ASSESSMENT OF JOURNALISM STUDENTS’ WRITING PROJECTS COMPLETED INDIVIDUALLY AND IN COLLABORATION

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
S. Fiialka, Olga Trishchuk, Nadija Figol, T. Faichuk
{"title":"ASSESSMENT OF JOURNALISM STUDENTS’ WRITING PROJECTS COMPLETED INDIVIDUALLY AND IN COLLABORATION","authors":"S. Fiialka, Olga Trishchuk, Nadija Figol, T. Faichuk","doi":"10.20535/2410-8286.178843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors discuss the issues and benefits of collaborative writing in journalistic education, comparing the texts written by students in different conditions: in group collaboration, individually after prewriting group discussion, and individually without any collaboration. We used a survey for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. The participants were 21 second year and 15 third-year students, who wrote 18 fiction stories for preschool children (3 were written in the collaborative writing groups of 4, where the students were allowed to choose partners for small groups; 3 in the collaborative writing groups of 4, where the students were not allowed to choose partners; 6 after prewriting group discussion, and 6 without any collaboration). 12 six-year students evaluated delivered texts. We also interviewed 12 teachers of the Department of Publishing and Editing about the collaborative writing tasks at the meeting of the Department. Teachers’ interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed. The students and teachers expressed positive attitudes towards collaborative writing, that contributes to students’ learning outcomes and prepare them for teamwork. The highest score got the texts written individually after the prewriting discussion. The stories written by the students who were allowed to choose partners in a group work gained higher scores than texts prepared in randomly created groups. The participants in the self-selected conditions reported that they enjoyed а high level of participation, sharing the workload and supportive behaviour. We also observed the evidences of unequal participation of students in collaboration in small groups where the partners were not familiar. The lowest average score got the texts written with no collaboration. So, we proved that there is a need for implementing prewriting group discussions in the learning process. It is necessary to differentiate the role of each student in collaborative writing to evaluate individual results correctly.","PeriodicalId":43037,"journal":{"name":"Advanced Education","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advanced Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.178843","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The authors discuss the issues and benefits of collaborative writing in journalistic education, comparing the texts written by students in different conditions: in group collaboration, individually after prewriting group discussion, and individually without any collaboration. We used a survey for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. The participants were 21 second year and 15 third-year students, who wrote 18 fiction stories for preschool children (3 were written in the collaborative writing groups of 4, where the students were allowed to choose partners for small groups; 3 in the collaborative writing groups of 4, where the students were not allowed to choose partners; 6 after prewriting group discussion, and 6 without any collaboration). 12 six-year students evaluated delivered texts. We also interviewed 12 teachers of the Department of Publishing and Editing about the collaborative writing tasks at the meeting of the Department. Teachers’ interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed. The students and teachers expressed positive attitudes towards collaborative writing, that contributes to students’ learning outcomes and prepare them for teamwork. The highest score got the texts written individually after the prewriting discussion. The stories written by the students who were allowed to choose partners in a group work gained higher scores than texts prepared in randomly created groups. The participants in the self-selected conditions reported that they enjoyed а high level of participation, sharing the workload and supportive behaviour. We also observed the evidences of unequal participation of students in collaboration in small groups where the partners were not familiar. The lowest average score got the texts written with no collaboration. So, we proved that there is a need for implementing prewriting group discussions in the learning process. It is necessary to differentiate the role of each student in collaborative writing to evaluate individual results correctly.
评估新闻系学生独立或合作完成的写作计画
作者讨论了新闻教育中合作写作的问题和好处,比较了学生在不同条件下所写的文本:在小组合作中,在写作前小组讨论后单独写作,以及在没有任何合作的情况下单独写作。我们采用调查方法收集定量和定性数据。参与者是21名二年级学生和15名三年级学生,他们为学龄前儿童写了18个小说故事(其中3个是在4人的合作写作小组中完成的,学生可以为小组选择合作伙伴;在4人的合作写作小组中,学生不允许选择合作伙伴;6个在写前小组讨论后,6个没有任何合作)。12名六年级学生评估了交付的文本。我们还就出版编辑部会议上的协作写作任务采访了12位出版编辑部的老师。对教师的访谈进行记录、转录和分析。学生和老师对合作写作表达了积极的态度,这有助于学生的学习成果,并为他们的团队合作做好准备。在写作前的讨论后,得分最高的是单独完成的文本。被允许在小组作业中选择合作伙伴的学生所写的故事比随机创建的小组编写的文本获得了更高的分数。自选条件下的参与者报告说,他们享受高水平的参与,分担工作量和支持行为。我们还观察到在合作伙伴不熟悉的小组中,学生不平等参与的证据。平均分最低的学生是在没有合作的情况下完成的。因此,我们证明了在学习过程中有必要实施预写小组讨论。有必要区分每个学生在合作写作中的角色,以正确评估个人的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advanced Education
Advanced Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
27.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信