PUPILS’ PERCEPTIONS ON COLLABORATIVE WRITING INTERVENTIONFatin Khairani Khairul’Azam1*, Hamidah Yamat21,2Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.Email: 1*fatinkhairani@gmail.com, 2hamidah_yamat@ukm.edu.myArticle History: Received on 27th September 2019, Revised on 27th November 2019, Published on 22nd December 2019AbstractPurpose of the study: The purpose of this study is to identify students’ perceptions of the effect of collaborative writing intervention on Form 1 pupils’ writing skills. Methodology: A quasi-experimental design was employed involving30 Form 1 pupil from a secondary school in Pasir Gudang, Johor, Malaysia. All participants responded to a survey prior to the collaborative writing intervention and after the intervention.Main Findings: The findings showed an increase in the scores for perception on the effectiveness of collaborative writing intervention; indicating that through collaborative writing practices, students’ writing could be improved.Implications of this study: The study implies that teachers should incorporate collaborative writing in teaching students to write as students perceived it positively. It implies that it may be an effective way to improve students’ writing.Novelty/Originality of this study: Most studies have focused on the use of technology in collaborative writing. This study, however, focuses on the collaborative intervention cycle in the classroom that supports the process of learning to write.Keywords: Collaborative Writing Intervention, Collaborative, ESL Learners, Writing Skills, Writing Strategy, Perceptions.INTRODUCTIONWriting is considered a challenging task for pupils due to its complexity. It is regarded as an intellectually challenging task as it requires the writer to have mastery of several factors simultaneously (Bell & Burnaby, 1984; Nunan, 1989, p.36). Its complexity has discouraged pupils from writing with some of them possessing low to intermediate level of proficiency and ending up submitting blank pages of their written assessments. Ghabool, Mariadass, &Kashef, (2012)in their study, revealed that a high number of Malaysian English as a Second Language (ESL) learners are confronted with challenges in performing written tasks (p. 132). According to Nesamalar, Saratha,&The (2001), the least proficient ability for most learners to master during new language acquisition in writing.For some educators who are experiencing the circumstances mentioned, it is vital to find an alternative way of teaching writing in the ESL classroom. According to Sahin et al. (2002), teachers should use the right pedagogy in teaching writing skills because it has a tremendous impact on students’ interest in writing which will have an impact on their performance in writing. In the context of this research, collaborative writing denotes a writing strategy that the researcher employed in order to improve pupils’ perceptions of writing. (HYPERLINK \l "Storch_2011"Storch, 2011) stated that collaborative writing involves two or more individuals producing a written text. It is used to help pupils to explore, discuss, and obtain learning capabilities by sharing ideas with their peers. Research has shown that learning experiences are enhanced in classrooms that promote collaborative writing (Dobao, 2012; Elola&Oskoz, 2010; Wu, 2015). The current study involved a suburban school in Pasir Gudang, Johor where most of the pupils are at the intermediate level, who have mostly scored low marks in their writing assignments. This is evident in the school’s English language assessment results for the past few years. Most of the pupils in the school tend to either leave the writing task blank or copy the instructions rather than answering them according to the instructions given. Most of them claimed that they do not know how to expand their ideas in writing and that writing is difficult. Hence, the study discussed in this paper attempted to intervene through collaborative writing. It aimed to then ascertain the perceptions among pupils on their writing skills after the collaborative writing intervention. The study, therefore, hoped that the students’ writing performance could be improved through a collaborative writing intervention. LITERATURE REVIEWCollaborative WritingCollaborative writing typically refers to a combined creation of a text or the co-writing of a text by the authors (Storch, 2011). Many scholars described it as a socially interactive rather than cognitive process. They emphasized the social nature of collaborative writing (Aminloo, 2013; Galegher& Kraut, 1994; Lowry et al., 2004; Snow et al., 1987; Storch, 2005). They defined collaborative writing as an act of processing a document where learners produce a shared written material based on particular social concerns. These social concerns involve negotiations about the meaning of facts related to the topic, fair and equal division of roles during writing, coordination of individual contributions, seeking one another’s points of view about their writing, and resolution of questions about co-authorship (Galegher& Kraut, 1994). This social view of collaborative writing is reflected in the definitions by other scholars such as Lowry et al. (2004). They defined collaborative writing as a joint and social technique that requires the group to concentrate on a common goal by discussing, organizing, and linking the members in the formation of a standard report. Such scholars highly advocated socialism in collaborative writing. However, scholars who actively support the social view of collaborative writing are incapable of reaching a consensus about the nature of socialism in collaborative writing. There is no clear and interdisciplinary definition as to whether collaborative writing is a social interaction process, a social action process, a social binary process, or a social activity.The social interaction notion for collaborative writing receives support from scholars such as Colen&Petelin (2004), who stated that collaborative writing is inherently a social interaction where learners can reach a consensus. The proposed collaborative writing as a “… production of a shared document, substantive interaction among members, and shared decision-making power over the document” (p. 137). Sucha view of social interaction is also reflected in other scholars’ definitions of collaborative writing as a social process. For example, Henderson & Silva (2006) stated that collaborative writing is a social process that comprises more than two authors writing together in producing a single text by seeking one another’s points of view about their written text.Furthermore, the social interactional view of collaborative writing is mainly seen as a platform where learners can create and develop their knowledge-pooling for writing. It allows them to gain more understanding about social networking in writing. Based on this understanding, Rex et al. (2002) and Ritchie, Stephen&Donna (2007) argued that collaborative writing is an interactive knowledge process of self and the thoughts of others within social relationships. Interpreting these thoughts collaboratively into a written document has the potential to reflect our self-understanding and the understanding of others in this writing partnership.Sociocultural Theory of LearningTo claim that all learning experiences are merely social is an over-simplification of the sociocultural theory of learning. However, as Smagorinsky (2007) noted, Vygotsky’s theory implies that all thinking, and by extension learning, has social origins (p. 62). The thinking and learning that individuals do are influenced by social dialogues. Whether that dialogue occurs in real-time and physical space, or an inner dialogue mediated by personal experiences, the social nature of learning is undeniable. Meanwhile, Prior (2006) pointed out that sociocultural theory is a theory involving communication that is continuously locally spontaneous and facilitated by assembled, factually specified instruments and executions. It is within the social activity that individuals socialize in accordance with others, but as they follow the “appropriate cultural resources” they are “individuated as their particular appropriations historically accumulate to form a particular individual” (ibid, p. 55). This theory supports Vygotsky’s assertion that human consciousness is “socio-historically produced” and that “learning/development is a confluence of histories (polygenesis, cultural genesis, and ontogenesis)” (p. 55). The research by Vygotsky (1978) led him to postulate that language and perception are inextricably linked and that there is interdependence between language and thought (p. 33). On the other hand, he maintained that children use language, primarily, as a method to initiate social contact, and the communicative and cognitive roles of language turn out to be the source for original and superior forms of tasks and understanding (Vygostky, 1978, p. 29). Language is transformed from a tool for labelling and identifying into a means of synthesizing and eventually internalizing complex forms of cognitive perception. In terms of sociocultural theory, he asserted that children acquire information through their personal, socio-cultural experiences and “are capable of reconstructing their perception” (p. 36) to “synthesize past [and] present visual fields” (p. 37) to suit their purposes. Mostly, children develop knowledge and cognition as a result of their interactions with others situated within specific social and cultural contexts. Furthermore, Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that the development of higher psychological functioning originates from social interactions between people and is ultimately the outcome of an extensive series of transformations and evolving procedures that occur over a protracted period creating a shift from interpersonal processes to intrapersonal processes. He further explained that this “internalization of socially rooted and historically developed activities is the distinguishing feature of human psychology and the basis of the qualitative leap from animal to human psychology” (p. 57). Central to this sociocultural theory is the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which denotes the “distance between the definite progressive level as resolute by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as resolute by problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Likewise, Barton &Hamilton (2000); Bomer (2007) and Laman (2011), suggested that an individual’s comprehension of learning forms the social circumstances in which one has been involved with; the understanding of literacy is also formed by the same personal background(Laman, 2011, p. 134). Magorinsky (2013) then elaborated Moll’s idea of cultural “funds of knowledge” (p. 197) and pointed out that children develop “culturally learned ways of knowing – those that people learn through their interactions with those who surround them” (p. 197) which inherently situate them as significantly different from other groups in society. The work by Gee (1989) on Primary Discourse suggested that this initial home-based sense of identity is the foundation for all other learning experiences. Meanwhile, Smagorinsky (2013) indicated that it could also be a source of dysphoria in the school context which can create tension between what one knows culturally and what one is expected to know socially (p. 195). In addition, students bring personal experiences to their reading and writing that are impacted by the “cultural, social, and personal history” (Pantaleo, 2010, p. 267) in which they are exposed. In sociocultural terms, He acknowledged writing as a “social practice that recognizes the connection between the reading and writing of pupils and their membership in a particular classroom community” (p. 276). By extension, pupils’ membership within a higher social and cultural community and the social context they are working within affect their linguistic behaviors and literacy achievement.Pupils’ PerceptionsForgus& Melamed (1976) referred to perception as the process of information extraction. They specified that perceptions are the procedures that regulate how humans understand their environment. Tubbs &Mors (1983) defined perception as a dynamic process as one selectively observes, manages, and construes what one experiences. Interpretations are made based on the perceivers’ past experiences, expectations of human behavior, knowledge of other situations, attitudes, needs, and outlooks.In their book, Warr &Knapper (1968) categorized perceptions into individual and general. They opined that people’s behaviors are influenced by each other’s perceptions, and these behaviors can potentially be influenced by public perceptions, which may be direct or indirect.Benjamin, Hopkins, & Nation (1994) elaborated that perception comprises not only the stimulus that builds our perceptual environment such as colors, sounds, textures, and shapes but also other variables that are present within the perceiver and are typically categorized as organismic variables. Therefore, perception is the outcome of organismic and stimulus variables. Hence, a student’s perception refers to the understanding of stimuli that are created by connecting to previous perceptual sets that are formed from experience, exposure, or other communication methods.METHODOLOGY Research DesignThe present study is fundamentally a quantitative study. Specifically, a quasi-experimental design was employed where an intervention; namely the collaborative writing.ParticipantsThe population of Form 1 pupils in the selected school is198 from seven classes. However, in this study, the researcher only chose one class where the pupils are at the intermediate level. The sample of the study comprised a total of 30 pupils from the suburban school located in Pasir Gudang, Johor. All the respondents selected are intermediate English language users, as the students were streamed during the enrolment to Form 1 at the beginning of the year. The sample was chosen using purposive sampling, which is a form of non-probability sampling. The study uses such a procedure to avoid researcher or experimenter bias.Data AnalysisThe researcher used descriptive analysis to analyze the survey data. A comparison of the percentages between pre-survey and post-survey was made to identify the pupils’ perceptions of writing before and after the collaborative writing intervention. The percentage represents the number of pupils who responded to the items in the survey. InstrumentsThe instrument utilized for the pre and post-survey in this study was a Google Forms’ questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 46 items that were modified from several prior studies. It is straightforward and short that it can be completed in less than 10 minutes, or at most 20 minutes. Although it had replicated several prior studies, the research procedures, especially those regarding sample selection and data collection, were done differently to increase data reliability and validity. Nevertheless, the data analysis was somewhat similar to those adopted by prior studies. An online survey form powered by Google was utilized for the pre-survey and the post-survey to identify the perceptions of the respondents. The online version is similar to the written form, though the layouts differ slightly. The post-survey was done eight weeks after the pre-survey.Google Forms, the website which hosts the survey, is beneficial because it can analyze data and provide the average for each item, and their results can be obtained in the same manner. This study used descriptive statistics consisting of only frequency, percentage, proportion, and average. Although this might seem too basic and straightforward, it suits the requirements of the study. This study applied Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to compare the percentages between the pre-survey and the post-survey results, as well as the pre-test and the post-test scores.Validity and Reliability For the purpose of gauging the content validity, the first version of the questionnaire was given to the lecturer and the senior teachers to evaluate the relevance of each item in measuring the perceptions of the pupils on writing skills. Furthermore, they were requested to evaluate the test items holistically in terms of accuracy and suitability for Form 1 pupils at the school.Face ValidityOluwatayo (2012) stated in his study that face validity is the appearance and the significance of the determining device, to test for the items’ relevance, realism, explicitness, and clarity based on researchers’ subjective valuations. It helps to evaluate the technical display of the questionnaire in the aspects of practicability, readability, reliability of style, and intelligibility of the vernacular employed. In this study, this was done through expert validation where three experienced English teachers in the school for face validity, whether the sample involved in the study was well-suited to the items listed in the questionnaire.Content ValidityJackson (2009) claimed that validity refers to whether a measure is genuine when the researcher measures what it claims to measure. In order to establish validity, the survey form was given to an expert reviewer (a senior teacher in the domain of teaching and learning, who is also the Head of English Panel in the school and an experienced lecturer in the domain of teaching and learning)to assess its content validity. The expert reviewer advised the researcher to rephrase some of the items listed in the questionnaire since she believed it contains words that some pupils will have difficulty to understand. Hence, some words were changed and rephrased. For instance, the word ‘essential’ was rephrased to ‘important’. Reliability The reliability test is vital in confirming the uniformity across the portions of the gauging instruments (Huck, 2007). According to (Carmines & Zeller, 1979), reliability comprehends the range to which a magnitude of an occurrence offers constant and consistent outcome.(Huck, 2007; Robinson, 2009) stated in their study that the scale is considered to possess high internal consistency reliability should it be able to measure the same construct. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient is the most commonly used in measuring internal consistency. According to (Whitley, 2002&Robinson, 2009), it is regarded as the most suitable assessment of reliability upon utilizing Likert scales. However, (Whitley, 2002&Robinson, 2009) stated in their study that most have agreed on a minimum internal consistency coefficient of .70, even though there appears to be no conclusive guideline for determining internal consistencies. A value of .70 or higher is generally accepted as an indicator of good internal consistency.The reliability analysis was carried out, comprising 46 items. The questionnaire reached the acceptable reliability, as the Cronbach’s alpha showed α = 0.88 (pre-survey) and α = 0.97 (post-survey). Most items proved to be worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted. In terms of reliability of both surveys, α is more than .70, which shows that the questionnaire is reliable.Further details are explained in Table1: Reliability Statistics of Items and Table 2: Scale Statistics of Items. Both statistics confirmed the reliability of the items listed in the questionnaire of this study. Thus, there was no requirement to remove or add any items.Table 1: Reliability Statistics of ItemsReliability StatisticsDescriptionCronbach's AlphaCronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized ItemsN of ItemsPre- Survey0.8820.8946Post- Survey0.9650.96646Table 2: Scale Statistics of ItemsScale StatisticsDescriptionMeanVarianceStd. DeviationN of ItemsPre- Survey154.03374.99919.36546Post- Survey151.51089.70733.01146Data Collection ProcedureThe participants were required to participate and be involved in collaborative writing in the next phase. During the collaborative writing phase, the participants were divided into five groups to correlate with a writing assignment consisting of five paragraphs (introduction, first content, second content, third content, and conclusion). Each group was assigned one paragraph. The cycle was repeated five times until all groups had experienced developing all five paragraphs. After each cycle, each group was required to present their paragraph to the class to obtain feedback from the teacher and peers. During the feedback session, the researcher asked the participants to find errors in their friends’ writing and try to correct the errors before she commented. The researcher also gave tokens of appreciation to those who were able to correct their friends’ writing and to the best group to encourage participation in the collaborative writing phase.In the final phase, they were each required to answer the post-survey questionnaire to record their perceptions of writing after being involved in collaborative writing. The analysis from the survey’s results was presented in percentages. Then, the percentages of the surveys were compared to identify any improvement.DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS Analysis of FindingsTable 3 shows a detailed report on the responses given by the participants in both the pre-survey and the post-survey sessions. “Strongly disagree” and “Disagree” in the survey form indicate negative perceptions of the participants on writing based on the items listed in the questionnaire, while “Strongly agree” and “Agree” indicate positive perceptions. According to the results, 54.2% (Strongly disagree= 33.4% and Disagree = 20.8%) of the participants had negative perceptions of writing before the collaborative writing phase while only 31.8% (Strongly Agree = 9.8% and Agree = 22.0%) of the participants had positive perceptions. The results had shown that more than half of the participants in this study had negative perceptions of writing before the researcher conducted the collaborative writing intervention. However, after the participants had experienced collaborative writing for eight weeks, their perceptions improved. Looking at the results, only 24.4% (Strongly disagree= 7.9% and Disagree= 16.5%) of the participants had negative perceptions on writing while 59.3% (Strongly agree= 30.1% and Agree= 29.2%) of the participants had positive perceptions. Thus, it is concluded that collaborative writing intervention helps to improve participants’ perceptions of writing. Further details are explained in Table 3: Statistics for Pupils’ Perceptions (Scores) on Writing.Table 3: Statistics for Pupils’ Perceptions (Scores) on WritingStrongly disagreeDisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeAgreeStrongly AgreePre-survey33.4%20.8%14.0%22.0%9.8%Post-survey7.9%16.5%16.2%29.2%30.1%DISCUSSIONCollaborative writing intervention allows pupils to brainstorm ideas together and share them during the intervention phase. Thus, pupils, who lack ideas, can gain information from their group members. Inline with mulligan &Garofalo (2011), pupils can learn the various language and writing skills more effectively through collaborative writing. Based on the findings, pupils noted that through the initial brainstorming tasks, their arguments became deeper and stronger because it allows other pupils to challenge the other to think more carefully about the topic. Other than that, pupils noted that the collaborative approach allowed them to develop the topic from different points of view, thus strengthening the quality of the content. By sharing ideas, other pupils remarked, they had a more depth understanding of the topic. This is supported by Jafari &Ansari (2012). They claimed that pupils who work collaboratively in groups can also produce better-written composition than those who write individually. It is because, during the activity, they can do peer reviews before presenting it to the class. As for social skills development, pupil’s remark indicated that they developed a greater sense of responsibility through the collaborative effort and that it helped them to get along with others and allowed them to get to know their classmates better.CONCLUSIONCollaborative writing intervention helps to improve pupils’ perceptions of writing. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER STUDYThe focus of this study is circumscribed to examining the writing achievements of Form 1 pupils in SMK Taman Desa Jaya, Johor Bahru, Johor. Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to all Form 1 pupils in Johor or Malaysia. Apart from that, the sample consisted of only 30 Form 1 intermediate pupils in that school. The findings may differ if the study was applied to basic-level pupils in the same school. The duration of the collaborative writing intervention phase was about eight weeks. The findings of the study might be affected if the pupils were given less than eight weeks during the intervention phase. It is suggested that future study should involve both survey and interview of the participants as well as their motivational factors in collaborative writing to identify any external factors that might influence the findings. REFERENCES Abdulahi, A., Jalil, B., Lumpur, K., Samadi, M. B., &Gharleghi, B. (2014). A Study on the Negative Effects of Social Networking Sites Such as Facebook among Asia Pacific University Scholars in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(10), 133–145.Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of Using Screencast Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing and Perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p106AYDIN, B. (2017). The Effect of Mental Imaging Technique on Idiom Comprehension in EFL Learners. International Journal of Languages’ Education, 1(Volume 5 Issue 4), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.2113Bašić, M., Milojević, M., Mitić, D., &Cvetković, J. (2010). Etičkiaspekti u oblastiasistiranereprodukcije. Acta FacultatisMedicaeNaissensis, 27(3), 171–178.Biria, R., & Jafari, S. (2013). The Impact of Collaborative Writing on the Writing Fluency of Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.1.164-175Bustamante, A., &Eom, M. (2017). Linguistically Diverse Students’ Attitudes toward Writing in English. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 5(1), 44–56. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1147642&site=ehost-liveCastello, D. (2015). First Language Acquisition and Classroom Language Learning: Similarities and Differences. ELAL College of Arts & Law, (May), 1–18.Challob, A. I., Bakar, N. A., & Latif, H. (2016). Collaborative Blended Learning Writing Environment: Effects on EFL Students’ Writing Apprehension and Writing Performance. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 229. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p229Deveci, T. (2018). Student perceptions of collaborative writing in a project-based course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(4), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060415Dien et al., 2013. (2008). 基因的改变NIH Public Access. Bone, 23(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2014.371Du, F. (2018). Comparing Students’ Perceptions and Their Writing Performance on Collaborative writing: A Case Study. English Language Teaching, 11(12), 131. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n12p131Erward G Carmines. (n.d.). CAE Fall 2019 Reliability and validity assessment.pdf.(n.d.)Evaluating the face and content validity of a Teaching and Learning Guiding Principles Instrument (TLGPI): A prospective study of Malaysian teacher educators. (2016). Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society & Space, 12(3), 11–21.Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2015). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for top-down effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39(2016). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15000965Ghabool, N., Mariadass, M. E. A., &Kashef, S. H. (2012). Investigating Malaysian ESL Students’ Writing Problems on Conventions, Punctuation, and Language Use at Secondary School Level. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(3), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v2i3.1892Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. ELT Journal, 61(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm001Guzmán Gámez, D. Y., & Moreno Cuellar, J. A. (2019). The use of plotagon to enhance the english writing skill in secondary school students. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 21(1), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n1.71721Habibi, A. (2017). Students’ Perception on Writing Problems: A Survey at One Islamic University in Jambi. Ta’dib, 22(1), 96–108.He, H. (2016). A survey of EFL college learners’ perceptions of an on-line writing program. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(4), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i04.5459Ibrahim Mohamed Alfaki. (2015). University Students’ English Writing Problems: Diagnosis and Remedy. International Journal of English Language Teaching. Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (Www.Eajournals.Org), 3(3), 40–52. Retrieved from http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/University-Students----English-Writing-Problems-Diagnosis-and-Remedy.pdfIyer, R. D. (2017). Developing and validating a questionnaire to measure some factors of school culture: A psychometric process. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(11), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i11/119397Jelodar, Z. Y., & Farvardin, M. T. (2019). Effects of collaborative tasks on EFL learners’ writing productions. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12126aLai, C., Lei, C., & Liu, Y. (2016). The nature of collaboration and perceived learning in wiki-based collaborative writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2586Liu, C. L. (2015). A Review of Effect of Different Tasks on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition. Higher Education Studies, 5(5), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n5p56Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2MacKay, T. (2003). Gee’s Theory of D/discourse and Research in Teaching English as a Second Language: Implications for the Mainstream. Retrieved on January. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Gee’s+Theory+of+D/discourse+and+Research+in+Teaching+English+as+a+Second+Language:+Implictions+for+the+Mainstream#0Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh. (2015). International Graduate Students’ Academic Writing Practices in Malaysia: Challenges and Solutions. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 2166–3750. Retrieved from http://jistudents.org/Masuwai, A., Tajudin, M., & Saad, N. S. (2016). Evaluating the face and content validity of a Teaching and Learning Guiding Principles Instrument (TLGPI): A perspective study of Malaysian teacher educators. Geografia - Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 12(3), 11–21.Milena, A., Luna, R., Jorge, U., Lozano, T., Salle, U. D. La, Stella, L., & Ortiz, H. (2013). Collaborative Writing to Enhance Academic Writing Development Through Project Work La escrituracolaborativa para incrementar el desarrollo de la escrituraacadémica a través del trabajo por proyectos. A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English, 20, 130–148.)Mohajan, H. K. (2017). Two Criteria for Good Measurements in Research: Validity and Reliability. Annals of SpiruHaret University. Economic Series, 17(4), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.26458/1746Nair, S. M., & Sanai, M. (2018). Effects of utilizing the stad method (Cooperative learning approach) in enhancing students’ descriptive writing skills. International Journal of Education and Practice, 6(4), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2018.64.239.252Rbuiaee, A. A. M., Bakar, N. A., &Darus, S. (2015). Collaborative Writing: A Review of Definitions From Past Studies. SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings Collaborative, (January), 138–149. Rex, L. A., Murnen, T. J., Hobbs, J., &McEachen, D. (2002). Teachers’ pedagogical stories and the shaping of classroom participation: “The dancer” and “graveyard shift at the 7-11.” American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 765–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039003765Rezaei, H., Emoto, M., &Mukaidono, M. (2006). B µ ´ u µ B µ ´ u µ. 10(6), 946–953. https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2006.p0946Rollins, A., &Lillivis, K. (2018). When Rubrics Need Revision: A Collaboration between STEM Faculty and the Writing Center. Composition Forum, 40.Schrank, T. P. (2016). The Cognitive Impact of Past Behavior: Influences on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Future Behavioral Decisions Dolores. 79(1), 95–121. Shabani, K., Khatib, M., &Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers’ Professional Development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p237Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What Does Vygotsky Provide for the Language Arts Teacher? Language Arts, 90(3), 192–204. Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies?: Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.026Studies, L., International, A., & Centre, A. (2015). Languaging and Writing Skills: The Effect of Collaborative Writing on EFL Students’ Writing Performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.203Suwantarathip, O., &Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google docs on students’ writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 148–156Taherdoost, H. (2018). Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. SSRN Electronic Journal, 5(3), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205040Tai, H.-C. (2016). Effects of Collaborative Online Learning on EFL Learners’ Writing Performance and Self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 119. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n5p119Talib, T., & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Collaborative Writing in Classroom Instruction: A Synthesis of Recent Research. The English Teacher, 46(2), 43–57.Torres-Velásquez, D. (2000). Sociocultural Theory. Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100201Yastıbaş, G. Ç., &Yastıbaş, A. E. (2015). The Effect of Peer Feedback on Writing Anxiety in Turkish EFL (English as a Foreign Language) Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.543Yean, T. F., Johari, J., &Sukery, A. F. M. (2015). The influence of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on the intention to return to work: A case of socio's insured employees. Kajian Malaysia, 33, 141–154.张敏灵. (2015). No Title偏标记学习研究综述. 数据采集与处理, 1(30), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1024/0301-1526.30.1.77 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 921 |www.hssr.in © Khairul’Azam and Yamat476259525Humanities & Social Sciences ReviewseISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 6, 2019, pp 921-928 https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.76138iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAH0AAAB9CAYAAACPgGwlAAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAAARnQU1BAACx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Normal18579033005Microsoft Office Word027577falseTitle1false38718falsefalse12.0000AmmuGulbir22019-12-22T19:59:00Z2019-12-22T20:00:00Z2019-12-22T20:00:00ZTrueb4e9b715-b3d1-3f1a-b3a2-1cd37e9c5316http://www.zotero.org/styles/apa