EFL College Student Perceptions, Engagement,
and Writing Developments in a Wiki-Based
Interuniversity Collaborative Writing Project
Hsiao-chien Lee
Pei-ling Wang
National Kaohsiung Marine University
National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences marianlee@webmail.nkmu.edu.tw peiling@kuas.edu.tw
Abstract
This paper reports a study of a wiki-based collaborative writing project conducted between two Taiwanese universities. A total of 100 sophomore students from two English writing classes used the wiki with group members to collaboratively produce online picture books. The aims of the study were to examine student perception, their engagement in the project, and their overall writing development. Various sources of data, including the questionnaires, archived changes of wiki pages, and pre- and post-project essay writing scores were collected and analyzed. The results showed that students’ general opinions toward the project were positive. Students particularly appreciated the experience of collaborating with peers. However, the students found it challenging to negotiate a common work schedule and to reach group agreement. Students’ engagement in the collaborative writing project varied, due in large part to their diverse English proficiency levels. Specifically, more proficient English writers appeared to be more engaged in the writing tasks, while less proficient writers tended to contribute by offering story ideas and arranging layouts. In the end, students’ writing skills on average improved more as a result of the frequent writing practice and peer editing tasks, rather than from the completion of the online picture books.
INTRODUCTION
The collaborative writing approach has long been widely implemented in ESL/EFL (English as a second/foreign language) classrooms. Rooted in the social constructivism and socio-cultural theory that sees knowledge as being socially constructed and situated and meaningful learning as occurring when individuals are engaged in social activities (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1986; Wertsch, 1991, 1998), a collaborative writing practice generally involves students in a partnership with peers to help one another’s writing. The empirical studies conducted since the 1990s indicate that the implementation of this approach provides an effective means to enhance ESL/EFL student interaction, lower their anxiety when completing a written task alone, improve their writing quality, and elicit student-centered learning (see, for example, Berg, 1999; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Hsu, 2009; Hu, 2005; Hyland, 2000; Piontek, 2004; Reid & Powers, 1993; Rollins, 2005; Shehadeh, 2011; Yuko, 2008). However, a recent research report by Elola and Oskoz (2010) points out that most studies conducted during the past decades only discuss student collaboration in writing focused on peer response (also called peer feedback, peer review, or peer editing). The form of “writing together” or “multiple authorship,” which refers to “acts of writing in which two or more individuals consciously work together to produce a common text” (Nordquist, 2011, Different Definitions section) and receive a common grade for the final written text (Sills, 1988), has not yet been fully explored. Although this collaborative model may be considered “traditional” (Piontek, 2004), the researchers of the 78
present work hold the belief that as this type of collaborative writing allows peer support and facilitates mutual meaning constructions, this model will particularly benefit ESL/EFL students. Most importantly, with the increasing use in today’s ESL/EFL classrooms of the comparatively new interactive technological tool of the wiki, , writing instruction that engages students in collective group writing practices is even more feasible and beneficial (Godwin-Jones, 2003; Lamb, 2004; West & West, 2008).
A wiki is a set of related text-based webpages authored collectively. Users make changes to the documents through “live edit” in the browser window on the Internet and the documents are immediately and automatically updated for all the co-authors and readers to view (Bold, 2006). Originally developed by Ward Cunningham in 1995 (see Wiki Web at http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?WikiWikiWeb) and later widely acknowledged by its prime example, Wikipedia, a wiki provides a new and powerful form of social software capable of supporting a range of collaborative learning activities (Choy & Ng, 2007). The “core uses” for a wiki as defined by Carrington (2009), include managing knowledge, building narratives, aggregating resources and adding value to existing text through use of links and glossaries (Dymoke & Hughes, 2009). However, it is wiki’s pedagogical potential in facilitating student collaboration in writing that has particularly attracted the attention of teachers of English.
As researchers have observed, most prior studies on the implementation of collaborative student writing focused exclusively on peer response activities (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005). Although wiki software may have varying sets of 79
functionality and features (see a brief comparison of MediaWiki, PMWiki, and PhPWiki by Augar, Raitman, & Zhou, 2004), it is basically equipped with the following elements that can be suitably incorporated into collective group writing practices: asynchronous dialogs, user-friendly interface, page change history tracking, non-linear structure for editing (Arnold, Ducate, & Kost, 2009; Coniam & Kit, 2008; Duffy & Bruns, 2006; Warschauer, 2010), a focus more on the writing process than on the product (Lamb, 2004), and the potential for problem-solving, inquiry-based or project-based learning (Richardson, 2006; West & West, 2008). Therefore, given that the wiki is unanimously viewed a great tool for learning collaboration, and that few previous wiki studies focused their investigations on the shared authorships among ESL/EFL writers, there is an emergent need to explore students’ production of jointly-written texts within a wiki-based learning context.
This study examines an interschool wiki-based writing project conducted in two Taiwanese universities during the 2010 school year. One hundred and three sophomore students (ages 18 to 20) from two intact English classes (two hours per week for 36 weeks in two semesters) completed with group members an online writing assignment: collaboratively creating a picture book on the group wiki pages (Syllabus in Appendix A). This study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) How do the students perceive the learning experiences? (2) How are the students engaged in the writing activities? (3) What effects does the wiki-based collaborative writing project bring about on the students’ overall writing development? Answers to the proposed questions will help add new insights and understanding to the existing knowledge of ESL/EFL student 80
collaborative writing experiences (particularly in the aspect of collective group writing to produce a common text), and will also invite other teachers of ESL/EFL to further their discussions on wiki-based writing pedagogy.
ESL/EFL STUDENT COLLABORATIVE WRITING
A number of ESL writing scholars hold the idea that if we want to prepare our ESL students for their life outside the writing classroom, we must give them opportunities to experience collaborative writing, because writing in the real world is not a solitary act but rather a result of interaction among people (Fleming, 1988; Murray, 1992). The following section shares a literature review of several recent studies on ESL/EFL students’ collaborative writing experiences. However, as researchers have pointed out, most investigations into collaborative writing focus on peer response activities rather than on students grouped to work together to “plan, draft, and revise a writing assignment for a common grade” (Sills, 1988, p. 24), and most writing groups in classroom settings are commonly conceptualized as peer response groups (Highberg, Moss, & Nicolas, 2004). Therefore, the studies conducted to date about students writing a joint text have been scarce.
One of the studies reviewed was constructed by Storch (2005), who had ESL university students choose to write a two-paragraph essay independently or in pairs. The final compositions of student pairs appeared shorter but more grammatically accurate and linguistically complicated than the work of individual student’s essays. Pair collaboration afforded the students with the opportunity to 81
generate ideas, and although more time was spent, the pairs’ final writing integrated different views. Storch found that the joint responsibility over the creation of the texts led the students to be “more receptive to peer suggestions and feedback comments” (p. 168), while in many previous studies students were perceived as not being receptive enough to peer corrections.
Shehadeh (2011) also conducted a study in a university setting when he assigned his two intact EFL classes respectively to the control group (where the students wrote independently) and the experimental group (where the students wrote in pairs). Both groups were required to complete 12 writing tasks. Students’ pre- and post-test writing scores indicated the effect of the collaborative writing was significant in the areas of content, organization, and vocabulary, but not in mechanics or grammar. Shehadeh suggested that “low-proficiency students may not benefit from collaborative tasks with respect to their language accuracy” (p. 296).
Yuko and Swain (2007) also examined adult ESL learners’ collaborative pair writing experiences. The core students collaboratively composed a pre-test essay with their partner (another student whose English proficiency was either higher or lower). After receiving feedback from an English native speaker “editor” who revised the pairs’ text, the core students worked with their partners again to discuss their original text as well as the revised text. This “noticing” stage was audio and video recorded to analyze student interaction patterns. Then all the students independently completed a post-test writing. Yuko and Swain’s findings indicated that when core students worked with lower proficiency partners, they achieved on average higher scores on their post-test writing than working with 82
higher proficiency partners. Yuko and Swain stressed that it was the specific patterns of interaction (namely, the collaborative and expert/novice patterns) that contributed to the higher scores on writing performance.
Yuko and Swain’s (2007) study differed from Storch’s (2005) and Shehadeh’s (2011) as it focused particularly on the nature of students’ interaction. However, all three studies conducted within the past decade suggested that when students worked in pairs to compose a common text, they benefited from the collaboration and their writing showed improvements. While these inspiring studies focused on pair work, what has remained unexamined is larger group collaboration. As in the real world, people very often work within a group other than simply with one partner, so it is essential for the present study to address this under-explored area. This study, while examining student collaboration and co-authorship in groups of four to six (as is described in the Method section), should help provide further understandings and therefore contribute to fill the gap.
METHOD
ParticipantsTwo intact English classes of sophomore students from two Taiwanese universities participated in the study. The students at NKMU major in either Shipping Technology or Marine Engineering, while the students at KUAS major in English. Both universities were located in the same harbor city, which helped the decision of sampling due to the reason that students might have more common topics to chat about when starting to form their collaborative writing 83
community. In addition, recruiting students from different departments, and therefore with diverse academic backgrounds, allowed a gap in information between the participants and accordingly might increase the possibility of genuine communication. In real communication, people normally communicate to get information they do not possess, which is known as an information gap (Doughty & Pica, 1986; Richards, 2006). In this study, more interactive communication was expected to occur, since the participating students were from different departments and schools, and therefore possessed information unfamiliar to their collaborative peers.
The numbers of students from the two universities were virtually equivalent (48 from NKMU vs. 52 from KUAS) and the ratios between females and males were also even (47 vs. 53). Students’ English proficiency varied, from advanced English learners (who would pursue a career in English education in the future) to low intermediate English learners (whose English skills remained at a junior high school level), based on their scores on the Entrance English Examination for Colleges in Taiwan. A heterogenic grouping technique was therefore adopted so that students would group with members of varied English proficiency levels. A total of 17 groups of four to six were assigned.
The Project
To ensure that students received the same writing instructions, the instructors (i.e., the researchers) of the two classes followed the same course syllabus. Class hours were allocated for lecturing and class discussions, while all the online activities were completed 84
example, what are the limits of wiki-based writing in ESL/EFL writing classes? What if the collaboration is conducted in a face-to-face context? Will students benefit by participating in such a program? Will the program be embraced by both proficient and unskilled writers? Shehadeh (2011) mentioned in her study that more proficient writers benefited more in peer collaboration, which differed from our students’ perceptions. Can this difference be attributed to the different learning contexts, one online and the other face-to-face? Our study explored online wiki collaboration among ESL/EFL students, a research area in which few previous studies have been conducted. In the near future, additional investigations should be undertaken to expand the knowledge of the benefits and risks of collaborative learning for ESL/EFL students.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank National Kaohsiung Marine University for financially supporting the research conducted in the academic year 2010. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers and editors for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this article.
REFERENCES
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2009). Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from culture projects in German classes. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social
networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 115-144). San Marcos, TX: Calico.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205.
Bold, M. (2006). Use of Wikis in graduate course work. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 17(1), 5-14.
Carrington, V. (2009). From Wikipedia to the humble classroom Wiki: Why we should pay attention to Wikis. In V. Carrington & M. Robinson (Eds.), Digital literacies: Social learning and
classroom practices (pp. 65-80). London, England: UKLA/Sage.
Choy, S. O., & Ng, K. C. (2007). Implementing wiki software for supplementing online learning. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 23(2), 209-226.
Coniam, D., & Kit, M. L. W. (2008). Incorporating wikis into the teaching of English writing. Hong Kong Teachers’ Center
Journal, 7, 52-67.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of
Second Language Writing, 3(13), 257-276.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-325.
Duffy, P., & Bruns, A. (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in education: A conversation of possibilities. Online Learning and
Teaching Conference 2006, 31-38. Retrieved November 28,
2011, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5398/1/5398.pdf
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development.
Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51-71. Retrieved
November 8, 2010, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num3/elolaos koz.pdf
Fleming, M. B. (1988). Getting out of the writing vacuum. In J. Golub et al. (Eds.), Focus on collaborative learning:
Classroom practices in teaching english (pp. 77-84). Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies: Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning
and Technology, 7(2), 12-16. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/emerging.pdf
Highberg, N. P., Moss, B. J., & Nicolas, M. (2004). Introduction: Writing groups as literacy events. In B. J. Moss, N. P. Highberg, & M. Nicolas (Eds.), Writing groups inside and outside the
classroom (pp. 1-10). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hsu, C. (2009). Writing partnerships. The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 153-158.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers.
Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika,
39(1), 31-36.
Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: Wikis, ready or not.
EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 36-48. Retrieved November 1,
2011, from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/ EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume39/WideOpenSpacesWik isReadyorNot/157925
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141.
Murray, D. E. (1992). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: Implications for ESL instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.),
Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 100-117).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nordquist, R. (2011). Collaborative writing. About.com Guide. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from http://grammar.about.com/ od/c/g/Collaborative-Writing.htm
Picture-Book Research Paper Rubric. (2004). ReadWriteThink. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.readwritethink.org/ files/resources/lesson_images/lesson306/frame-rubric.pdf
Picture Book Rubric. (2006). ReadWriteThink. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_ images/lesson1011/rubric_picture.pdf
Piontek, T. K. H. (2004). Wrestling with the angels: Writing groups, messy texts, and truly collaborative writing. In B. J. Moss, N. P. Highberg, & M. Nicolas (Eds.), Writing groups inside and
outside the classroom (pp. 31-45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Reid, J., & Powers, J. (1993). Extending the benefits of small-group collaboration to the ESL writer. TESOL Journal, 2(4), 25-32. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful
web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development
in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rollins, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT
Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305.
Sills, C. K. (1988). Interactive learning in the composition classroom. In J. Golub (Ed.), Focus on collaborative learning: Classroom
practices in teaching English (pp. 21-28). Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing,
14(3), 153-173.
Vinagre, M., & Muñoz, B. (2011). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges.
Language Learning and Technology, 15(1), 72-103.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 3-8.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach
to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
West, J. A., & West, M. L. (2008). Using wikis for online
collaboration: The power of the read-write web. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yuko, W. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-635.
Yuko, W., & Swain, M. (2007). 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.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Hsiao-chien Lee is an Associate Professor of Foreign Languages Education at the National Kaohsiung Marine University (NKMU), Taiwan, where she teaches General Education English courses to English as a foreign language learners. Her research 112
interests are computer assisted language learning, multi-modal literacy, and TESOL. She has published articles on CALL in both local Taiwanese and international journals.
Dr. Pei-ling Wang is an associate professor currently teaching in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Taiwan. She has been teaching English reading, writing, listening, and speaking in the same university for 22 years. Her research areas of interest include collaborative learning, computer assisted language learning, adults’ second language acquisition, and EFL literacy.
Appendix A
Course Syllabus
Online Writing Schedule of First SemesterWeek Class Time Assignment
Week1 Introduction Self-introduction
Week 2 Model essay sharing Pre-essay: School Life
Week 3 Explain how to respond Respond to School Life Week 4 Model essay sharing Ocean Impression
Week 5 Explain how to respond Respond to Ocean Impression Week 6 Read Picture Book 1
Week 7 Group discussion Book 1 Reflection
Week 8 Model essay sharing Respond to Book 1 Reflection Week 9 Mid-term
Week 10 Read Picture Book 2
Week 11 Group discussion Book 2 Refection
Week 12 Model essay sharing Respond to Book 2 Reflection Week 13 Read Picture Book 3
Week 14 Group discussion Book 3 Reflection
Week 15 Model essay sharing Respond to Book 3 Reflection Week 16 Model essay sharing
Week 17 Wrap up Week 18 Final Exam
Online Writing Schedule of the Second Semester
Class Time Online Assignment
Week 1 1.Syllabus introduction 2.Group leader election 3.Reading picture book 4 4.Discussion
Discuss: “What is our group topic?”
Week 2 Reading picture book 5
Discussion Discuss: “What is our group topic?” Week 3 Discussion Discuss: “Assigning tasks”
Week 4 Discussion 1. Contribute on the group page 2. Post: “What I have done so far” Week 5 Discussion 1. Contribute on the group page
2. Post: “What I have done so far” Week 6 Discussion 1. Contribute on the group page
2. Post: “What I have done so far”
Week 7 1. Contribute on the group page
2. Post: “What I have done so far” Week 8 Post Writing
Self & Peer grading 1. Contribute on the group page 2. Post: “What I have done so far” 3. Finish group product
Week 9 Voting for the best books Voting for the best books Week 10 Presentation preparation
Week 11 Presentation preparation Week 12 Meeting & presentation Week 13 Teachers comments Week 14 Filling in the survey Week 15 Post-essay
Week 16 Week 17
Week 18 Final Exam
Appendix B
Titles of Picture Books
James, S. (1996). Dear Mr. Blueberry. New York, NY: Aladdin. Kraus, R. (1987). Herman the helper. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster Children’s Publishing.
Mathers, P. (2001). Lottie’s new beach towl. New York, NY: Alladin. Pallotta, J. (2004). Dory story. St. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge. Ryan, P. (2001). Hello, ocean. St. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.
Appendix C
The Questionnaire
(5 = Strongly agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly disagree)
1. I have enjoyed this collaborative learning activity. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
2. During the process of collaboration, I found my group members work well with each other. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
3. During the process of collaboration, I found my group members have equal shares of the tasks. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
4. During the process of collaboration, I found my group members communicate well. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
5. During the process of collaboration, I found my group members fail to work with one another. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
6. During the process of collaboration, I found my group members unable to share the responsibility evenly. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
7. During the process of collaboration, I found my group members difficult to communicate with. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
8. During the process of collaboration, my biggest gain was… □ I have learned how to communicate with other people. □ I have learned from my peers.
□ I have become more willing to learn. □ I have developed a sense of community. □ Others (Please describe in detail.)
9. During the process of collaboration, the biggest challenge I encountered was… □ I could not communicate with other people.
□ My group members and I did not share the same opinions. □ My group members did not work hard.
□ It was difficult to find a mutual time to work with my group. □ Others (Please describe in detail.)
10. I am satisfied with my contribution to the production of the picture book. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
11. I am satisfied with my group members’ contributions to the production of the picture book. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
12. When producing the picture book, I found myself performing well in the following aspect(s):
□ Contributing ideas
□ Writing the English sentences □ Helping editing the writing □ Looking for the images □ Creating the images
□ Providing help with the Internet techniques □ Cheering my group members up
□ Other (Please describe in detail.)
13. When producing the picture book, I found myself performing poorly in the following aspect(s):
□ Contributing ideas
□ Writing the English sentences □ Helping editing the writing □ Looking for the images □ Creating the images
□ Providing help with the Internet techniques □ Cheering my group members up
□ Other (Please describe in detail.)
14. During the production of the picture book, I found my group members performing well in the following aspect(s):
□ Contributing ideas
□ Writing the English sentences □ Helping editing the writing □ Looking for the images □ Creating the images
□ Providing help with the Internet techniques □ Encouraging my group members
□ Other (Please describe in detail.)
15. During the process of the production of the picture book, I found my group members perform poorly in the following aspect(s):
□ Contributing ideas
□ Writing the English sentences □ Helping editing the writing □ Looking for the images □ Creating the images
□ Providing help with the Internet techniques □ Encouraging my group members
□ Other (Please describe in detail.)
16. I enjoy using the wiki to collaboratively create a picture book. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1) 17. I find using the wiki to collaboratively create a picture book very interesting. (5,
4, 3, 2, 1)
18. I find using the wiki to collaboratively create a picture book very simple and easy. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
19. I feel that the wiki allowed us to edit our writing more easily and precisely. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
20. I feel that it was very time-consuming to use the wiki to collaboratively create a picture book. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
21. I feel that the wiki page was difficult to manage. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
22. I feel that the wiki page was very messy when we collaboratively created a picture book on it. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
23. I feel that this project helped me with my English vocabulary. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1) 24. I feel that this project helped me with my English grammar. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1) 25. I feel that this project helped me to learn more about the organization of English
writing. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
26. I feel that this project helped me to express myself better in English. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
27. I feel that this project helped me to improve my English reading skills. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
28. I feel that this project helped me with my creative thinking. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1) 29. I feel that this project helped me to learn more about communication with
people. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
30. I feel that this project helped me to learn more about using the computer and the Internet. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
31. I feel that this project motivated me to learn English.(5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
32. I feel that this project inspired me to try creative English picture book writing. (5, 4, 3, 2, 1)
33. School: □ NKMU □KUAS 34. Gender: □Male □Female 35. Group Order: ________
36. Name: _______________________ 37.Student ID Number: _______________
120
