VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
****************
TRẦN THỊ ÁNH TUYẾT
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
COLLABORATIVE BRAINSTORMING AT THE PRE-WRITING STAGE
IN INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH CLASSES AT A UNIVERSITY IN HANOI
(Khảo sát hiệu quả của việc thảo luận ý tưởng theo nhóm trước khi viết
trong lớp học tiếng Anh trình độ Trung cấp tại một trường
đại học ở Hà Nội)
M.A. COMBINED PROGRAM THESIS
Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

Hanoi - 2015
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
****************
TRẦN THỊ ÁNH TUYẾT
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
COLLABORATIVE BRAINSTORMING AT THE PRE-WRITING STAGE
IN INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH CLASSES AT A UNIVERSITY IN HANOI
(Khảo sát hiệu quả của việc thảo luận ý tưởng theo nhóm trước khi viết
trong lớp học tiếng Anh trình độ Trung cấp tại một trường
đại học ở Hà Nội)
M.A. COMBINED PROGRAM THESIS
Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Dr. Hoàng Thị Hạnh

ii
ABSTRACT
Brainstorming has been a popular technique organized individually or
collaboratively for idea generation in many fields. While a number of studies have
been reported on the productivity of group idea generation, the effectiveness of
collaborative brainstorming for generating ideas as pre-writing techniques have not
received deep concern. This thesis reports on a qualitative action study that emerged
from reflective teaching practice in an intermediate English class. The research
investigated the effectiveness of collaborative brainstorming training on students’
idea performance in writing papers and on students’ learning of writing skills
through in-depth interviews, observations, students’ writing papers and students’
journals. The study indicates that collaborative brainstorming training with
additional rules can significantly improve quantity and quality of ideas in paragraph
writing, but not in letter writing. Besides, training has had positive effects on
students’ learning of writing skills. The findings of the study, therefore, make
important contributions to the implementation of collaborative brainstorming in the
English language teaching practice.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS viii
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims and research questions 3
3. Significance of the study 4
4. Scope of the study 4

2.4. Data analysis procedures 39
2.4.1. Sorting and categorizing data 39
2.4.2. Analyzing data for meaning 40
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 42
3.1. Stage 1 42
3.1.1. Research question 1: 42
3.1.2. Research question 2: 44
3.2. Stage 2 46
3.2.1. Research question 3: 46
3.2.2. Research question 4: 61
3.3. Conclusion 68
PART C: CONCLUSION 70
1. Synthesis of major findings of the study 70
2. Contributions of the study 73
2.1. Methodological contributions 73
2.2. Theoretical contributions 73
2.3. Pedagogical contributions 74
v
3. Limitations of the study 74
4. Suggestions for further studies 75
APPENDIXES I
APPENDIX 1 I
APPENDIX 2A III
APPENDIX 2B IV
APPENDIX 2C VIII
APPENDIX 2D.1 XII
APPENDIX 2D.2 XIV
APPENDIX 2E XVI
vi
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS

integrated skills. A topic is covered in a unit in which students can practise reading,
listening, speaking and writing skills. The syllabus is designed based on the text
book, and different types of writing can be taught in different units. To be specific,
in a semester, students have 22.5 class hours for writing. To intermediate level,
writing skills were becoming more challenging to students as besides familiar
writing forms like letters, they needed to learn new types like stories, film reviews
and articles. In a meeting held for teachers who were teaching current intermediate
English classes in the semester in October 2013, the middle of the second semester,
academic year 2013-2014, the teachers including my colleagues and I shared
concerns about the teaching and learning and discussed actions to improve students’
learning outcomes. In terms of writing skills, most teachers agreed that many
students had produced incomprehensible pieces of writing, which was due to lack of
ideas, poor vocabulary and grammar structures. More importantly, a lot of students
had problems generating ideas and/or arranging ideas logically for the writing. In
fact, I had tried to suggest my students, and even provided them with guiding ideas
1
to write. However, despite such efforts I made in class writing lessons, I still
encountered frustration from checking my students’ writing papers.
From my observations in my class and from communicative practice with my
colleagues, I came to realize that it was time to critically study my own pedagogical
actions. Hence, on coming across action research, I found that it would be a tool for
me to carefully and systematically explore the classroom issues. I would conduct a
study to find what could be done to improve my practice as a teacher in my class.
To be more specific, this thesis reports a process of making changes in my teaching
along with research practice. In the study, my students’ needs and perspectives were
investigated, and students’ responses to the pedagogical actions were taken into
considerations. The research is believed to be a useful experience for my real
teaching career and my colleagues.
The research started with an exploration into the students’ idea generation for
writing in my class through semi-structured interviews with nine students. The

Firstly, the research aims at exploring how students generate ideas for writing and
investigate the effectiveness of idea generating activities employed in the class
under students’ perceptions. To be specific, the objective of the first stage is to
answer the two questions:
1. How do students generate ideas for writing?
2. How do students perceive the effectiveness of idea-generating activities
employed in the class?
After the results of the first stage are analyzed and problems identified, training
procedures on group brainstorming are developed. When strategies of idea
3
generation and idea construction are implemented in the class, it is essential to study
effectiveness of the group brainstorming activities and influences of group
brainstorming on quantity and quality of ideas in students’ writing papers. In
addition, students’ responses to group brainstorming activities are investigated. The
questions for the second stage are following:
3. How does group brainstorming influence the quality and quantity of ideas in
students' writing papers?
4. How do students perceive the effectiveness of group brainstorming activities?
3. Significance of the study
First and foremost, the study is an important experience in my own teaching
practice and doing research. It provided chances for me to critically reflect the way I
taught my students. After that, solutions were searched and implemented in my
class with a firm theoretical basis, experiments and critical feedback. I was happy
when my students had been working enthusiastically with the idea generation
training activities, and they were more motivated in learning writing.
The study might be practical for teachers in terms of pedagogical lessons and their
research practice. It will give an alternative to teachers’ support of students’ idea
construction, which will help to develop learner autonomy or independence.
Besides, teachers can understand more about students’ strengths and preferences in
idea generation to create and apply appropriate pre-writing techniques.

In order to find out the results, these following data collection instruments were
used:
Stage 1: Investigation
Interviews
The pre-intervention interviews were conducted with nine students in my class to
investigate students’ ways of generating ideas for writing at intermediate level and
students’ perceptions on the effects of idea generating activities in the class.
Students’ pre-intervention writing test papers
The students did a written test without discussion with their peers. Then, the test
papers were collected to serve as data of the research.
Stage 2: Intervention
After the students were trained on group brainstorming with my procedure, they did
real practice on group brainstorming and did a written test.
Then, some other instruments were used to collect data:
Classroom observations
A colleague was invited to observe the class and take notes of the process. Before
the observation day, I discussed with her my research plan and the lesson plan when
the process took place.
Besides, the conversations of the groups brainstorming for the test were recorded.
The conversations would be analyzed to compare with the training procedure given.
Students’ post-intervention writing papers
6
The students’ post-intervention writing papers were collected to compare with the
pre-intervention ones.
Students’ journals
Students were asked to write a small reflection about 100 words in Vietnamese on
group brainstorming activities they had participated in class.
Post-intervention interviews
In-depth interviews were conducted with nine students in my class to find out
students’ perspectives on influences of group brainstorming on writing. In addition,

in this chapter.
Chapter 2: Methodology
Reasons for choosing participants for the research will be explained in the second
chapter. Next, data collection instruments, procedure and analysis will be also
carefully described in this chapter.
Chapter 3: Results and Discussion
The third chapter will analyze results from the interviews, observations, students’
writing papers and students’ journals and then some possible comments on those
results will be made.
Part C: Conclusion
8
The last part will synthesize findings of the study. It also discusses contributions,
limitations of the research and suggestions for further study.
9
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter discusses some key terms and related issues about collaborative
brainstorming. It gives a brief view on process approach to teaching writing and
group work in classroom, as the research problem is one type of group work at a
stage of the writing process. Besides, comprehensive literature on group
brainstorming is reviewed in this chapter. Finally, previous and related studies are
summarized and reflected, based on which the research gap is found.
1.1. Process approach to teaching writing
1.1.1. What is process approach?
The process approach is an approach to teaching writing to language learners in
which the process of writing a text is highly focused before the final product is
achieved (Brown, 2001). Under the process approach, learners have opportunities
to think thoroughly and critically and write until they complete their final written
version (Brown, 2001). As noted in Hyland (2003), the process approach has
significant influences on the teaching and learning of writing skills.

thinking skills and boost cognitive abilities for learners (Brown, 2001; Michelon,
2006). Brown (2001) states that the process approach lets students manage their
own writing by giving students chances to think as they write. In this way, students
can practise critical thinking skills through the stages of the writing circle of
writing, sharing, revising, and editing. Cognitive abilities are complex matters, and
can improve if exercised (Michelon, 2006). The stages of the writing process may
help learners to improve such abilities through writing and self and/or peer
reflecting. Third, the process approach can enhance language learning motivation
(Raimes, 1983; Nunan, 1991; Brown, 2001). According to Brown (2001), the
11
process approach is beneficial to students in language learning because when
students are creators of language, they need to take responsibility for their work,
and their motivation for writing will be increased. Raimes (1983) indicates that the
writing process is a process of discovery for the students. Through thinking and
editing, students are able to discover new ideas and new language forms to express
their ideas. Obviously, the process of discovery would engage students more in
language learning. Nunan (1991) also affirms that the process approach also
encourages collaborative work among learners as a way of enhancing motivation
and developing positive attitudes towards writing. Therefore, the process approach
is advantageous to students.
1.1.3. Criticism of the process approach
However, there are concerns about the process approach in teaching and learning
writing. For example, Leki (1992) indicates three main problems existing with the
process approach: many EFL teachers lack specific training to teach writing, many
ESL/EFL teachers tend to associate with traditional views (of using product
approach, for example), and there are teachers and researchers considering the
process approach to overemphasize on personal experience. In addition, Horowitz
(1986) believes that the process approach is impractical because it may create a gap
between practice and performance in academic exams. In exams students are not
able to go through as many drafts as when they practise in class. Therefore,

comparison with individual learners, students working in groups are able to
concentrate more on the lesson, thus achieve better outcome (Dooly, 2008).
Secondly, working in group can motivate students and make students more
interested in the lesson (Dooly, 2008). This may be due to the influences of the
working spirit of group members on each individual. Also, that students are
13
working with their peers can make them relaxed to express their ideas. Thirdly,
participating in discussion with different people and taking responsibility for their
work, students can improve their critical thinking (Totten et al, 1989). Gillies
(2003) summarizes that students working in group are capable of developing their
learning performance as well as interpersonal skills.
1.3. Collaborative brainstorming (group brainstorming)
For decades, people have used brainstorming to generate ideas, and to come up with
creative solutions to problems. Madison Avenue advertising executive Alex Osborn
developed the original approach to brainstorming (Osborn, 1953). Since then,
brainstorming has been a popular activity in many organizations and in various
fields for generating ideas (Paulus, 2000).
In language learning, specifically writing, Bauer (2009) states that brainstorming is
the way a writer visually organizes information for the writing. It expresses free
associations with the topics through words, phrases or possible perspectives. In
brainstorming, the writer conducts exploration of the topic. According to Berne
(2009), brainstorming is similar to free-writing in that they aim at taking away the
barriers that keep people from thinking creatively. This technique relies on either
verbal or written lists of components. In brainstorming, students create lists of
words or ideas related to a topic, and then choose ideas among the generated ideas
for their writing (Bern, 2009).
Brainstorming is considered a useful strategy to prepare learners to write (Berne,
2009). Brainstorming could be applied individually or collaboratively (in group –
group brainstorming). However, some literature has revealed that the effectiveness
of group brainstorming on idea productivity should be taken into consideration

15
causes of productivity loss in brainstorming groups that are free riding, evaluation
apprehension and blocking.
In fact, literature has revealed at least four factors that may cause productivity loss
in collaborative brainstorming. First, free riding happens when group members feel
that their individual contributions to the group are less significant than they work
alone (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991). Hence, the feeling that their ideas add little to the
group outcome demotivates group members to produce ideas. Moreover, in
collaborative brainstorming, brainstormers may not be confident or comfortable to
speak out their ideas because of their concern about possible evaluations of their
peers (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991). In this case, evaluation apprehension can limit their
contributions to the group, which causes group productivity loss. Next, production
blocking refers to opportunities for group members to raise their ideas. In group,
one member can speak at a time; but when waiting for their turn, people may forget
the ideas at the time the ideas occur in their mind. If a person tries to keep the ideas
in his/her mind, he/she may not think of further ideas. Both individual and group
productivity in idea generation will be reduced as a result of this (Diehl & Stroebe,
1991). Last, performance matching is the comparison of performance level of group
members. When brainstorming in a group, individuals may not want to outperform
others (Brown & Paulus, 1996). Therefore, they may decrease their performance of
raising their ideas if they perceive that other members are not working as hard as
them. Consequently, the group productivity may be affected. These factors are of
high importance to understand the nature of collaborative brainstorming,
accordingly to find how to improve group brainstorming techniques.
1.3.3. Ways to improve group brainstorming
The finding that group brainstorming is less effective than individual has stimulated
much research investigating the causes and ways to improve group brainstorming
(Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006).
16