This presentation introduced preliminary findings into practitioner attitudes to collaborative assignments and discussed some of the tensions and opportunities.

1. EAP Practitioner Attitudes to
Collaborative Assignments:
Tensions and Opportunities
BALEAP 10th April 2021
Averil Bolster & Peter Levrai
Affiliations: University of Turku, University of the Basque Country

2. Overview
Our research
interests -
why
collaboration?
Methodology
& Participants
(to date)
Preliminary
findings

3. Why the interest in collaboration?
Experience of teaching a collaborative essay
Widespread in Higher Education and EAP (Godwin-
Jones, 2018; Levrai & Bolster, 2018; Storch, 2019)
Experience of introducing collaborative assignments
to colleagues
Writing the Develop EAP course
(https://developeap.weebly.com)

4. What do we mean by collaboration?
• A term open to (mis)interpretation (Bolster & Levrai, 2019)
• “A collaborative assignment is one where learners work
together, making equitable contributions towards the
development of an indivisible artefact for which they share
responsibility and ownership. During the development of the
artefact, learners may work synchronously or asynchronously,
face-to-face or online, but there is interdependence between
group members, drawing on all their strengths.”
Working definition

5. Main Research Questions
• What beliefs do university language practitioners hold about
student collaboration?
• What are the biggest influences on English language
practitioner beliefs about student collaboration?
Study A
Practitioner
Attitudes
• Which models of grading collaborative assignments are
perceived by teachers and students to be the fairest?
• (How) can an individual (best) be assessed in a summative
collaborative assignment?
Study B
Assessing
Collaborative
Assignments

6. Attitude matters
• Attitude can develop through apprenticeship of observation (Lortie,
1975), an anti-apprenticeship of observation (Moodie, 2016), and
experience.
“Teachers’ attitude and
beliefs play a very
significant role in shaping
classroom practices”​
(Mensah, Okyere &
Kuranchie, 2013, 133)
“… teachers’ taken-for-
granted, unreflective
ideas affect their acts”
Forslund Frykedal &
Hammar Chiriac, 2014,
226)
“…teachers’ learning-
related beliefs affect their
teaching practices”
(Bolhuis & Voeten (2004,
78)

7. Methodology: Grounded Theory
• "The inquirer generates a
general explanation (a theory)
of a process, an action or an
interaction shaped by the
views of a large number of
participants." (Cresswell &
Poth, 2018, p.82).
• New questions and research
tools may emerge (Charmaz,
2014).
Data
collection
Analysis
Reflection
The iterative cycle of
Grounded Theory

8. Where we are in the studies
• Currently conducting line-by-line open coding – open to all possibilities
(Charmaz, 2014, p.114).
• Draws attention to ideas that may be missed in general thematic analysis,
leading to a comparative analysis within and between interviews.
Pilot survey
• 4 responses
(excluded from
survey analysis)
1st round data
collection
• 21 participants
2nd round data
collection
• 7 participants
(to date)

9. Research Tools (1st round)
Semi-structured
interview
Pre-interview
Task
Survey Participant Profile & Broad Attitudes
Consideration
of models of
assessment
Focus on attitudes
and experiences of
collaboration
Focus on assessment
of collaborative
assignments
(2nd round)

10. Purposive Participant Sampling
Initial sampling
Survey
EAP practitioners in different
teaching contexts
Theoretical sampling
Interview
Practitioners with experience of
collaborative assignments or
strong attitudes towards them
Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Charmaz, 2014

11. Participants
• 28 completed surveys (excluding pilot surveys)
• 30 interviews (approx. 1 hour each)
Study B Interview:
Assessing
collaborative assignments
Study A Interview:
Attitude to student
collaboration
7 5
9

12. Participant Profile (survey)
Location
• Finland (7), UK (7),
Macau (2), Israel (2),
Botswana (1), China
(1), France (1),
Ireland (1), Japan (1),
New Zealand (1),
Oman (1), Singapore
(1), UAE (1), USA (1)
Years experience
teaching EAP
• Under 1 year (1)
• 3-5 years (3)
• 6-10 years (4)
• 11-15 years (14)
• 15+ years (6)
Experience of
collaborative
assignments
• No prior experience
(5)
• Previous experience
(23)

13. General attitude to collaborative assignments
• Most participants have a positive attitude towards collaborative
assignments
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
A GOOD IDEA BENEFICIAL WORTHWHILE UNNECESSARY
COLLABORATIVE ASSIGNMENTS ARE
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree

14. Why participants view collaboration positively
Benefits for teachers
• Learner-centred
• Students can scaffold each
other
• Richer work
• Develop students’ soft skills
• More communication
• Assignment variety
• Reduced marking load*
Benefits for students
• Real world experience
• Transferable global skills
• Develop teamwork
• Peer learning
• Peer support
• Social support
• Reduced workload
• Better end-product

15. Tensions (& the opportunities)
•How does it work?
Awareness
•Why are we doing this?
Motivation
•Well, that was unexpected.
Learning curve
•It’s not really fair though, is it?
Assessment

16. Tensions: Awareness - How does it work?
• Teachers are facilitating an assignment type they potentially haven’t
experienced or studied or had training about.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
COLLABORATE WITH
COLLEAGUES
COLLABORATED AS A STUDENT LEARNED ABOUT
COLLABORATION IN STUDIES
LEARNED ABOUT
COLLABORATION IN CPD
EXPERIENCE OF COLLABORATION
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often

17. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
COLLABORATE WITH
COLLEAGUES
COLLABORATED AS A STUDENT LEARNED ABOUT
COLLABORATION IN STUDIES
LEARNED ABOUT
COLLABORATION IN CPD
EXPERIENCE OF COLLABORATION
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Tensions: Awareness - How does it work?
• Teachers are facilitating an assignment type they potentially haven’t
experienced or studied or had training about.
Opportunities
• Participants expressed a strong appetite for more professional
development around collaborative assignments.
• Role for advocates who can support and guide teachers through
collaborative assignments.

18. Tensions: Motivation - Why are we doing this?
• Participants were not always clear on the rationale for using
collaborative assignments.
• For some, collaborative assignments were imposed by the institute.
• Some concern it was a simple logistical choice or mechanism to get
weaker students through.
• Little scaffolding to support teachers in a novel assignment.

19. • Participants were not always clear on the rationale for using
collaborative assignments.
• For some, collaborative assignments were imposed by the institute.
• Some concern it was a simple logistical choice or mechanism to get
weaker students through.
• Little scaffolding to support teachers in a novel assignment.
Tensions: Motivation - Why are we doing this?
Opportunities
• More discussion of the rationale for collaboration.
• Participants who self-select collaboration have more positive and
consistent attitude.
Learning gains for
students
Social support for
students
Real-worldness

20. Tensions: Learning curve - Well, that was unexpected
• Some participants changed their attitude towards collaboration
through experience.
• Asked about initial attitude from first experience with collaborative
assignments and current attitude.
Negative change No change Positive change
No. participants 9 18 1

21. Tensions: Learning curve - Well, that was unexpected
• Some participants changed their attitude towards collaboration
through experience.
• Asked about initial attitude from first experience with collaborative
assignments and current attitude.
Negative change No change Positive change
No. participants 9 18 1
Opportunities
• Reset unrealistic initial expectations (less workload, students will just do
it).
• Through experience, participants saw collaboration could work and
valued it.

22. Tensions: Assessment - It’s not really fair though, is it?
• Assessment is a main area of tension and concern (Strijbos, 2016).
• Awareness of
uneven
contributions and
free riders
‘polishing’ by the
strongest member
difficulty
observing
collaboration
difficulty in
weighing types of
contribution
(knowledge, skills,
interpersonal).

23. Tensions: Assessment - It’s not really fair though, is it?
• Assessment is a main area of tension and concern (Strijbos, 2016).
• Awareness of
uneven
contributions and
free riders
‘polishing’ by the
strongest member
difficulty
observing
collaboration
difficulty in
weighing types of
contribution
(knowledge, skills,
interpersonal).
• We can exploit evolving technologies to gain more insight into
collaboration processes (Bikowski, 2015)
• Participants would value criteria for assessing collaboration – what do we
want to see, what do we expect?
Opportunities

24. Unsurprisingly, more research is needed.
Designing
collaborative
tasks
Facilitating
student
collaboration
Troubleshooting
collaboration
Student
perspectives
Oral vs written
collaboration
Assessment of
collaborative
assignments

25. We can’t expect practitioners to be able to just take on
and effectively facilitate a collaborative assignment
Support, scaffolding and training is needed for
practitioners
Then they can better support, scaffold and train
students.
Conclusions

26. We need a
pedagogy of
collaboration
In essence

27. References
Bikowski, D. (2015). The Pedagogy of Collaboration: teaching effectively within an evolving technology landscape. Innovation in English language teacher education, 223-
231.
Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, M. J. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of student learning and own learning. Teachers and teaching, 10(1), 77-98.
Bolster, A. & Levrai, P. (2019). Student Collaboration in English for Academic Purposes - Theory, Practitioner Perceptions and Reality. Kielikeskus tutkii. 4, 9-26.
https://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/148437
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory - 2nd Edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education – 7th Edition. Routledge.
Creswell, J. & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches - 4th Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Forslund Frykedal, K., & Hammar Chiriac, E. (2014). Group work management in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 222-234
Gibbons, M. M., Diambra, J. F., & Buchanan, D. K. (2010). School Counselor Perceptions and Attitudes About Collaboration. Journal of School Counseling, 8(34), 1-28.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1–15.
Levrai, P. & Bolster, A. 2018. A framework to support group essay writing in English for Academic Purposes: a case study from an English-medium instruction context.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 186-202.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press​
Mensah, J. K., Okyere, M., & Kuranchie, A. (2013). Student attitude towards mathematics and performance: Does the teacher attitude matter. Journal of education and
practice, 4(3), 132-139.
Moodie, I. (2016) The anti-apprenticeship of observation: How negative prior language learning experience influences English language teachers’ beliefs and practices.
System. 60, 29-41.​
Strijbos, J. (2016). Assessment of Collaborative Learning. In G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Human Conditions in Assessment (pp. 302-318).
(Educational Psychology Handbook Series). New York: Routledge.
Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative Writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40-59

28. Thank You
• If you have any questions or would like to participate in the study
please contact
aebols@utu.fi
pflevr@utu.fi