Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Effect of Student-Led Small-Group Discussion as a Pre-writing Task on the Development of EFL Students’ Writing

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the impact of small-group student-led discussion as a pre-writing task on the writing performance of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. To this end, a quasi-experimental study design was employed in which 80 Iranian intermediate EFL learners were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, with the former being required to engage in small-group student-led discussions prior to writing paragraphs on a predetermined topic. Their paragraphs were subject to analysis focussed on the components of vocabulary, grammar, content, writing mechanics, and organization. Results indicated that, following the treatment, learners’ writing performance improved significantly according to raters’ holistic evaluation, as well as specifically in relation to the elements of content and vocabulary. Our study indicates that the socially negotiated nature of learners’ interactions can help them engage with and develop a more wide-ranging and in-depth understanding of written content.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Vygotsky (1962), development in general, and language development in particular are essentially social and cultural phenomena and as such it is impossible to dissociate development from its social and cultural context. L2 acquisition is necessarily a social not individual activity and therefore occurs through interactions with others (Lantolf, 2000).

  2. Vygotsky (1978) argued that social interaction contributes greatly to the learning process and that new knowledge is acquired through meaningful and socially mediated interaction.

References

  • Arnaus, G. L., Müller, N., Sette, N., & Hüppop, M. (2021). Active bi-and trilingualism and its influencing factors. International Multilingual Research Journal, 15(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, B., & Guo, W. (2018). Influences of self-regulated learning strategy use on self-efficacy in primary school students’ English writing in Hong Kong. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(6), 523–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, S., Barber, L. K., & Ferguson, A. J. (2015). Promoting perceived benefits of group projects: The role of instructor contributions and intragroup processes. Teaching of Psychology, 42(2), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boelé, A. L. (2018). Hunting the position: On the necessity of dissonance as attunement for dialogism in classroom discussion. Linguistics and Education, 45, 72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, T. E., & Hineline, P. N. (2002). Interteaching: A strategy for enhancing the user-friendliness of behavioral arrangements in the college classroom. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, H., & Machón, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., & Yu, S. (2019). Implementing collaborative writing in teacher-centered classroom contexts: Student beliefs and perceptions. Language Awareness, 28(4), 247–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Sustaining university English as a foreign language learners’ writing performance through provision of comprehensive written corrective feedback. Sustainability, 13(15), 8192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., Garvin, D., & Sweet, A. (Eds.). (1991). Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership. Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, D. E. (1971). Learning and retention in student-led discussion groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 84, 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, V., & Kelly, A. E. (2020). Student attitudes toward group discussions. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, G. (2012). Literacy and technology: Integrating technology with small group, peer-led discussions of literature. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(2), 395–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • COMPASS/ESL. (2004). Sample test questions: A guide for students and parents (Writing Skills). ACT Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, R. W., & Onufer, L. (2022). Using student-led discussions and snapshot lectures to stimulate active learning and accountability: A mixed methods study on teaching an implementation science course. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 8(1), 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Volder, M. L., de Grave, W. S., & Gijselaers, W. (1985). Peer teaching: Academic achievement of teacher-led versus student-led discussion groups. Higher Education, 14, 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devira, M., & Westin, E. (2021). A genre and appraisal analysis of critical review texts in academic writing from a systemic functional linguistic perspective. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–36). John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, D. C., To, H., & Leung, K. (2016). The influence of collaborative group work on students’ development of critical thinking: The teacher’s role in facilitating group discussions. Pedagogies: an International Journal, 11(2), 146–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, P. J., & Hammer, E. Y. (1999). In-class collaborative learning: Practical suggestions from the teaching trenches. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 42–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8, 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyogi, E. (2020). Class discussion as a site for fostering symbolic competence in translation classrooms. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(3), 290–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedgcock, J., & Leftkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 275–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidari Darani, L., & Hosseinpour, N. (2019). Pedagogical utility of oral discussion versus collaborative drafting. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 18(4), 464–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubert, M. (2011). The speaking-writing connection: Integrating dialogue into a foreign language writing course. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(2), 170–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulan, N. (2010). What the students will say while the teacher is away: An investigation into student-led and teacher-led discussion within guided reading groups. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 14, 41–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jodairi Pineh, A. (2017). Moving against the grain: Exploring genre-based pedagogy in a new context. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 136–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakaya, E. G., & Tufan, M. (2018). Social skills, problem behaviors and classroom management in inclusive preschool settings. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(5), 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. K., Lee, I. H., & Wang, Y. (2020). How students emerge as learning leaders in small group online discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 610–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, Y. W., Hew, K. F., & Chiu, K. F. (2018). Improving argumentative writing: Effects of a blended learning approach and gamification. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H. H., Zhang, L. J., & Parr, J. M. (2020). Small-group student talk before individual writing in tertiary English writing classrooms in China: Nature and insights. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, R. P., & Pappas, E. (2017). A model for teaching large classes: Facilitating a “small class feel.” International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morell, T. (2007). What enhances EFL students’ participation in lecture discourse? Student, lecturer and discourse perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 222–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 457–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Occhipinti, J. D. (2003). Active and accountable: Teaching comparative politics using cooperative team learning. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36(1), 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, F. L. (2005). Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, H. J., & Powers, R. B. (1979). The college seminar: Participation under instructor-led and student-led discussion groups. Teaching of Psychology, 6, 67–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, P. H., Hamann, K., & Wilson, B. M. (2009). Comparing the benefits of small-group and large-class discussions. Paper presented at American Political Science Association Meeting, Toronto

  • Rabe, A. N. (1973). Comparison of student-led discussion groups to teacher-led discussion groups of teaching college introductory health courses. Paper presented at the Scientific Forum of the American School Health Association, Chicago, Illinois

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Funes, M. (2014). Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college-level foreign language writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for writing (pp. 163–191). John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1989). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn and academic achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research. Praeger Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, L. (1998). Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students’ compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 319–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikorski, J. F., & Keeley, J. W. (2003). Teaching to influence. Psychology Teacher Network, 13(3), 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, T. (1992). L1 vs L2 writing; ESL graduate students’ perceptions. TESL Canada Journal, 10(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2011). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (13th ed.). Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thor, D., Xiao, N., Zheng, M., Ma, R., & Yu, X. X. (2017). An interactive online approach to small-group student presentations and discussions. Advances in Physiology Education, 41(4), 498–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UCLES (2001). University of Cambridge local examinations syndicate. Cambridge

  • van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Issues, research and practice. John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. J., Parra, M. O., & Proctor, C. P. (2016). The interplay between student-led discussions and argumentative writing. TESOL Quarterly, Brief Research Reports, 51, 438–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N., & Cullian, L. (1983). Group interaction and achievement in small groups: Stability over time. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G., Chang, G., & Maher, A. (1990). Creating classroom communities of literate thinkers. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research. Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, G. D. (1978). Evaluation of small student-led discussion groups as an adjunct to a course in abnormal psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 5(2), 95–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Falavarjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

    Laya Heidari Darani

  2. Department of English, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

    Mostafa Morady Moghaddam

  3. Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Neil Murray

Authors
  1. Laya Heidari Darani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mostafa Morady Moghaddam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Collaborative aural/revision adopted based on Hedgcock and Leftkowitz (1992).

Category

Score criteria

Description

Content

27–30

Excellent to very good: knowledgeable; substantive, thorough development of thesis; relevant to topic assigned

 

22–26

Good to average: some knowledge of subject; adequate range; limited thematic development; mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail

 

17–21

Fair to poor: limited knowledge of subject; minimal substance; poor thematic development

 

13–16

Very poor: shows little or no knowledge of subject; inadequate quantity; not relevant, or not enough to rate

Organization

18–20

Excellent to very good: fluent expression; clear statement of ideas; solid support; clear organization; logical and cohesive sequencing

 

14–17

Good to average: adequate fluency; main ideas clear but loosely organized; supporting material limited; sequencing logical but incomplete

 

10–13

Fair to poor: low fluency; ideas not well connected; logical sequencing and development lacking

 

7–9

Very poor: ideas not communicated; organization lacking, or not enough to rate

Grammar

22–25

Excellent to very good: accurate use of relatively complex structures; few errors in agreement, number, tense, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions

 

18–21

Good to average: simple constructions used effectively; some problems in use of complex constructions; errors in agreement, number, tense, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions

 

11–17

Fair to poor: significant defects in use of complex constructions; frequent errors in agreement, number, tense, negation, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions; fragments and deletions; lack of accuracy interferes with meaning

 

5–10

Very poor: no mastery of simple sentence construction; text dominated by errors; does not communicate, or not enough to rate

Vocabulary

18–20

Excellent to very good: complex range; accurate word/idiom choice; mastery of word forms; appropriate register

 

14–17

Good to average: adequate range; errors of word/idiom choice; effective transmission of meaning

 

10–13

Fair to poor: limited range; frequent word/idiom errors; inappropriate choice, usage; meaning not effectively communicated

 

7–9

Very poor: translation-based errors; little knowledge of target language vocabulary, or not enough to rate

Mechanics

5

Excellent to very good: masters conventions of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc

 

4

Good to average: occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc., which do not interfere with meaning

 

3

Fair to poor: frequent spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing errors; meaning disrupted by formal problems

 

2

Very poor: no mastery of conventions due to frequency of mechanical errors, or not enough to rate

Total

100

–

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heidari Darani, L., Morady Moghaddam, M. & Murray, N. The Effect of Student-Led Small-Group Discussion as a Pre-writing Task on the Development of EFL Students’ Writing. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 32, 605–614 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00680-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00680-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation