The reason for selecting peer work instead of other collective techniques was the amplitude of literature, and theoretical and empirical supports for exercising these useful strategies. Additionally, peers play a considerable role in second-language learning because language learners spend considerable time with their peers and share the same language difficulties.
In this vein, Peregoy and Boyle (2001) asserted that students’ pairing up in a writing process can be an ideal way for raising learning effectiveness. Storch and Wiggleworth (2012) figured out that a helpful teaching strategy in the language settings could be assigning students to work on a task in the form of pairs or small groups. Moreover, Brown (1994) supported utilizing small group work and specifically pair writing, suggesting that students often carry out peer correction in these activities and this technique is more yielding than tutors correcting students all the time.
According to the findings of the previous chapter, the research questions in the study were responded and discussed in the following order:
In this section, the researcher attempts to give answers to the study’s questions. According to the results of the data related to independent sample’s test for writing scores provided by two raters in pre-test as well as post-test and the difference of both control and experimental groups in their performances in writing tests, cooperative strategies had some effects on the participants’ achievements regarding accuracy, fluency, and complexity and these differences were significant between the experimental and control groups’ scores. Thus, three research questions of the study were confirmed by statistics and their null hypotheses were rejected.
The total scores achieved from the tables shown by the raters were close to each other. Considering the mean scores of low proficiency and high proficiency learners (called helper and writer in this study) separately showed the effect of cooperative leaning on both of them after comparing their scores in pretest and posttest. The rationale for this result is that when the learners tried to write a draft and represented the final piece of writing, they consulted with each other and provided the final copy. In this vein, even the students that were pretty poor in some respects could learn from other stronger student who also reviewed the subjects she knew and had learned before. This finding consists with Johnson and Johnson (1998) who asserted that in cooperative learning both high and low proficient learners develop their language skills thanks to peer strategies.