EFFECTS OF ONLINE COOPERATIVE EVALUATION AND GROUP

REWARDS ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING

ATTITUDES AND INTERACTION BEHAVIORS

By :
Merry Meirike Panji Putri
Moch Guntur
Qomariyatul Jannah
Cooperative learning can lead to a significant improvement in students’
writing skills, and a role as a facilitator for students, assisting students
to give feedback more easily and is less time-consuming than other
methods (Storm & Storm, 1998).

And reward structure, the contingent relationship between students’

academic performance and consequential rewards, is another important
motivational element to make cooperative learning successful (Slavin,
1995).
A. The effectively do cooperative evaluation and group rewards
within the WE-COOL system influence senior high school
students’ English writing attitude.

Students’ learning goals may be structured to promote cooperative,

competitive, or individualistic efforts. In every classroom,
instructional activities are aimed at accomplishing goals and are
conducted under a goal structure.

A learning goal is a desired future state of demonstrating

competence or mastery in the subject area being studied.
An on-line cooperative evaluation writing system was designed
according to the theory and the characteristics of process-oriented
writing. The system was programmed using

• PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor)

• Dynamic web-page language
• and MySQL (Structured Query Language) database.
At the peer review stage of the writing process, this writing system
offered a platform for students to evaluate their peers’ drafts by scoring
from one to four points in each domain of an evaluation rubric.

The rubric employed in this system was based on that of the

Pennsylvania Writing Assessment Scoring Guide, and included the five
domains of “focus,” “content,” “organization,” “style,” and
“conventions”
 Based on the results, the use of
cooperative evaluation was quite
important to help participants reach
an understanding of what successful
writing should be and ensure the
feedback was correct and useful.
B. The attitudes of senior high school students toward peer review and
toward the employment of an on-line cooperative evaluation writing system
(WE-COOL)
.From Table 5 presents the results of a two-way ANOVA to compare the
opinions about the use of peer review in each group. A main effect was found
on cooperative evaluation (F=45.442, p<.05) and on group rewards
(F=19.031, p<.05). The results indicate that the use of cooperative evaluation
elicited more positive responses to the activity of online peer review from the
CPR group and the CP group, compared to the PR group and the P group.
C.The students’ interactive behavior brought about by group rewards in the
implementation of cooperative learning.
focus of investigation in this study was whether there was any difference
in the CPR group and the CP group in terms of interactive behaviors.

According to the results, the use of group rewards influenced the CPR
group and the CP group behaviors in regard to asking questions,
discussion, peer revising, self-revising, and chatting.

Chung’s research (1997) had led to a similar finding, namely that the
structure of group rewards influenced the subjects’ learning achievement.
The groups given rewards had higher learning achievement and more
interactive behaviors, such as checking answers, asking questions, and
keen discussion.
 CONCLUSION

The results of this research suggest that use of the WE-COOL system brought
about significant improvements in students’ attitudes towards English
argumentative writing. Their feedback on the WE-COOL system was highly
positive, and the use of group rewards encouraged them to engage in certain
constructive interactive behaviors. From the findings, two pedagogical
implications can be drawn with regard to the use of the WE-COOL system and
group rewards.
First, since the results demonstrated the advantages of employing the WE-COOL
system to improve students’ English writing attitude, it is recommended that this
system be introduced in high schools to assist English teachers in writing
instruction.

Second, since it was observed that the use of group rewards can serve as an
incentive to enhance several interactive on-task behaviors, it is suggested that
teachers can integrate the rewards as a form of group encouragement in class,
especially for those students who do not participate sufficiently actively in group
work.
 REFERENCES
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content
feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–251.
Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English,
27(4), 395–422.
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.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Chen, Y. M. (1997). A study of the effects of single-drafted and multi-drafted contexts on EFL students’ writing
performances and their perceptions of revision. The Journal of Chung Cheng University, 8, 421–464.
Chen, H. C. (2001). Diagnosis in English writing difficulties and suggested remedial instructions. In Proceedings of the
Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 300–309). Taipei: Crane.
Chiu, C. Y. (2006). The effects of cooperative evaluation and group rewards with Writing & Evaluation- Cooperative
Online Learning (WE-COOL) system on senior high school students’ English writing achievement and attitudes
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Chia-yi University, Chia-yi, Taiwan.
Chou, H. L. (1989). Contrastive rhetoric: Chinese and English. Paper presented at the Sixth Conference on English
Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taiwan.
Collins, J. L. (1998). Strategies for struggling writers. New York: Guilford Press.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal
of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257–276.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Grande, M. (2003). The effectiveness of writing analytic scoring guide for economically disadvantaged fourth grade
students in an urban setting (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from State University of New York at Buffalo Microfilms.
(3102362)
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: research, theory, and application. New York: Pergamon Press.
Leki, I. (1990a). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5–19.
Melograno, V. J. (1997). Integrating assessment into physical education teaching. Journal of Physical
Education, 68, 34–37.
Searby, M., & Ewers, T. (1997). An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher education: A case
study in the school of music, Kingston University. Assessment of Evaluation in Higher Education,
22(4), 371–383.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4),
657–677.
Sivan, A. (2002). Implementing peer assessment to enhance teaching and learning. New Horizons,
1(2), 10–11.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychology
Bulletin, 94(3), 429–445.
Smagorinsky, P. (1994). Models. In A. Purves (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the English studies and language
arts (pp. 812-813). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Sommers, N. I. (1982). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Education.
Taylor, B. P. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 5–13.
Wolfe, B., Dalton, M., & Neuburger, W. (1993). Oregon statewide writing assessment 1991 and 1992 with
student writing grades 3 and 5. Salem, OR: Oregon State Department of Education. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED366960)
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovery meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195–208
END OF SLIDE