Outside-In-Inside-Out:
Novice Writer Collaboration: A Vygotskian Perspective
Chia-Yi Li (李嘉宜)
I-Chen Chen (陳怡真)
Grover Yu (余光雄)
Department of Applied English, Southern Taiwan University of Technology
allison@mail.stut.edu.tw
jennychen@mail.stut.edu.tw
fishyu@mail.stut.edu.tw
Abstract
It is proposed that in EFL college composition class, novice writers often encounter difficulties in
writing English because they used to employ grammar-translation methods, a lack of communicative
competence. As well, the learners demonstrated their dependence on Chinese-English dictionary and
the acceptance of modeled instruction with passive learning behavior.
A survey of the Mandarin
Chinese-speaking technology university students also uncovered what (how) they perceived their own
writing.
The main writing problems resulted from the writing topics that are rarely connected with
real experiences and potential first language transfer in text organization.
As a result, novice writers
hardly employed appropriate vocabulary and accurate grammar to express content and ideas.
This case study investigated how visualization techniques were used as structural scaffolding to
stimulate writing interests, engage reluctant writers, and provide optimal opportunities for
limited-experience learners. The recent findings on composition have shown that the composing
process can be guided as a cognitive process in which meaning is created. These results urge greater
awareness of peer collaboration and authentic writing experience as influencing factors in writing
pedagogy.
Keyword: cognitive development, novice writers, peer collaboration, SLA, visualization, Vygotskian
perspective
I. Introduction
The Medium of Writing
Since the novice writers with limited L2 writing experiences and lower language
proficiency often get frustrated while composing, language teachers and researchers
have been thinking of the ways to scaffold them as independent writers and empower
them as active agents. According to Vygotsky (1978; 1986), the concept of
internalization could be a means for exploring novice writers’ development. In light
with this perspective, peer collaboration can be engaged in the writing mode (writing
a short story in this study) through transforming social interaction with visualization
techniques. The central belief is that the meaning and content of student’ works are
more important than literacy-related skills. Certainly, it is assumed that for big-sized
classes of EFL learners, collaborative framework is able to generate sufficient ideas
and vocabulary on basis of visualized story form, revise their composition with
1
scaffolding strategies, and eventually internalize literacy text and its structures.
Although the issue of peer collaboration has been examined in L1 or foreign
language settings in the previous research (Roebuck, 2001; Webb, 1982; Gere &
Abbott, 1985), most of the studies have focused on the feedback of peer revision on
their “writing product” or (assess the worth) on the assessment of their writing. The
findings on advanced ESL writers commented that if L2 learners had the prior
experiences in a writing topic, first language would serve as a bridge to L2 writing.
However, less attention is paid to realize how novice writers working in groups help
each other. Applebee’s (1986) research acknowledged that one could not apply
prescriptions of more advanced writer’s approach to novice and intermediate level L1
writing. When we attempt to engage EFL novice learners in writing classroom, it
needs to investigate what actually occurs and the language of communication by
which they try to construct meaning.
Besides, this study also examined how social interaction fostered writing
interests and improved writing abilities through object (visual aids)-other (peer
collaboration)-self regulation (internalization). Visual images are considered unique
forms of meaning making here. Flower and Hayes (1984) stated, “a cognitive map of
a city, with its landmarks and spatial relations, is often more useful than a detailed
verbal description”. Further, they introduced the multiple internal and external
representations of meaning as writers compose. In their point of view, writing is the
creating and translation of the alternative mental meaning. Flower and Hayes (1984)
addressed that mental imaging in writing, including visualization, is not like “a
camera” which passively records what it sees but rather involves a constructive
mental act deeply entwined with memory. Therefore, the techniques of visual aids
(picture to characterize story content) and cognitive mapping (generating relevant
vocabulary) were implemented in this case study.
II. Literature Review
The Zone of proximal Development
According to Vygotsky (1978), the development of higher mental functions is
derived from social interaction that has been mediated by communicative language.
He argued that cognitive development occurs in two stages. A learned function occurs
first between two or more people and then within a person. “The zone of proximal
development” centers on the role of peer collaboration and guided assistance. It is
assumed that the peer collaboration framework would contribute to writing
improvement of novice writers. In Roebuck’s study (2001),“working in the ZPD”
suggested that providing time and opportunity with assistance of capable others to
compete the tasks, using self-assistance and external resources. The learners could
2
internalize to become self-regulated in writing in a second language. In short, the ZPD
is a way of characterizing the stages involved in the acquisition of higher mental
processes.
Verbal forms of mediation
In “Thought and Word” (1986), Vygotsky suggested a possible gap between
words and meaning. In external speech thought is encoded in words, while in inner
speech words is to a large extent thinking in pure meanings. Inner speech is speech
almost without words. Writing is considered as a “good illustration” of the role that
instruction has assisted development. Vygotsky(1986) claimed that language shapes
the mind to function in a particular culture. In light with this, EFL learners use either
L1 or L2 in speaking, writing, mapping, and thinking in the writing course. That
allows the acquisition of new information: content, skills, strategies, and processes.
Language mediated outward enables learners to communicate one another, and speech
mediated inward enables them to regulate their behavior and thought.
External mediation of Cognition
Vygotsky proposed that external mediators (e.g. visual aids: picture series,
mapping concept, dictionary, writing prompts) are used to regulate social interaction.
Within ZPD, novice writers use mediators to be conceptual, attentive, reflective,
internalized (Bodrova & Leong, 1996). In the earlier stage of composing, mediators
can make mental processing easier and effective because novice may have difficulties
in organizing their ideas. In the later stage, the means for higher mental functions are
provided; therefore, progressing through ZPD, learners can be more independent
writers and their performance can be improved.
Cognition and Language
In the cognitive process of writing (Flower and Hayes,1981. See Figure1),
Flower and Hayes relied on talk-aloud protocols as their method for gathering data.
They discussed that the “translating” process” is the stage of a writer “putting ideas
into visible language.” Going through the process of writing, the learners gradually
explore their own resources and real thinking into their metanarrative writing process.
More importantly, there were some times students encountering difficulties in putting
thoughts into words, as a result, guiding students’ writing experiences is one of the
important issues in classroom.
3
Figure 1.
KNOWLEDGE
OF TOPIC,
AUDIENCE,
WRITING PROCESSES
PLANNING
GENERATING
THE
WRITER’S
LONG-TERM
MENORY
Process model of writing (Flower and Hayes, 1981)
TRANSLATIN
REVIEWING
G
ORGANIZIN
G
EVALUATIN
G
GOAL
SETTING
REVISING
AND
WRITING
PLANS
MONITOR
Based on this background, this study will examine the following research
questions:
1. To what extent can the process of collaborative writing be improved with
visualization?
2. What scaffolding strategies do students employ to foster their writing ability?
3. What significant social interaction involves in writing process?
III. Method
Participants
The participants were 124 University of Technology students, selected from the
second year English course, which focused on the development of reading for writing
practice. The two distinct groups of students were Electronic Engineering majors
(class A) and Marketing majors (class B), respectively participating in this pilot study.
These participants, around low intermediate-to-intermediate proficiency level,
obtained at least one-semester basic writing experiences and one-year Freshman
English training.
Design and Procedures
The questionnaire was administrated at the beginning of the study in order to
know their perception of writing and previous experiences. During the period of the
case study, the first month was devoted to the structure and organization of narration
with visual aids, and the following four weeks students working in groups were led to
make use of writing prompts and peer revision form. Near the end of the study, the
visualization-oriented composition task and post-questionnaire were designed to elicit
the effects of their collaborative writing.
Data Analysis
The questionnaire of writing perception diagnosed out learner’s common writing
4
difficulties: identify learner’ needs, define instrumental goals, set the procedure for
studying, select appropriate visual materials, and decide evaluation methods. The
record of first draft and final product were transcribed and recorded by the researcher.
Their writing processes were observed and the effects of visualization of collaborative
writing were evaluated though (through) questionnaire.
IV. Results and Discussion
Writing difficulties
The questionnaire of writing perception showed that only a few of learners
started to write in English essays before entering University of Technology. The
linguistic limitation made them less confident in vocabulary use and grammatical
accuracy. Narrative form was the writing mode they were more comfortable with
whereas argumentative form was the most difficult and less experienced. And, the
writing problems occurred mainly because of writing topics rarely connecting with
real experiences, as well as L1 transfer in organization.
Your difficulties in English composition
27
30
23
19
20
13
Class A
2
Class B
organization
Content and
grammar
2
Accuracy of
Use of
3
5
transitions
sentence
Variety of
vocabulary
0
5
patterns
10
Insufficient
Number of
participants
40 35
Figure 2. Writing Difficulties
Actually, they used (to) grammar-translation methods, a lack of communicative
competence, and they demonstrated their dependence on Chinese-English dictionary
and the acceptance of modeled instruction with more passive learning behavior.
According to their previous experiences, English-Chinese grammar translation in
sentence structures was the teaching method used most often in the composition
course, group discussion and peer revision the less (refer to Appendix I: questionnaire
Q4). From their perspective, written communication activities were much like a
“logical product” rather than a “communicative discourse”, so language teacher
should recognize the cognitive difficulties of novice writers at first.
5
Teaching methods used most often in your composition class
Number of
participants
40
40
30
20
10
0
33
Class A
8
3
a
4
b
Class B
7
6
2
c
d
0
3
4
1
e
f
2
3
g
Figure 3. Teaching Methods
Collaborative writing with visualization techniques
Secondly, we would like to know if visual images can generate thoughts. In turn,
do words trigger more images in writer’s mind? We assumed that the appropriate
implementation of collaborative writing with visualization as a writing strategy would
encourages (encourage) students to search for meaning. Also, this framework was
taken as a medium through discussion, and learner’s ideas were sharpened. And,
through creation, learner’s interests could be maintained at the same time. Carroll
(1991) supported the ideas of giving the students the freedom to “use visual as well as
verbal solutions to their problems.” Also, she quoted Hubbard’s conclusion (Carroll,
1991): “For writers of at any age, images are part of the serious business of making
meaning-partners with words for communicating our inner designs.”
The following mental model explained the process of composing narratives with
visualization techniques (see Figure 4). To overcome linguistic limitations, peers
cooperated to apply their knowledge of grammar, schemas, world knowledge as well
as making inferences and taking reader’s needs into accounts. Through several
error-trial problem-solving activities, they comprehended, composed, and revised.
Certainly, their inner thoughts finally internalized in social interaction.
Figure 4. The model of composing narrative with visualization
6
DISCOVERY
New Diction
Puns and
Alternate
Interpretations
New Evidence
and Examples
COMPREHEND AND
COMPOSE
Apply
Knowledge
Grammar
Apply
Knowledge
Semantic
Spelling Faults
Grammar Faults
Make Instantiations and
Factual Inferences
Analogies and
Elaborations
Use Schemas and World
Knowledge
Reorganize
Apply Genre Conventions
Alternate
Plans
Infer Writer’s Intentions
and Point of View
New Content
New Voice
PROBLEM
INFORMATION
Consider Audience Needs
Faulty Logic and
Inconsistencies
Errors of Fact and
Schema Violations
Incoherence
Disorganization
Appropriate Tone
or Complexity
Representation of Text Meaning
and Reader Response
The earlier survey of the study reminded us that around 30% participants have
had writing experiences assisted with visualization in L1 or L2. However, in the end
of the experiment, guided visualization showed that the (more) salient effects on peer
composition are the increase in writing interests, competence in writing short essays,
and frequent daily contact with writing.
7
37
32
30
9
8
10
Frequent
contact
Short essays
0
5
Willingness to
write
11
Writing fluency
20
Communication
22
Writing ability
40
Writing
interests
Number of participants
The effect of guided visualization techniques
Figure 5. Technique Effect
4.3 Mediated strategies
To promote better narrative writing ability, learners were guided to construct the
content and structure based on the picture series of an old man’s story in the study.
The expert writers provided scaffolding within ZPD by employing communicative
language and examining writing prompts. The level of the assistance would decrease
when the novice writers took more control of learning. The titles generated by the
twelve different groups represented the cognitive concepts resulting from their own
interpretations:
the Title of the Story
Have A Cold
How Clinton died for Monica
An old Man’s
Santa Claus’s Little Secret
It’s not a Good Day
The punishment of Viagra
An Unlucky Day
Surprise
It is not My Day
A Bad Experience
Tragic Day
For scaffolding to be more effective, the goal of collaborative writing task must
maintain learner’s interests and lower the sense of frustration. The capable learners
and the less skilled ones could plan the story together to achieve task goals. Among
these scaffolding strategies (Gere & Abbott, 1985; Stanley, 1992; Matsuhashi, Gilliam,
& Moss, 1989 要不要按照字母排), reacting, clarifying, response to advice and
advising, eliciting, were the strategies employed most frequently.
Scaffolding Strategies
Scaffolding strategies
Requesting advice
Definition
Examples
“Is the title OK?”
Asking for suggestions
“Should I expand it more?”
“Tell me what it needs.”
Advising
Suggesting
recommending
revision
that
changes
8
or “You can put this in another paragraph.”
be “Use this word will be better.”
made; going beyond advising by
composing new sentences for the
writer or offering specific solutions
Responding to advice
Accepting
changes
solution; “OK.”
or
questioning the rationale or validity “Yes, that’s true.”
of
the
advice;
the “I don’t think so.”
rejecting
“Why should we write about that?”
suggestions made
Eliciting
Drawing out opinion or reaction, “You, as the reader, what do you need?”
additional information or content, “What’s your point of view?”
background
or “Keep telling me …”
knowledge,
understanding of text from poor
opinion
reaction, “Yeah, it’s all right.”
Responding to
Giving
elicitation
additional information or content, or “Uh, that is reason the old feel back, but
background
or
knowledge;
giving you have to…..”
response about meaning as requested
by peer
Reacting
Making evaluative comments about “That was a nice experience.”
specific or general aspects or the text “It is well written.”
“This is an error.”
Clarifying
Offering clarification of handwriting “What I tried to say there was…”
“What do you mean here?”
or meaning
Restating
Interpreting interlocutor’s response “Do you mean…?”
or paraphrasing text on the basis of “So what you are saying is that..”
understood meaning
Announcing
Informing about the contents of a “Here’s the first reason.”
paragraph or about missing parts
“The conclusion is missing.”
“This is another part.”
Justifying
Explaining and defending choices or “I didn’t give many details because I
decisions made about the text
couldn’t understand the story”
“I’m going to write about this because
of the picture meant to..”
Instruction
Giving “mini” lessons on grammar, You’d better write them in a complete
vocabulary, stylistic conventions, or sentence.
Giving directives
other aspects of writing
That’s based on my experiences.
Ordering poor to take action (read,
“Now. Let’s move to the introduction.”
write, ask, continue with the task,
“You read aloud now, so the rest of us
etc.)
can start grasping the ideas.”
9
Resorting to L1 and external resources
For EFL novice writers, writing is not an automatic process. It was a great of
efforts (It was of great efforts) for the researcher to control big-size writing classroom
and mediate writing activities alone with less proficient learners, so Mandarin
Chinese was used delicately for explanation and interaction and English for
composition and revision. As a matter of fact, there was some extent of
disagreement and communication breakdown at the beginning stage. Consequently,
we found out that L1 was employed as a mediated tool for making sense of the
picture story and verifying intended meaning of story schema. Sometimes, learners
would resort to external resources for facilitating writing. For example, using
dictionary for unknown words, writing prompts for revision, and asking for teacher’s
advices.
Conclusion
The purposes of this case study investigated how collaborative construction with
visualization technique was used as a structural scaffolding mediator to foster L2
writing. The major findings were in line with other results of the relevant studies
(Gere & Abbott, 1985; Stanley, 1992; Matsuhashi, Gilliam, & Moss, 1989; Roebuck,
2001 要不要按照字母排): scaffolding structure could facilitate cognitive concepts.
Additionally, our study discovered that visualization technique helped novice writers
develop a positive attitude toward writing. The visualization technique approached
both outside structure and inside mediation to stimulate interests. And, not only did
visualization engage reluctant writers and it also provided optimal opportunities for
limited-experience learners.
The recent research on composition has shown that the composing process can
be guided as a cognitive process in which meaning is created. Evidently, the social
interaction is so dynamic that it is necessary to reexamine the actions which integrate
in the writing process, for instance, planning, generation, organizing ideas,
self-reflection and revision. Furthermore, this study also suggested that the stages of
collaborative composition represent cognitive strategies that students must use
externally and internally. Thus, the language teachers must create constructive ZPD
in which EFL learners are likely to realize these cognitive actions during the learning
process. All of these results urge greater awareness of peer collaboration and
authentic writing experience as influencing factors in writing pedagogy.
To sum up, active visualization technique is viewed as a tool for higher mental
processing: an effective instructional mediator for collaborative composition. For
the future research, it is suggested to take an in-depth look at the effects of the
implementation in a computer-assisted language learning environment in comparing
10
with traditional knowledge construction situations. Certainly, L1 must be employed
with caution. In fact, argument and communication breakdown may occur from time
to time when learners negotiate meaning. For novice writers, their value of
interlanguage knowledge and L1 experience transfer in Vygotskian framework should
be cherished because the peer talks and peer thinking develop with cognitive
strategies during the writing process. For mix-level classroom, we must pay more
attention to the use of scaffolding strategies. Besides, the activities among the expert
writers may be different from among novice learners to some extent.
References
Applebee, A. N. (1986). Problems in process approaches. In Petrosky & D. Bartholomae. (Eds.), The
teaching of writing (pp85-113). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Black, Kathleen. (1991). How Students See Their Writing: A Visual Representation of Literacy. Journal
of Reading 35, 3: 206-214.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the Mind: The Vygotsky to Early Childhood Education.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Carroll, B. (1980). Testing Communicative Performance. Oxford, England: Pergammon Institute of
English.
Carroll, J. A. (1991). Drawing into Meaning: A Powerful Writing Tool. English Journal 80, 6: 34-38.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and
Communication; v32 n4 p365-87 Dec 1981. 1981
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1984). Images, Plans, and Prose: The Representation of Meaning in Writing.
Written Communication; v1 n1 p120-60.
Gere, A.R. & Abbott, R.D. (1985). Talking about writing: the language of writing groups. Research in
the Teaching English, 19, 362-385.
Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the Organization of Writing Process. In L. Gregg. & E.
Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (p3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hyerle, David. (1996). Thinking Map: Seeing is Understanding. Educational Leadership 53, 4: 85-89.
Lantolf, J.P. & McCafferty, S. (1994). Eliciting and analyzing private speech. Workshop conducted at
the annual conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Baltimore, MD.
Matsuhashi, A., Gilliam, A., Conley, R., & Moss. B. (1989). A theoretical framework for studying peer
tutoring as response. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and Response: theory, practice, and research
(pp293-316). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Mohan, B. A. & Lo, A. Y. (1985). Academic Writing and Chinese Students: Transfer and
Developmental Factor. TESOL Quarterly 19, 3: 515-534.
Reichelt, M. & Waltner, K. B. (2001). Writing in a Second-Year German Class. Foreign Language
Annals 34, 3: 235-245.
Roebuck, R. F. (2001). Teaching Composition in the College Level Foreign Language Class: Insights
11
and Activities from Sociocultural Theory. Foreign Language Annals 34, 3.
Sirc, G. &Anderson, C.M. (1985). What writers say: Analyzing the metacommentaries of college
writers. Forum in Reading and Language Education, 1 (2), 59-74.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be more effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
Webb, N.M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research,
52, 421-445.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zamel, V. (1983) The Composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL
Quarterly 17, 165-187.
Appendix I:
Questionnaire
1. Stage at which you started to write English essays
a. Elementary school
b. Middle School
c. Senior High
d. College (Freshman English)
e. 2nd College English (Reading & writing practice)
2. In which mode of writing did you write most often
a. Narrative
b. Descriptive
c. Expository
d. Argumentative
3. Which genre of writing do you find easiet and which you find most difficulty
a. Narrative
b. Descriptive
c. Expository
d. Argumentative
4. Which teaching methods were used most often in your composition class
a. The writing topics were assigned to write out
b. The writing topics were assigned with pre-writing discussion
c. English-Chinese grammar translation in sentence structures
d. Group discussion and peer revision
e. Pre-read modeled essay before starting to write
f. The teacher discuss, edit, and correct essays with the whole class
12
g. The teacher directly corrected writing errors on the essay
5.Which criteria were most important for evaluating your composition
a. Accuracy
b. Sentence structures and vocabulary
c. Content
d. Organization
6. What are your difficulties in English compositions
a. Insufficient vocabulary
b. Variety of sentence patterns
c. Use of transitions
d. Accuracy of grammar
e. Content and organization
7. Have you ever had writing experiences assisted with visualization in L1 or L2
a. Yes
b. No
8. Guided Visualization techniques can improve
a. Writing interests
b. Writing fluency
c. Writing ability
d. Communicative communication
e. Opportunity to write
f. Writing Short essays
g. Frequent contact with writing
13