nervous about conflicting opinions and disagreements in
CMCW activities. When working in groups, students cannot avoid conflicts, arguments,
or different ideas since everyone has their own concepts.
Qualitative Analysis (Research Question 2)

Interview question 2: Do you think you face more challenges when joining computer-
mediated collaborative writing compared with face-to-face one? Why?
Online writing collaboration is popular among students at VLU as a result of its
merits and convenience mentioned above; however, the students provided a myriad
of drawbacks about CMCW based on their experience. After collecting answers from
interviews, the researchers concluded that there exist diverse sorts of challenges in terms
of interactions, motivation and duties, and concentrations.

Challenges regarding interactions
Due to online collaboration, members tend to become more passive compared with

48 P. M. Tri et al.

Table 3. The challenges of computer.mediated collaborative writing regarding members

No. Items SD D N A SA
1 Group members’ different levels of writing and 0% 10% 30% 40% 20%
working speed can affect the group’s papers.
2 There are members who make huge contributions 1.3% 7.5% 20% 33.8% 37.5%
to the group, but members are lazy or passive and
often avoid their responsibilities.
3 It is unfair for all group members to get the same 2.5% 8.8% 35% 22.5% 31.3%
score because some of them do not contribute
equally.
4 Members usually depend mainly on the leader or 1.3% 10% 25% 35% 28.7%
high-level members when working
collaboratively.
5 You are worried about conflicting opinions and 0% 17.5% 31.3% 37.5% 13.7%
disagreement during collaborative writing
process.

face-to-face meetings. The problem regarding interaction is quite common in the online
context.
It must be mentioned that the lack of real interaction between the members in one
group can somewhat affect the assignment. For example, some members might be less
interactive online, and they rely too much on everyone else to do their tasks. (Student 3,
interview extract)
We don’t have a real interaction between members in the group. In addition, people
may find it difficult to express their feeling about specific topics. (Student 4, interview
extract)
I think offline CW is better than CMCW because I can have many chances to interact
with members and learn more things. (Student 8, interview extract)
I believe face-to-face collaboration will be more successful. It’s simpler to persuade
folks. It can be difficult and ineffective to communicate over box chat on MS Team or
Zoom when you’re speaking with someone who disagrees with you. They could not be
paying close attention to you or they might just be skimming what you’ve written. Trust
cannot be established by text message. (Student 9, interview extract)

Challenges regarding motivation and duties
Another challenge is members’ motivation and duties. Human factors always play a vital
role in a task. A person is not responsible, which is a challenge for the whole group.
…with a collaborative method, I may do worse, because if the task is divided into
smaller parts for each member in the group, I may have done my part sketchily without
fully understanding the topics. (Student 2, interview extract)
…I become passive when working online… (Student 5, interview extract)

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 49

It’s very hard to contribute when members delay their writing. (Student 14, interview
extract)

Challenges regarding concentrations
The online world is bound to bring everything that can make people lose their attention.
Therefore, working online may be a challenge in concentration because members do not
focus on their tasks completely, affecting the process of writing.
…with an online writing task, it is impossible for me to actually focus on the task
and easily distracts myself by games or social platforms. (Student 2, interview extract)
From my experience of Writing 5 courses in the previous semester, I would say yes
because when combining writing with working in a group through online apps/webs, it
is really tough, especially for ones who get struggled in paying concentration like me. I
cope with the difficulty many times when trying to focus in the discussion with teammates;
I would rather work alone than in a group through online. (Student 7, interview extract)

4.2 Discussion
Our study investigated the attitudes of students toward computer-meditated collaborative
writing and the challenges they face in CMCW. The results showed that the participants’
perceptions of CW are positive regarding convenient writing and assessment, students
can utilize online features while teachers can support students anytime, and evaluate their
writing quickly and accurately; teachers can also improve their teaching activities. This
result was compatible with those of previous studies. Lemma and Bogale [26] conducted
their study in contexts. Specifically, regarding convenient writing, our study showed that
students can work in a group, and write more easily and productively, supporting the
results of Jalled and Mahfoodh [24]. Both students and teachers can make full use of
their time to develop learning and teaching activities.
In terms of knowledge improvement. The students recognized the value of CW such
as improving writing learning through peer assessment, enhancing vocabulary, grammar,
planning skills, essay development, and so on. This result was consistent with those of
previous studies. Deveci [16], Lemma and Bogale [26], and Alkhalaf [2] conducted
their research in ESL contexts (e.g. Malaysia, China, and Arab countries). Specifically,
regarding knowledge improvement, our study showed that students can improve English
learning, improve grammar, enrich vocabulary, and develop writing skills supporting
the results of Alkhalaf [2]. They can improve their English knowledge through peer
assessment.
When it comes to the development of teamwork skills. The students are aware of
the chances to develop their problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills, and social
skills through the activities of assisting others in groups, discussing, debating, sharing
ideas, and listening to others. They recognize the opportunities to enhance their vocabu-
lary, grammar, planning skills, and essay development. This result was compatible with
those of previous studies. Deveci [16], Chen and Yu [13], and Jalled and Mahfoodh
[24] conducted in ESL contexts (e.g. Malaysia, China, and Arab countries). Specifi-
cally, regarding teamwork skills, our study showed that CW improved some aspects of
teamwork skills (critical thinking skills, technical ability, practicing organizing ability,
building social relationships, practicing negotiating, and how to deal with work-related

50 P. M. Tri et al.

problems), agreed by the results of Deveci [16], Chen and Yu [13], Jalled and Mahfoodh
[24]. They can improve their teamwork skills by supporting each other.
In addition, CMCW also provides opportunities to enable peer assessment. They
also appreciate that correcting others helps them avoid unintentional mistakes and make
progress. Furthermore, some students also recognize the benefits of sharing ideas allow-
ing them to get higher scores and practice analyzing the topic from multiple views. This
result was compatible with those of previous studies. Alkhalaf [2] carried out a study
in ESL contexts (e.g. Saudi countries). Specifically, regarding multiple views, our study
showed that CMCW can make students face different views, supporting the results of
Jalled and Mahfoodh [24], but not those of Chen and Yu’s study [13], which showed
that CMCW lacks chances for students to learn how to face struggles. Students writing
collaboratively can face certain work-related issues.
Although there are great advantages of CMCW [2, 16, 26], this study revealed
some concerns of the students in the ESL context. First, our study claimed that while
CMCW improves teamwork skills, there occur some obstacles related to behaviors, for
example, students become lazy, have mental breakdowns, lack motivation, and make
few contributions to the sharing work. For instance, a student was not pleased to work
with her teammate due to few contributions of the teammate to the writing leading to low
scores. Students feel shy, which causes the least contributions in the group, supported
by [13]. Unlike the previous studies [2, 16, 26] that focused only on the positive side of
online CW, this finding emphasized that CMCW can cause obstacles related to teamwork
owing to different writing levels, and the difficulty in unifying various ideas. Another
concern revealed by our study was associated with the limited chances to think and fix.
For example, writing individually can be useful for students as they have more chances to
practice dealing with various problems occurring in the writing process. These findings
reported that CMCW might provide few chances to think and fix.
When it comes to the challenges of CMCW, our research indicated that there
remained many different kinds of challenges concerning interactions, members, con-
centrations, motivation and duties. Compared to the other previous studies, our study’s
findings were similar to a number of research papers. Alkhalaf [2] supported our result
regarding members. Particularly, members do not contribute equally to the whole prod-
uct during CW, but all of them still achieve the same score, which is unfair. Additionally,
Alkhalaf [2] and our study agreed that sharing ideas might be tricky and cause conflicts
for most students because each person has a distinct thought. Grimes and Gold [22] also
shared the same result. They acknowledged that members are more likely to ignore their
responsibilities and deadlines. Moreover, they claimed that students may be isolated and
lose their mood when working online, advocating our finding. In terms of interactions,
in the same context, Ms. Bui (2022) also carried out her research at VLU and agreed
with our study that students lacked interactions in the virtual environment.

5 Conclusion
In summary, the study explored the perceptions of CMCW of EFL students at Van Lang
University to improve their writing learning. CMCW could have merits and demerits
simultaneously. Based on the findings, students perceived CMCW in their writing learn-
ing as applicable regarding convenient writing and assessment, skill improvement (like

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 51

problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills, and social skills), avoiding unintentional
mistakes, and making progress. Furthermore, some students also recognized the benefits
of sharing ideas which allows them to get higher scores and deal with multiple views.
However, students also met obstacles related to behaviors such as lack of motivation
and few contributions; obstacles related to teamwork caused by different levels, and
difficulties in unifying various ideas; insufficient chances to think and fix. Besides, the
research found plenty of challenges EFL students at VLU encountered, namely interac-
tions, concentrations, members, motivation and duties. Our study will assist instructors
and learners in finding out ways to have more effective learning and teaching during
writing courses based on the challenges.

5.1 Limitations

The current study had limited participants, affecting the view of the whole population
in EFL contexts. The methods used for the present research are not objective enough
because the results rely heavily on students’ opinions.

5.2 Suggestions

Future studies ought to be conducted with more participants. In addition, further studies
related to collaborative writing can discover lecturers’ perceptions and challenges when
they apply this method in their writing courses; that is, the studies can be carried out
with observations during the courses or lecturers will become participants.

Acknowledgments. We appreciate the comments and suggestions of Ms. Cao Thi Xuan Tu – our
lecturer at the Faculty of Foreign Languages of Van Lang University. And we would like to thank
our faculty for the support.

References
1. Al Ajmi, A. A. S., Ali, H. I. H.: Collaborative writing in group assignments in an EFL/ESL
classroom. English linguistics research, 3(2), 1-17 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v3n2p1
2. Alkhalaf, N. A.: Saudi female EFL learners and collaborative writing: attitudes and chal-
lenges. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(9), 1118-1127 (2020). https://doi.org/
10.17507/tpls.1009.16
3. Anggraini, R., Rozimela, Y., Anwar, D.: The effects of collaborative writing on EFL learn-
ers’ writing skills and their perception of the strategy. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 11(2), 335-341 (2020). https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1102.25
4. Ansarimoghaddam, S., Tan, H. B., Yong, M. F.: Collaboratively composing an argumentative
essay: Wiki versus face-to-face interactions. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies,
17(2), 33-53 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2017-1702-03
5. Anshu, A. H., Yesuf, M. Y.: Effects of Collaborative Writing on EFL Students’ Paragraph
Writing Performance: Focus on Content and Coherence. International Journal of Education &
Literacy Studies, 10(1), 36-47 (2022). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.10n.1p.36

52 P. M. Tri et al.

6. Bailey, D. R., Judd, C.: The effects of online collaborative writing and TOEIC writing test-
preparation on L2 writing performance. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 383-397 (2018). https://
doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.8.383
7. Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., Hansen, N. K.: Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies:
education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations
in Practice, 10, 73-103 (2011). Retrieved from http://jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10II
Pp073-103Brodahl948.pdf
8. Bui, T. K. L.: The Challenges of Online Writing Learning via Microsoft Teams. AsiaCALL
Online Journal, 13(1), 132-149 (2022). Retrieved from https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/
journal/article/view/115
9. Bui, T. X. T., Ha, Y. N., Nguyen, T. B. U., Nguyen, V. U. T., Ngo, T. C. T.: A Study on Col-
laborative Online Learning among EFL Students in Van Lang University (VLU). AsiaCALL
Online Journal, 12(3), 9-21 (2021). Retrieved from https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/jou
rnal/article/view/32
10. Caspi, A., Blau, I.: Collaboration and psychological ownership: how does the tension between
the two influence perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education, 14, 283-298 (2011).
11. Chanwaiwit, P., Inpin, B.: Synchronous collaborative writing instruction in a university
EFL context: Challenges and solutions. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current
Issues, 13(4), 721-739 (2021). https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v13i4.6259
12. Chapelle, A., Douglas, D.: Assessing language through computer technology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (2006).
13. Chen, W., Yu, S.: Implementing collaborative writing in teacher-centered classroom contexts:
student beliefs and perceptions. Language Awareness, 28(4), 247-267 (2019). https://doi.org/
10.1080/09658416.2019.1675680
14. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D.: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based
reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426 (2007). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
15. Crystal, D.: English as a global language. New York: Cambridge University Press (2003).
16. Deveci, T.: Student Perceptions on Collaborative Writing in a Project-Based Course. Universal
Journal of Educational Research, 6(4), 721-732 (2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.
2018.060415
17. Dobao, A. F.: Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and
individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58 (2012). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
18. Dobao, A. F., Blum, A.: Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ atti-
tudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.
02.002
19. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P.: Students’ experiences of E-learning in higher education: The
ecology of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge (2013). https://doi.org/10.4324/978
0203872970
20. Elola, I.: Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions develop-
ment. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71 (2010).
21. Farah, M.: Attitudes towards collaborative writing among English majors in Hebron
University. Arab World English Journal, 2(4), 136-170 (2011).
22. Grimes, R., Gold, M.: Top Collaborative Writing Challenges and Tips for Success. Geor-
gia Educational Research Association Conference (2020). Retrieved from https://digitalco
mmons.georgiasouthern.edu/gera/2020/2020/69
23. Hodges, G. C.: Learning through collaborative writing. Reading, 36(1), 4-10 (2002). https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-9345.00178

EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges 53

24. Jalleh, C., Mahfoodh, O. H. A.: Chinese-speaking ESL pre-university students’ perceptions of
the effectiveness of collaborative planning in an academic writing course. Journal of Language
and Linguistic Studies, 17(S2), 1174-1189 (2021).
25. Kim, Y.: The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocab-
ulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114-130 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2008.00690.x
26. Lemma, B., Bogale, B.: Students’ Perceptions and Challenges in Integrating Wiki-based
Collaborative Writing into EFL Writing Classes at Addis Ababa Science and Technology
University. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research (IJAMR), 5(12),
79-97 (2021).
27. Li, M.: Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical
research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882-904 (2018). https://doi.org/10.
1080/09588221.2018.1465981
28. Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., Lowry, M. R.: Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative
writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of business communication,
41(1), 66-99 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943603259363
29. McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., De Vleeschauwer, J.: Thai EFL learners’ interaction during
collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. Peer interaction and second
language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda, 185-208 (2016).
30. Moonma, J.: Comparing Collaborative Writing Activity in EFL Classroom: Face-to-Face
Collaborative Writing versus Online Collaborative Writing Using Google Docs. Asian Journal
of Education and Training, 7(4), 204-215 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.
2021.74.204.215
31. Pham, M. T., Luu, T. T. U., Mai, T. H. U., Thai, T. T. T., Ngo, T. C. T.: EFL Students’ Challenges
of Online Courses at Van Lang University during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International
Journal of TESOL & Education, 2(2), 1-26 (2022). https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.22221
32. Pham, V. P. H.: The effects of collaborative writing on students’ writing fluency: An efficient
framework for collaborative writing. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1-11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/
2158244021998363
33. Posner, I. R., Baecker, R. M.: How People Write Together (groupware). Proceedings of
the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4, 127-138 (1992).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183420
34. Quitadamo, I. J., Kurtz, M. J.: Learning to Improve: Using Writing to Increase Critical Think-
ing Performance in General Education Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 140-
154 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203
35. Roberson, A. P.: Patterns of interaction in peer response: the relationship between pair dynam-
ics and revision outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University] (2014). https://
doi.org/10.57709/6430660
36. Stratton, C. R.: Collaborative writing in the workplace. IEEE transactions on professional
communication, 32(3), 178-182 (1989). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/47.31626
37. Storch, N.: Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158
(2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
38. Storch, N.: Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
39. Storch, N.: Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/S02671
90511000079
40. Sundkvist, P., Nguyen, X. N. C. M.: English in Vietnam. The handbook of Asian Englishes,
683-703 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118791882.ch30

54 P. M. Tri et al.

41. Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S.: The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google
Docs on students’ writing abilities. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 13(2), 148-156 (2014).
42. Tran, T. T. M.: Use of Self-regulated Learning Strategies in Paragraph Writing at Van Lang
University. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(3), 1-13 (2021). Retrieved from
43. Villarreal, I., Gil-Sarratea, N.: The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting.
Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 874-897 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/136216881982
9017
44. Vygotsky, L. S.: Mind is society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1978).
45. Watanabe, Y., Swain, M.: Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction
on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language
Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599
46. Wee, R., Sim, J., Jusoff, K.: Verb-form errors in EAP writing. Educational Research and
Review, 5(1), 16-23 (2010).
47. Wingate, U., Tribble, C.: The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic pur-
poses/Academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in higher education, 37(4), 481- 495
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.525630
48. Zhu, C.: Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collabora-
tive learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127-136 (2012).

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/),
which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
References (48)
Al Ajmi, A. A. S., Ali, H. I. H.: Collaborative writing in group assignments in an EFL/ESL classroom. English linguistics research, 3(2), 1-17 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v3n2p1
Alkhalaf, N. A.: Saudi female EFL learners and collaborative writing: attitudes and chal- lenges. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(9), 1118-1127 (2020). https://doi.org/ 10.17507/tpls.1009.16
Anggraini, R., Rozimela, Y., Anwar, D.: The effects of collaborative writing on EFL learn- ers' writing skills and their perception of the strategy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(2), 335-341 (2020). https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1102.25
Ansarimoghaddam, S., Tan, H. B., Yong, M. F.: Collaboratively composing an argumentative essay: Wiki versus face-to-face interactions. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 33-53 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2017-1702-03
Anshu, A. H., Yesuf, M. Y.: Effects of Collaborative Writing on EFL Students' Paragraph Writing Performance: Focus on Content and Coherence. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 10(1), 36-47 (2022). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.10n.1p.36
Bailey, D. R., Judd, C.: The effects of online collaborative writing and TOEIC writing test- preparation on L2 writing performance. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 383-397 (2018). https:// doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.8.383
Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., Hansen, N. K.: Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies: education students' perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 10, 73-103 (2011). Retrieved from http://jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10II Pp073-103Brodahl948.pdf
Bui, T. K. L.: The Challenges of Online Writing Learning via Microsoft Teams. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 13(1), 132-149 (2022). Retrieved from https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/ journal/article/view/115
Bui, T. X. T., Ha, Y. N., Nguyen, T. B. U., Nguyen, V. U. T., Ngo, T. C. T.: A Study on Col- laborative Online Learning among EFL Students in Van Lang University (VLU). AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(3), 9-21 (2021). Retrieved from https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/jou rnal/article/view/32
Caspi, A., Blau, I.: Collaboration and psychological ownership: how does the tension between the two influence perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education, 14, 283-298 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9141-z
Chanwaiwit, P., Inpin, B.: Synchronous collaborative writing instruction in a university EFL context: Challenges and solutions. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 13(4), 721-739 (2021). https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v13i4.6259
Chapelle, A., Douglas, D.: Assessing language through computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2006).
Chen, W., Yu, S.: Implementing collaborative writing in teacher-centered classroom contexts: student beliefs and perceptions. Language Awareness, 28(4), 247-267 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09658416.2019.1675680
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D.: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426 (2007). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
Crystal, D.: English as a global language. New York: Cambridge University Press (2003).
Deveci, T.: Student Perceptions on Collaborative Writing in a Project-Based Course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(4), 721-732 (2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer. 2018.060415
Dobao, A. F.: Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58 (2012). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
Dobao, A. F., Blum, A.: Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners' atti- tudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013. 02.002
Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P.: Students' experiences of E-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge (2013). https://doi.org/10.4324/978 0203872970
Elola, I.: Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions develop- ment. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71 (2010).
Farah, M.: Attitudes towards collaborative writing among English majors in Hebron University. Arab World English Journal, 2(4), 136-170 (2011).
Grimes, R., Gold, M.: Top Collaborative Writing Challenges and Tips for Success. Geor- gia Educational Research Association Conference (2020). Retrieved from https://digitalco mmons.georgiasouthern.edu/gera/2020/2020/69
Hodges, G. C.: Learning through collaborative writing. Reading, 36(1), 4-10 (2002). https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-9345.00178
Jalleh, C., Mahfoodh, O. H. A.: Chinese-speaking ESL pre-university students' perceptions of the effectiveness of collaborative planning in an academic writing course. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(S2), 1174-1189 (2021).
Kim, Y.: The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocab- ulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114-130 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2008.00690.x
Lemma, B., Bogale, B.: Students' Perceptions and Challenges in Integrating Wiki-based Collaborative Writing into EFL Writing Classes at Addis Ababa Science and Technology University. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research (IJAMR), 5(12), 79-97 (2021).
Li, M.: Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882-904 (2018). https://doi.org/10. 1080/09588221.2018.1465981
Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., Lowry, M. R.: Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of business communication, 41(1), 66-99 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943603259363
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., De Vleeschauwer, J.: Thai EFL learners' interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda, 185-208 (2016).
Moonma, J.: Comparing Collaborative Writing Activity in EFL Classroom: Face-to-Face Collaborative Writing versus Online Collaborative Writing Using Google Docs. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 7(4), 204-215 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522. 2021.74.204.215
Pham, M. T., Luu, T. T. U., Mai, T. H. U., Thai, T. T. T., Ngo, T. C. T.: EFL Students' Challenges of Online Courses at Van Lang University during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 2(2), 1-26 (2022). https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.22221
Pham, V. P. H.: The effects of collaborative writing on students' writing fluency: An efficient framework for collaborative writing. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1-11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244021998363
Posner, I. R., Baecker, R. M.: How People Write Together (groupware). Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4, 127-138 (1992). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183420
Quitadamo, I. J., Kurtz, M. J.: Learning to Improve: Using Writing to Increase Critical Think- ing Performance in General Education Biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 140- 154 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203
Roberson, A. P.: Patterns of interaction in peer response: the relationship between pair dynam- ics and revision outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University] (2014). https:// doi.org/10.57709/6430660
Stratton, C. R.: Collaborative writing in the workplace. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 32(3), 178-182 (1989). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/47.31626
Storch, N.: Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Storch, N.: Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N.: Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/S02671 90511000079
Sundkvist, P., Nguyen, X. N. C. M.: English in Vietnam. The handbook of Asian Englishes, 683-703 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118791882.ch30
Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S.: The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google Docs on students' writing abilities. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 148-156 (2014).
Tran, T. T. M.: Use of Self-regulated Learning Strategies in Paragraph Writing at Van Lang University. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(3), 1-13 (2021). Retrieved from http://i-jte.org/index.php/journal/article/view/80
Villarreal, I., Gil-Sarratea, N.: The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 874-897 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/136216881982 9017
Vygotsky, L. S.: Mind is society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1978).
Watanabe, Y., Swain, M.: Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599
Wee, R., Sim, J., Jusoff, K.: Verb-form errors in EAP writing. Educational Research and Review, 5(1), 16-23 (2010).
Wingate, U., Tribble, C.: The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic pur- poses/Academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in higher education, 37(4), 481-495 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.525630
Zhu, C.: Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collabora- tive learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127-136 (2012).
January 31, 2025
Trí Phạm
Van Lang University, Graduate Student
Pham Manh Tri received his bachelor’s degree in English Language from Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He has taught English since 2019 and has experience in teaching English to children, teenagers, and adults. He had several published papers regarding English education. His research interests include online education, language skills, collaborative learning, and interpretation training.
Papers
Followers
30
View all papers from
Trí Phạm
arrow_forward
Related papers
What Indonesian EFL Learners Perceive of Collaborative Writing: Experience in Writing Essays Online
Ika Trisnawati
English Education Journal, 2023
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The influence of nonautonomous online collaborative writing on EFL learners
Dr.Khaled Albesher
International journal of English language and literature studies, 2024
Web-based collaborative writing has received significant attention in the twenty-first century. This study aims to investigate students' attitudes toward nonautonomous online collaborative writing. A mixed methods approach was employed in this study, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative aspect involved the administration of a questionnaire, while the qualitative component involved conducting interviews. The participants comprised 42 male Level 3 English language students from Qassim University in Saudi Arabia, aged 20 and 22. The findings indicated that nonautonomous online collaborative writing assisted students in efficiently completing written drafts and improved writing speed, fluency, and organization. It encouraged learners to write by guiding them through brainstorming ideas, generating an outline, and addressing spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. According to the interviews, online collaborative writing required the teacher's supervision and support to provide comments, share drafts with peers, and receive feedback from others. The teacher's guidance focused on how students create their essays, such as acquiring relevant ideas and organizing material, resulting in much-improved writing. The teacher provided students with clear directions and instructions, including what to do and what not to do at the start of the task. He also reviewed students' assignments, wrote encouraging notes, and praised them for their accomplishments. Contribution/Originality: The study seeks to determine students' perceptions of nonautonomous online collaborative writing in the English language classroom with the assistance of teachers. In other words, how do EFL students feel about combining Google Docs with collaborative writing in English with t he teacher's guidance? 1. INTRODUCTION Collaborative learning refers to the process of working together to achieve a common goal and complete a text within context (Graham, 2005). The process involves gathering, preparing and developing ideas, composting, rewriting, and proofreading (Rice & Huguley, 1994). Several studies examined various topics related to collaborative writing, such as how novices and advanced learners cooperate (Lee, 2004) and how students collaborate using Google Docs (Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, 2012). Other studies have shown that working together on written assignments improves students' interpersonal and overall writing skills (
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Collaborative Writing Practice through Online Learning: Insights from Iranian EFL Learners’ Perceptions
Ahmad Ameri-Golestan
2020
This study investigates the benefits of e-collaborative and collaborative writing tasks on the perception of Iranian EFL learners in a process-oriented approach. The study involved 74 intermediate Iranian EFL students at Islamic Azad University, Isfahan Branch. They were divided into three groups by random assignment as two experimental groups and one control group. The experimental groups were required to perform their tasks in collaboration; only one of these two groups had access to the Telegram Application outside the classroom. The control group, however, followed the conventional method of learning how to write. The participants were required to write two journals during the course. They were asked to write about their understanding, attitude, and experience on the writing activity. There were 136 diary entries to be analyzed in order to discover the themes in them. These themes were literally the emerging concepts in the diary entries related to research question of the study...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
A Review Study on the Impact of Online Collaborative Learning on EFL Students’ Writing Skills
Yasir Al-Yafaei
International Journal of Linguistics Studies
This review study endeavors to review the literature on the impact of online collaborative learning on EFL students' writing skills. It also adds to the ongoing discussion about the way in which online collaboration might support writing and the extent to which online collaborative learning can facilitate mutual scaffolding among EFL students. In addition, it views the students’ perception and understanding of online collaboration as factors that need to be investigated to explore the impact of such an approach. The study utilized a qualitative method, which particularly relies on gathering materials and conclusions from existing literature such as books, papers, and articles. Based on the existing literature, online collaborative learning had a beneficial impact on the students' writing performance. The findings indicated that the implementation of online collaborative learning effectively facilitates the instructional and educational endeavors of both educators and learner...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Synchronous collaborative writing instruction in a university EFL context: Challenges and solutions
Panachanok Chanwaiwit
World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues
This study explored EFL instructors’ perceptions and practices to identify challenges of teaching synchronous collaborative writing (SCW) and then proposed solutions to the problems. The instructor survey of practices in online English writing instruction was sent to 52 instructors from 15 regional universities in Thailand; 51 responded to the survey and, after selection, 24 participants were included. Data also included classroom observations and interviews. The participants felt unprepared to teach SCW because of insufficient online pedagogical skills in engaging students in the classroom and a lack of technology skills in managing online classrooms, facilitating real-time collaborative writing and giving objective formative assessments. The findings suggest that EFL instructors improve their teaching quality regarding student engagement, goals, content, tools, classroom management strategies, instructor and student roles, SCW activities and assessment. These discoveries enable ed...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Impact of the Use of Collaborative Writing on Attitude of EFL Students towards Learning Writing Skills
Alemu Anshu
International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies
The main goal of the study was to examine the impact of employing collaborative writing on students’ attitude towards learning EFL writing skills. To this end, based on the mean results of the paragraph a writing skills test was administered before the experiment, two sections of Grade 11 students from Felegebirahn Secondary School in Amhara Region, Ethiopia were chosen as participants of the study. These two sections of students were categorized as experimental (n=44) and control (n=44) groups using simple random sampling technique. The experimental group exercised paragraph level writing tasks collaboratively, whereas the control group practiced the identical writing tasks individually for 12 weeks in the 2019 academic year. Questionnaire, which was intended to find out the attitude of EFL students about learning writing skills before and after the training, was the major data collection tool used in the study. A semi-structured interview with a few selected students was also unde...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Effects of Online Collaborative Writing via Google Docs on Learners’ Writing Performance and Interaction: A Case Study of Asian EFL Learners
Nakhon Kitjaroonchai
English as a Foreign Language International Journal
This study investigated the effects of online collaborative writing and writing contributions in Google Docs of 35 Asian EFL university learners in a composition course. Data were collected from students’ pre- and post-test writing, two extended online collaborative tasks: writing descriptive and argumentative essays, and student reflections. Students’ writing performances were assessed using Jacobs et al.’s (1981) composition analytic scoring rubric. Paired sample t-test analysis showed that academic writing performance significantly increased after participating in two extended collaborative writing tasks. Learners developed more extended written texts and texts were more accurate in the post-test writing. Furthermore, Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) analysis showed that learners’ text contributions, their use of writing change functions and language functions during the collaborative process was positively correlated with their post-writing performance. This study s...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Effectiveness of Collaborative Writing Strategy in Improving Essay Writing Skills of University Students in the EFL Context
Desy Liliani Husain
AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan
Essay writing skills are able to predict a person's success in higher education because the processes involved when composing it are indeed able to hone the abilities or skills of a student in academic life. This study aims to improve the essay writing skills of English Education students by applying the collaborative writing strategy. Classroom Action Research design is applied to answer the research questions, and then there are two cycles conducted successfully in the research. Each cycle consists of several stages, namely planning, implementation, observation, and evaluation, divided into three meetings. The research data were collected by assessing students’ writing in each cycle and analyzed using the band score from NCTE. The study results indicate an increase in the quality of students' essay writing skills after doing the writing process through Collaborative Writing in several aspects of writing. The effectiveness of this strategy was seen that more than 75% of stu...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Students' voices about collaborative EFL writing
Galuh Rohmah
2017
Penelitian ini mengkaji pengalaman mahasiswa tentang menulis kolaboratif. Pada beberapa kelas menulis, menulis kolaboratif menjadi aktifitas tambahan untuk memfasilitasi mahasiswa menulis sebuah esei secara berkelompok. Kolaborasi dilakukan mulai awal proses menulis sampai penulisan akhir. Tentunya, hal ini menimbulkan situasi yang tidak mudah bagi mahasiswa. Mereka memiliki berbagai pengalaman yang tentunya sangat penting untuk diteliti. Penelitian menggunakan metode narrative inquiry karena data yang diperoleh berupa pengalaman mahasiswa ketika menulis secara berkolaborasi. Mahasiswa yang menjadi partisipan adalah mereka yang menempuh mata kuliah Writing selama 3 semester berturut-turut dan kelas yang mereka ikuti menggunakan collaborative writing. Temuannya adalah awal mula mengalami collaborative writing mahasiswa merasa berada pada situasi kompetisi dan situasi yang tidak menyenangkan. Setelah mengikuti proses, mereka mendapati collaborative writing memberikan banyak manfaat, m...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Applying Online Collaborative Writing to Enhance SIU Sophomore English Majors’ Writing Skills
Long Tiên
2021
Online learning that makes learning more engaging and stimulating has long been a part of 21 st-century education. This case study explores how online collaborative writing helps to improve EFL students' writing skills and how students perceive the use of this teaching method. The Saigon International University participants included 19 English-majored students who practiced writing collaboratively with Google Documents throughout a 15-week Writing course. They were first instructed to individually brainstorm vocabulary and structures needed for an essay before working together in groups to create an essay outline. The lecturer played the role of a facilitator to assign tasks for each group, supervise, and provide instant feedback during the process of essay writing. Data were collected through a pre-test, a post-test, and questionnaires, and then were analyzed using the mixed methods approach. The results indicated that most participants made a significant improvement in their writing abilities as well as tended to have a positive attitude towards this innovative method. Due to the lack of past literature exploring the impacts of such an online teaching approach on enhancing writing skills, this case study is of vital importance as it provides an in-depth understanding of the educational technology for improving learning performance.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Related topics
Collaborative Writing
EFL Students
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104