--

9 (2) 2019

The effects of grouping types on promoting critical thinking in EFL collaborative writing


Author - Affiliation:
Nguyen Thi Minh Tram - University of Social Sciences and Humanities – Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City , Vietnam
Bui Thi Thuc Quyen - Ho Chi Minh City Open University , Vietnam
Corresponding author: Nguyen Thi Minh Tram - tramnguyenqnu@gmail.com

Abstract
Nurturing critical thinking (CT) has been acknowledged as a core objective of tertiary education, and drawn attention from academia of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL), particularly in EFL argumentative writing. It has been claimed that collaborative learning which stimulates the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking. One of the important aspects of learning and teaching through collaboration is the group composition or grouping “who with whom”. The present study was an attempt to investigate the impact of homogeneous and heterogeneous groupings on critical thinking in collaborative writing. Having been required to write an argumentative essay as a pre-test, 75 participants, who were categorized by their prior critical thinking levels, were assigned into three group types: heterogeneous, homogeneous high and homogeneous low groups. As a consequence, four types of students were considered their improvement before and after the experiment: high-level students in heterogeneous groups, lowlevel students in heterogeneous groups, high-level students in homogeneous groups, low-level students in homogeneous groups. The results demonstrated that learners improved their critical thinking level through collaborative writing, whether working with stronger or weaker peers. However, heterogeneous grouping showed superiority over homogeneous grouping at the low level. The results revealed that cooperative learning could be especially beneficial for low students. It is hoped that the findings of the present study will give teachers deep insights into group compositions in collaborative learning courses, and will help them make better group experiences for students.

Keywords
collaboration; critical thinking; group composition; heterogeneity; homogeneity

Full Text:
PDF

References

Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169-174.


Baron, J. B. (1994). Using multi-dimensionality to capture verisimilitude: Criterion-references performance-based assessments and the ooze factor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.


Burbach, M. E., Matkin, G. S., & Fritz, S. M. (2004). Teaching critical thinking in an introductory leadership course utilizing active-learning strategies: A confirmatory study. College Student Journal, 38(3), 482-493.


Camara, J. E., Carr, B. N., & Grota, B. L. (2007). One approach to formulating and evaluating student work groups in legal environment of business courses. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 24, 1-18. doi:10.1111/J.1744-1722.2007.00032.X


Ediger, M. (2001). Homogeneous grouping and heterogeneous grouping. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455536.pdf


Ellis, N. C. (2013). Second language acquisition. In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (p. 193).


Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., & Sánchez, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: The development of the California critical thinking disposition inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8), 345-350.


Faris, O. (2009). The impact of homogeneous vs. heterogeneous collaborative learning groups in multicultural classes on the achievement and attitudes of nine graders towards learning Science. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504109.pdf


Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Karans, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 227-267.


Jensen, J. L., & Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate Biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 64-73.


Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31-32.


Johnson, D. W., Skon, L., & Johnson, R. T. (1980). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic conditionson children’s problem-solving performance. American Edu-cational Research Journal, 17, 83-94.


Knudson, R. (1992). Analysis of argumentative writing at two grade levels. Journal of Educational Science, 85(3), 169-179. doi:10.1080/00220671.1992.9944434


Knupfer, N. N. (1993). Logo and transfer of geometry knowledge: Evaluating the effects of student ability grouping. School Science and Mathematics, 93(7), 360-368.


Larson, M. J., Clayson, P. E., & Clawson, A. (2014). Making sense of all the conflict: A theoretical review and critique of conflict-related ERPs. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 93(3), 283-297.


Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behavior and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94, 285-297.


Palmer, W. (2012). Discovering arguments: An introduction to critical thinking, writing, and style (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.


Perkins, D. N., & Tishman, S. (2001). Dispositional aspects of intelligence. In S. Messick & J. M. Collis (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 233-257). Maweh, NJ: Erlbaum.


Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444-456.


Saleh, A., Lazonder, W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement and motivation. Instructional Science, 33(2), 105-119.


Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written Communication, 18(4), 506-548.


Tedesco-Schneck, M. (2013). Active learning as a path to critical thinking: Are competencies a roadblock? Nurse Education in Practice, 13(1), 58-60.


Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York, NY: Garland.


Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Walker, S. (2003). Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. Journal of Athletic Training, 38(3), 263-267.


Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169-184.


Watson, S. B., & Marshall, J. E. (1995). Effects of cooperative incentives and heterogeneous arrangement on achievement and interaction of cooperative learning groups in a college life science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 291-299. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320308


Webb, N. M., Troper, J., & Fall, J. R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.9.2.266.2019
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.