PROCESS APPROACH AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING ANALYSIS ON STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC WRITING

Writing as a productive skill in English has been valued greatly, especially in an academic context. The process approach was started to be considered when teaching writing as it offers more meaningful learning. Furthermore, the approach makes room for collaborative learning between students and teachers. For EFL students whose first language is not English, mastering writing skills could be more challenging. To address the issues, the idea of a writing center has been adapted to a higher educational level for students who want to improve their writing. The study was conducted by using a qualitative descriptive approach and its data collection was carried out through a number of instruments to fulfill the triangulation method of a qualitative approach such as observation, semi-structured interview, survey, and corpus-based research. From the eight purposive sampling of tutees and the four tutors, the study concluded that EFL students are not familiar with the process of writing, so many of them consider having support merely on revising their essay draft. Even though collaborative writing was successfully carried out, but EFL students need to improve their independent study to follow up the discussion they had with the tutors.


Introduction
In an academic setting, Javed et al., 2013 mentioned that advanced writing skills are among the basic requirements in order to have better academic performance. Therefore, English teachers always have writing skills written in their syllabus since it is one vital element for students' academic success. Kellogg (in Javed et al., 2013) mentioned that writing helps to (1) strengthen students' grammatical structure, (2) enrich students' vocabulary, (3) support other skills in a language such as reading, listening, and speaking. Meanwhile, writing teachers are expected to provide assistance for students inside and outside the classroom by selecting appropriate courses, evaluating a program that is considered important for writing, guiding students in their process of writing, and making sure that their writing is well-organized, well-managed, and meaningful since it will be used as one medium of communication; in this case, students try to communicate their argument and thoughts. In accompaniment with speaking, writing is used to communicate through the written form at a variety of school levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary.
At the university level, many students struggle to master writing in English, in particular. The difference between writing and the other language skills such as speaking and listening is that in the latter, students get to practice those skills more often. They are required to do so because that is how they communicate verbally, by listening and speaking to respond. Writing is more demanding as students have to come up with certain strategies to convey their message, get used to different tenses in various types of writing, and many other reasons that will be discussed further. Thus, writing is considered more laborious. Students in higher education are expected to have an advanced level of English. Al Fadda (2012) mentions that "Academic writing in English at advanced levels is a challenge and difficult even for most native speakers" (p. 123). On the other hand, Jordan (in Mutimani, 2016) points out how writing is considered a major barrier for university students. One possible reason for this concern is because writing is said to be "not a simple cognitive activity; rather it is believed to be a complex mental production which requires careful thought, discipline, and concentration" (Grami in Mutimani, 2016).
Indonesian students who learn English as a foreign language also experience difficulties when it comes to writing. Some of the difficulties in writing are the use of mother tongue structure when writing in English, resulting in mistakes in spelling, prepositions, verbs, tenses, and articles (Megaiab in Ariyanti, 2016); unnatural product of writing regarding "voice" and "style" beyond vocabulary, grammar and syntax matters which lead to "odd" and "absurd" writing for native speakers (Sukandi in Ariyanti, 2016); and a larger class for writing which makes assessing students' writings difficult (Hsien in Ariyanti, 2016). To overcome these problems or obstacles in writing, practicing students' writing skills is vital apart from reading and mastering the basic knowledge of the language one writes in. Students improve their ability to produce quality writing by learning certain techniques such as organizing ideas, stating a clear thesis, avoiding redundancy, and making use of transitions. Polishing one's writing skills does not happen overnight, instead, it requires a process.
Since a process approach takes more than one person to be implemented, collaborative learning also occurs and peer tutoring is one of its types (Bruffee, 1984). Dillenbourg, (1999) defines collaborative learning as "a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together" (p.1). Collaborative learning allows interaction that will trigger the learning process. Meanwhile, peer tutoring is one of the teachings and learning strategies where students learn with and from each other (Boud et al., as cited in Arrand, 2014). Peer tutoring does not change the aim of what a student learns, but the social context they learn in. This social context is what enables interaction between a learner and a more experienced peer to happen. The more experienced peer would then help the learner achieve their learning target.
To study the tutoring process in academic writing, there are two research questions were formulated: (1) What is a process approach in academic writing? (2) How does collaborative learning adopt the process approach in assisting Indonesian EFL students' writing?
Writing academically challenges students at universities because many students have not been exposed to academic writing discourse previously. As a result, they include elements that are not a part of academic writing on their assignments and it is not acceptable for their lecturers. According to Mutimani (2016), characteristics of academic writing are objective, tentative, accurate, wellcited, and formal. Specific challenges for students to write academically are found and it involves different aspects of writing. First, grammar can be overwhelming for students for there are countless rules students have to pay attention to. They typically make mistakes in paragraphing, punctuations, word class, and sentence construction. Pineteh (in Mutimani, 2016) supported this argument by stating that sentences in academic writing are often shortened and appear complicated because students are still in the process of understanding grammatical features such as subject-verb agreement, tenses, spelling, and how they can link sentences to make a coherent paragraph. Lack of knowledge in English grammar may lead to frustration in producing and developing ideas in students' writing and ultimately hinders them from having a good academic writing.
The next barrier students often encounter is in terms of referencing. Whether it is to write an in-text citation or putting down cited works, many students find this activity to be challenging; Students often use secondary sources without acknowledging the original authors, they quote one source after the other and forget to deliver their own argument. Furthermore, paraphrasing sources apparently requires some practice since a lot of students are still struggling to do it. Not being able to paraphrase properly may result in plagiarism or academic dishonesty (Bowker in Mutimani, 2016).
In process-approach writing, Graves (as cited in Faraj, 2015) suggested that a writing process involves prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Unfortunately, there are still many teachers who are not aware of the great deal of the writing process. They do not know that students' skills and knowledge play important roles in planning, drafting, and editing their writing. In the revision stage, students will receive feedback from their writing teachers in terms of their paragraph coherence and cohesion, organizational ideas, sentence correctness, and others. Afterwards, students will make use of the feedback to edit their work, if not rewriting them, before submitting them again to their teachers. Basically, this is a process of rewriting and revision to polish the students' writing. When students truly take part in this step, they will be more encouraged and motivated because they already know what is still lacking in their writing and how they can improve them (Faraj, 2015).
Below are the Grave's five-stage of the writing process that can be implemented for EFL students to help them improve their writing skills. These stages will also become one of this study's theoretical frameworks. • Students make changes in their compositions to reflect the reactions and comments of the teacher. Also, students make substantive rather than only minor changes.

Stage 4: Editing
• Students proofread their own writings. • Students increasingly identify and correct their own mechanical errors.

Stage 5: Publishing
• Students make the final copy of their writings. • Students publish their writings in appropriate forms. • Students share their finished writings with the teacher. Figure 1. The Grave's Five-Stage of The Writing Process (Adapted from Faraj, 2015, p. 132).
In many Indonesian school and university contexts, a product-approached is still being used, placing emphasis on the end-result of the students' writing rather on the process of writing itself (Ignatius, 1999;Latief, 1990;Sulistyaningsih, 1997, in Abas & Abd Aziz, 2016. Sadik (in Abas & Abd Aziz, 2016) argued that the product-approach should be shifted into process-approach for a better teaching and learning process. Students may have learnt the vocabularies, sentence structure, and conjunctions to join compound sentences to make coherent paragraphs; but the application of what has been learned is going to be through compositions and this is where they make use of that linguistic knowledge (Abas & Abd Aziz, 2016).
Feedback in a process-approach is considered crucial. A study conducted by Dheram (in Cahyono, 2004) found out that students could make use of the feedback they receive to revise their writing, both form and content-wise. Boughey (in Cahyono, 2004) stated that feedback was important to make students write more explicitly. Furthermore, a writing tutor at California State University Sacramento revealed how feedback could improve his students' writing because it offers a perspective from outside readers who can confirm whether the writer's message was clearly delivered or not (CSUS University Writing Center Tutors, 2010).

Collaborative Learning in EFL Context
Collaborative learning became an important concept when it comes to the education field and it has been used in many EFL and ESL teaching classes, especially in teaching writing including in writing centers. Bruffee's concept of peer tutoring has become one of the most integral parts of a writing center, claiming that it is a type of collaborative learning. While Van Boxtel, Van der Linden, and Kanselaar (2000) specifically mentioned that collaborative learning will have students make meaning of their understanding, Dillenbourg (1999) defined collaborative learning in a broader context: as a situation when two or more people try to learn something together, and not limiting the participant to students only. Roschelle and Teasley (in Dillenbourg, 1999) framed collaboration as "mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve a problem together," (p. 2). It appears that in writing center journals and/or articles, the terms collaborative learning and collaboration are used interchangeably. However, this research will use the term collaborative learning to describe the relationship between the tutors and the tutees.
To have meaningful collaborative learning, a few qualities were mentioned by Dillenbourg. First, there should be a symmetrical structure of action, knowledge, status, and goals. It means that the participants may have the same variety of things they can do, have about the same level of knowledge, involve peers instead of supervisor-subordinate relationships, and try to reach the same goals in the end. The interaction between tutors and their tutees in the writing center might seem contradictory to the symmetrical structure of the status principle as the tutors can be considered teachers. However, as Ede and Lunsford (in Mackiewicz & Thompson, 2014) suggested that a dialogic collaboration should occur in the tutoring session, it carries the meaning that tutors should place themselves equally as the students or their peers for collaboration to happen. If a hierarchical collaboration takes place in a writing center, chances are students will be more reluctant to converse. Pemberton & Kinkead (2003) have discussed the importance of peer tutoring in a writing center. It has been said as a "powerful pedagogy" for the tutoring session. While it is true that a non-hierarchical collaboration will put students 'at ease' in learning, but it does not mean the authority role from a tutor should be deflected. A peer tutoring in a writing center will most likely result in nondirective tutoring where the tutor can lead students through questions to recall or construct their knowledge without the tutor explicitly stated it.
There are a very limited number of studies on tutoring sessions in the writing center and how the effectiveness can be measured . Nordlof, (2014) stated "Writing center scholarship shows considerable resistance to both empirical research agendas and theoretical perspectives." Nordlof then proposed to confront the issue using Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) with scaffolding theory. Learning with others is the element of ZPD and it represents the similar situation of tutors who scaffold students' understanding and adjust their intervention levels. To quote Nordlof, "A scaffolded ZPD approach thus provides an explanatory framework for tutoring practice and a basis for further research." Carino (in Nordlof, 2014) argued that only when students can accept criticism, they can grow to be better writers. The students' growth can be the framework for writing center research as it goes in line with Vygotsky's ZPD theory. The zone of proximal development gauges the students' capability when they acquire help from others who offer them scaffolding. The scaffolding is what the tutors do to get students to reach their ZPD. This research will use academic words percentage to measure the students' writing performance before and after they get help from their tutor. According to Coxhead (in Lewthwaite, 2006), an academic paper should contain around 8.5%-10% of academic words. Puntambekar & Hubscher (2005) invented four concepts of scaffolding: intersubjectivity, ongoing diagnosis, dialogic and interactive, and fading (pp. 2-3) and these will be the other theoretical framework in this study.
First, intersubjectivity helps a tutoring session attaining its goal to help students. Next, the ongoing diagnosis and dialogic and interactive work interchangeably to get the educated guess of the process where the tutors can measure the appropriate level of the student. The ongoing diagnosis describes a situation where tutors have to approach the students based on their "current level of understanding" (p.3). Nation (2007) introduced four strands of a language course that are suggested to be implemented for language learners. The ongoing diagnosis carries out the first strand, meaning-focused input. It means that the learner will focus on the general idea of a message, not the structure or the language rules. Activities like taking part in a conversation or comprehending instruction help tutors to understand students' level of competency. The conversation that takes place between the tutor and the learner will also make a room for new items of language that could be noticed by the learners and how they are used in contexts. Later, the dialogic and interactive nature of scaffolding offers an explanation for the diagnosis. This step carries two of Nation's strands: language-focused learning and meaning-focused output. The language-focused learning will require a learner to pay attention to the language features, not only the gist of the message they want to portray, in this case, is in their writing. A tutor will help them understand the correct use of a language feature and how they are used in a certain situation. Language-focused learning also helps students learn new vocabulary and structures. Long and Ellis (in Nation, 2007) found that language-focused instruction has the following benefits: a. Language-focused instruction when combined with meaning-focused instruction may lead to better language understanding. While it is true that the content of writing is more important, but the rules of language should also not be left out. b. Students' second language acquisition is aided by language-focused instructions because when used in context, they will get used to the grammar point being learned. c. Language-focused instruction helps students improve their knowledge and skills in grammar because they are made aware of the importance of the rules instead of making the same grammatical errors. d. Particular language-focused instruction leads to certain language acquisition; it depends on what kinds of grammar point the student learns. e. Language-focused instruction is somewhat linked to meaning-focused input as it can affect writers' and readers' understanding. Too many grammatical errors will result in a misunderstanding of the content.
The last concept, fading, happens if a student has grown on a particular task, a point where the learner can study independently. This concept could consist of Nation's last strand, fluency development activities. One of the strand characteristics is that although fluency depends on how vast the knowledge of the learner, but it contributes to the development and reinforcing the knowledge. In other words, students get to practice language items they have learned before, but they can vary them in use; "the procedure involving the old components is replaced by a more effective procedure involving the new components" (Nation, 1996, p.10).

Method
The research problems were to find out how a writing center implements process-approach (PA) and collaborative learning (CL) in the writing process; whether students did not go through the PA and CL, do them partially, or fully engaged in both. The data collected revealed the types of activities students did in their process of writing and measure the students' ability in conversing with their tutor.
To answer these questions, a descriptive qualitative research design was employed with three particular techniques. The process-approach implementation was investigated using observation techniques during tutoring sessions along with a questionnaire and semi-structured interview with both the tutor and the tutee. While these techniques were also employed for the CL implementation, different questionnaires and interview questions were applied. This chapter has more detailed information on the particular research method used, the research design, sampling technique, questionnaire and interview content, and data analysis procedure.
The setting of this study is the Learning Resource Center in which the Writing Center at Sampoerna University is located. Participant-wise, Creswell, (2012) has claimed that participants and sites in qualitative research are determined by using purposive sampling, meaning the researcher chooses people and places they think are the most suitable ones to understand the main problem. This research used one of the purposeful sampling strategies, which is a maximal variation strategy in determining the participants for the research. In maximal variation sampling, participants are chosen because they have different characteristics that could offer new or various results in the discussion.
Four particular techniques were arranged for data collection. They were observation, semi-structured interview, survey, and corpus-based research. The total number of observations was nine times: Seven students came only once to the Writing Center for an assignment and one student came twice because there was not enough time to work on the assignment in one session. However, the observations were conducted every time the student made progress in their writing. Meanwhile, the survey or questionnaire for both tutors and tutees was given after the tutoring session followed by the interview session. The data were collected in two months.

Findings and Discussion
To investigate how far the process-approach is implemented, a five-stage of writing from Grave (in Zhou, 2015) was used in this research. The stages Pre-Writing, Drafting, Revising, Editing, and Publishing cover different activities a student would usually employ to generate academic writing with their respective tutors in the Writing Center. Meanwhile, the collaborative learning was gauged using Puntambekar and Hübscher's (2005) scaffolding theoretical framework, which consists of the elements of intersubjectivity, ongoing diagnosis, dialogic and interactive nature, and fading. These elements carry out Nation's four strands of language learning that will be discussed further in the Findings and Discussion.

Pre-Writing Stage
These activities were better known as brainstorming before students actually get into the writing itself. Out of 8 students being observed, only 2 students went through this stage with their tutors (but one of them already came to the tutor before the observation). The student who came without being recorded started her assignment with a brainstorming session (I already had ideas on what to write, so I consulted them with a tutor).
The student expressed her challenges during her visit because as a Moslem; she had to start accepting new information about Christianity and the student stated that she had to read more about this topic (Sometimes, I find it hard to believe some of

the information that I got about Christianity because it contradicts with what I believe in my religion. What I think I should do is to forget about my religion for a moment to absorb this new information, I have to be open-minded).
Another concern for the student was that she was afraid she might have a misconception or misunderstanding about Christianity which she would explain in her reflection. The tutor kept asking her questions to be answered based on the essay instruction. What could be improved from this session was the fact that the tutor did all the writing. All of the answers in this brainstorming stage were written down by the tutor, not the student. If this keeps happening, students will be most likely to not take ownership of their work and they do not really go through the process of writing.
Based on the survey result, five students still expected their tutors to explain about the assignment. The freshmen students, in particular, did not know how to structure their essay and what to write in an essay. Other students were not sure about the rubric of their assignment, which was mini research for which the elements of research were also questioned. They were not sure because the rubric consists of mini-research elements that differ from their prior knowledge. Another student struggled in understanding the rubric and relate it with her introductory paragraph. Understanding students' assignments were closely related to how they would end up developing their ideas. For students who came with a draft, the tutors would just read and give feedback on the writing. But for the student who started the essay from scratch, they had to make an outline first before they actually wrote the essay.
The other 6 students did not go through this stage as they came to the writing center prepared with a draft. Graves has mentioned that in the Pre-Writing stage, students must know the topic they will write and have the ideas developed. In order to have meaningful writing, they should choose the topic on their own based on their experiences. Some of the activities that students can do are brainstorming, reading, taking, note-taking, thinking, and writing. These activities have been done by the student in her tutoring session. She talked through her topic and content with the tutor and the tutor wrote the outline for her.

Drafting Stage
In the drafting stage, three students admitted to the survey that they went through this stage in the tutoring session. However, based on the observation, only one student did the drafting with her tutor after finishing the Pre-Writing phase because the others already had a draft when they came to the writing center. There is a possibility that the other two students were not clear as to what activity was actually included in this stage because as far as the researcher is concerned, these students came to the tutor having a draft already. What happened next was that they revised the draft after consulting them with tutors. Meanwhile, for the student who made a rough draft soon after the outline was written by the tutor, it was clear that she went through this stage in the tutoring session.
The student wrote her rough draft in the writing center based on the outline she and her tutor talked about before. Since this student came to the writing center twice to finish this assignment, in her first visit, she only wrote her introduction paragraph. She also asked the tutor whether or not she would need more references or supporting details from journals. As there was not any discussion related to grammatical concerns and or/ how to write certain sentences to deliver the content, it is safe to say that the student did emphasize content rather than mechanics. The tutor supported this argument as she said, "After outlining, we focused on the content (rather than the structure"). This indicator to put less focus on mechanics has also been supported by Mckensie and Tomkins (1984) when they recommended that students utilize their first draft to map their ideas and focus less on spelling, punctuation, and other mechanical errors.
Surprisingly, the seven students who did not go through this stage already had the first draft when they came to the writing center. These students had a variety of assignments, such as writing a reflection from World Religion class (2 students), literature review writing for thesis (1 student), writing a compare and contrast essay from English Composition class (2 students), and writing mini-research from Language Acquisition and Development class (2 students). All of these drafts were finished by the students before they discussed them with tutors, except for one student with a mini-research assignment who had not finished her first draft. The partial draft of her introduction was the only part she discussed with the tutor.

Revising Stage
All of the students who came to the writing center went through this stage even though they did not do all four activities mentioned. Three students did the first activity, which was rereading their writings. They did not read the writing from the very beginning until the end; instead, they read only certain paragraphs where the tutor thought needed improvement or change. Two out of these three students read their partial writings together with their tutors, not on their own. Most of the time, students did read their essay more than twice as they were consulting with their tutor, but two students stated that they did not do so in the session. The first student said, "I did not read the essay as a whole more than twice, but I did read some paragraphs more than twice." Interestingly, her tutor does not agree because she said the student did not read her essay; the tutor did it for her. Perhaps, what the tutor meant here is that she read the essay first and when she found something to be clarified or improved, only then she asked the student to also read it.
Even though the purpose of the revising stage is to add, delete, or talk through their content if it needs to be changed, this student came to the tutor to particularly ask about her grammar and it was her first visit. Unfortunately, this is exactly the practice of writing center that is not ideal to its purpose according to North (in Pemberton & Kinkead, 2003). North did not want a writing center to be a place where students just "fix" their writing; instead, students have to go through the process of writing to be better writers. Another student who did not read the essay more than twice stated that she read some paragraphs partially when the tutor asked her to. The tutor supported her argument, saying that even though they did not read the essay together during the tutoring session, but the student actually understood what she had written (I know from the way she was explaining about her essay that she has read them beforehand, she was able to point out particular content that I asked).
One of the questions in the survey asked which one of these categories that students expected the tutors to provide explanation and whether or not the tutors explained it to them. The organization of sentences within paragraphs received the least vote as only 2 students expected their tutors to elaborate more about their sentence organizations. However, six students admitted their tutors assisted them in improving their sentence organization. This means that some tutors, without being asked to, provided an explanation for their students in this part of writing. Some of the students' perspectives in for organizing their sentences with the tutors are, "I have a problem in my body paragraph. There was a word that was irrelevant, and I have 2 sentences that are supposed to be correlated with each other. However, this word does not fit well in the sentences. Therefore, we removed it" "There was this paragraph in which I didn't put the topic sentence in the beginning. Instead, I wrote some unimportant details and place the topic sentence in the middle. The tutor moved the topic sentence and put it in the beginning" "The tutor suggested some sentences are put in other body paragraphs and some to be taken out." Meanwhile, an explanation about punctuation is expected the most from 7 students, but only 6 tutors provided them according to the survey. The punctuations discussed during the tutoring session according to the students and tutors were capitalization, comma, quotation mark, dash, and colon and semi-colon. The majority of students and tutors mentioned that a comma is indeed a major challenge to be understood by writers in its utility. Some of the things that tutors said during tutoring sessions are as follows, "if you don't put the comma, the meaning will be different", "Some transition signals need a comma".
Having sufficient supporting details, clarity, and logic of the argument was also an expectation for five students as they are closely related to each other. A common mistake made by students was having redundant and or/ repetitive supporting details. They could find more than one sentence that has the same meaning being written over and over again in different body paragraphs. The students admitted that the reason they did such a thing was to fulfill the minimum word requirement for the assignment. The repetitive details in different paragraphs affected the clarity of their writing as tutors described them as, "I'm not sure about what they were going to write because it was like the ideas were all over the place." Some sentences needed to be reorganized, deleted, or new sentences should also be added. Sometimes, reversing paragraphs were required. A tutor also found writing in which the body paragraphs did not suit the thesis statement. Another tutor helped students in the way to deliver her message clearly from suggesting additional sentences to change the title of the student's work.
A concern brought up by two tutors regarding the writing process they went through with the students is the fact that many students came to the writing center close to their deadline. According to the survey, only one student came to the tutor a month before the deadline. Two students came the week before the deadline and the option of the day before the deadline was picked the most by the participants. There were even two students who came the day the paper or assignment was due. When students came to the writing center just hours or a day before the deadline, they would not have enough time to revise the assignment properly after consulting them with the tutor.
Regarding making changes in students' composition, the tutors' advice was not always followed by the students in their writing. They would always have the choice to change or not change their work based on careful considerations. Observations of the tutoring session informed implicitly that all participants did not make use of all the advice given by the tutors despite the fact that some of them accepted the tutors' suggestion verbally. The interview with both students and tutor participants revealed that from the perspective of students, the range of feedback used by the students is from 80%-100%. Some feedback was not used in the writing because as students said, "What the tutor suggested me to write was not what I was trying to say," "I did not know how I can replace certain sentences, so I did not revise them," "I was doubting the tutor's explanation on a particular grammar point." McKensie and Tomkins were in accordance, saying that the writers get the final say on which comments and suggestions would be best to put in the writing. On the other hand, the tutors were asked to give a ballpark guess on how much feedback they have given would be used by the students eventually and the answer lies from 50%-100%. One reason why students might not use all of the feedback was that the majority of students made their revision after the tutoring session; there is a possibility that they would forget what the tutors had said, resulting in the students not making any changes they think would be a major revision.

Editing Stage
The responses show that even though not all participants have been able to identify their own errors, but more than half of them have managed to spot their mistakes and make the correction on them. They did not fully rely on the tutors to fix their writing. The majority of these errors are grammar-related, which then supported by two tutors' claims that say, "Usually they are quick in noticing grammatical errors (in terms of tenses)." It is possible that students are fast in spotting grammatical errors because the verbs used in different tenses are spelt differently as well. Apart from grammar, word choices or usage error by one of the students was also one of the things that become a concern according to McKensie and Tomkins. They argued that spelling, usage, and punctuations are the things students and teachers pay attention to in Editing Stage to make the writing "optimally readable" (p. 207).
Even though the second activity in this stage requires students' independent learning, Graves stated that it was impossible to expect students to locate and improve their errors in their writing. Thus, assistance from teachers, or in this case, tutors, are still needed. They give feedback to students on how to correct the error. What could be noticed from the observation during the tutoring sessions was that when students were able to identify their own mistake or seemed uncertain about particular parts of their work, they did not state them with certainty. Students would double-check with tutors first if what they spotted were real errors.

Publishing Stage
Observation-wise, none of the participants went through this stage in the writing center because even though some students edited their writing with the tutors, it did not seem like they made their final draft or final copy during the tutoring sessions. However, it turned out that one student admitted to finalizing their work in the session. She mentioned, "I made the revision right after discussing it with the tutor." Publishing or submitting the writings in appropriate forms was done to their respective lecturers, not tutors. They also did not share their finished product with tutors.

Collaborative Learning
To measure collaborative learning in the writing center, this research used four concepts of scaffolding from Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005): intersubjectivity, ongoing diagnosis, dialogic and interactive nature, and fading. Furthermore, as another supporting data, the framework of the zone of proximal development from Vygotsky (in Nordlof, 2014) was also implemented.

Intersubjectivity
Based on the questionnaire and interview, 7 out of 8 students came to the writing center on their own because they realized they need help in their assignments, specifically their essays. Moreover, these 7 students came as they wanted to talk through their writing in terms of both content and grammar. It is a relief to see that students have been becoming more aware of the right purpose of coming to the writing center. As North (1984) once said, the writing center is responsible to produce better writers, not better writings. With the students willing to work on their content, it shows the students' effort as well.
Benson (in Onozawa, 2010) further added that the student has to feel the need to learn or go through certain stages of activity, acknowledging that the objective is to help the students, not the teachers. With that being said, spoon-feeding the students is not recommended for tutors; rather, they should support students to have self-motivation. However, there was still 1 student who came to the writing center because her lecturer asked her to. In this particular research, it was a common practice that lecturers may ask students to come to the writing center and give them a tutorial card to be filled in by the tutors, confirming the students' presence in the center. When students come to the writing center because someone else tells them to, it means that they have not realized why they should pay a visit to the center.

Ongoing Diagnosis (Meaning-Focused Input)
The ongoing diagnosis is the part where tutors have to approach students according to their level of understanding. Carrying Nation's first language strand, meaning-focused input, the ongoing diagnosis puts emphasis on the general idea of students' writing, not the language rules or grammar. In this research, there were three indicators in the ongoing diagnosis in the tutoring session: 1) taking part in the conversation; 2) understanding instruction; and, 3) able to convey the message students want to write. However, one other indicator has been added to see if students acknowledge which part of writing essays they still lack.
Seven out of eight students stated that they knew which parts they still have difficulties with writing essays. Some of these difficulties were then confirmed by the tutors based on the interview. The complete list of writing obstacles according to students and tutors are as follows: It can be seen from the table that both from the perspective of the tutors and students, structuring an essay in terms of paragraph organization is the issue the majority of students encountered. From the interview, the information was acquired that students were having a hard time determining which ideas go to which paragraph. Even though locating ideas is closely related to developing them, many students actually know what they wanted to write (according to the students only); they were just clueless about where they should put those supporting details.
An important feature in scaffolding is the more knowledgeable others' presence or the tutors to help the students based on the ongoing diagnosis. Different levels of students' understanding will require different treatments from the tutors. Not only do the tutors have to have competent knowledge on the task, but also, they have to determine the best way to help the students. Knowing where the students lack, the tutors acted accordingly and help students in a variety of ways. For more advanced students, some tutors highlighted and used the review feature to make comments and suggestions. Later, students would revise the writing outside the tutoring session. Meanwhile, students who still did not have enough knowledge in what an essay should be like were guided step by step from making an introductory paragraph until the conclusion paragraph. The tutor asked students questions to elicit some answers that would become the ideas in the essay. When one student seemed uncertain about her essay content, the tutor made sure that she understood the essay prompt. Stone (in Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005) mentioned that ongoing diagnosis would result in a "careful calibration of support" where the more knowledgeable others or tutors can offer different types of assistance. Methods and strategies can change based on the students' needs and skills. Some tutors could just ask questions to trigger students in understanding or recalling a concept, but there are students who need to be shown examples before they could grasp the explanation.

Dialogic and Interactive Nature (Language-Focused Learning)
After the ongoing diagnosis, the next element of scaffolding in collaborative learning is dialogic and interactive nature. The dialogic and interactive nature will offer an explanation for the diagnosis where it carries Nation's second and third language strands: language-focused learning and meaning-focused output. This part will discuss language-focused learning first. As for this research, three indicators were used in language-focused learning: 1) correcting grammar; 2) knowing the discourse; 3) gaining new vocabularies and structures. After putting emphasis on the message they want to deliver, the students then have to pay attention to the language features used. Tutors in the writing center would help them utilize the appropriate way to use those language features necessary. Furthermore, digging deeper into the language area would have students gain new vocabulary, grammar, and or structure. The language-focused learning will require a learner to pay attention to the language features, not only the gist of the message they want to portray, in this case, is in their writing. A tutor will help them understand the correct use of a language feature and how they are used in a certain situation. Languagefocused learning also helps students learn new vocabulary grammar points.
All 8 students stated that their tutors pointed out their grammatical errors in their writing and explained why they were incorrect. Below are the grammatical errors the students and tutors discussed during the tutoring sessions: As can be seen from the table that there were a variety of grammatical errors students made and got corrected by the tutors. The way tutors improved these errors were not always the same because some students just forgot how to use particular tenses so they just needed a reminder. However, other students considered the sentence structure in the passive voice as new information and tutors had to directly tell them the way to construct them. After the students were able to deliver their ideas or content, now they had to make sure they pour those ideas into sentences that readers could understand. The language-focused instructions that tutors were offering the students can help the process of second language learning, in this case, is English (Nation, 1996).
In terms of gaining new vocabulary and structure, which is the last indicator in language-focused learning, half of the students stated they have learned some new vocabulary and structures from the tutoring session. Those features related to the structure are as follows: a. Thesis statement: a student thought that an introduction in a research paper would not need a thesis statement just like a usual essay does. b. Body paragraph structures, including a topic sentence and supporting details c. Mini research structure: the student was quite confused about where to put parts of the research d. Essay structure Some vocabularies given by the tutors were completely new to students and some were given to replace the vocabularies that the tutors thought did not fit in the essay; they gave an alternative or words that suit better in the contexts. For instance, in describing the use of English, the student used the verb 'perform'. However, the tutor suggested using 'converse' or 'use' instead. Another example was the verb 'develop' for skills changed into 'improve' because develop sounds like the learner builds the skills from scratch. The vocabularies, structure, and discourse of assignments that students learn would contribute to their language learning as they implicitly add students' language knowledge through the use of those vocabularies and structure in a particular discourse.

Dialogic and Interactive Nature (Meaning-Focused Output)
The second part of dialogic and interactive nature carries out Nation's third language strand: meaning-focused output. It is beneficial to have this strand to help scaffold students' ability in writing because students and tutors would discuss how the message of the writing can be conveyed best through words. With that being said, 3 indicators were used in the meaning-focused output activity: 1) students were able to apply new vocabularies and or/ structure in their essay; 2) students negotiated with the tutor on the best way to write content; and, 3) students improved their sentencing and paragraphing skills.
The observation found that two students did not actually negotiate with their tutors during the tutoring sessions. They did not ask questions back, confirm, or defend what they had written when the tutors asked them. The same goes for the way tutors made suggestions or comments with track changes features. What could be improved from the tutoring service is the fact that sometimes, tutors just type or edit parts they think needed improvement without asking or clarifying with the students first. On the other hand, students also have the responsibility for their writing. What the tutors edit for them might not be the message they want to share in the writing. This type of misunderstood would be very unfortunate to have. Students' passiveness in the tutoring session could be closely related to their intersubjectivity; if they remain ignorant toward their own writing, they would not know the reason why they were wrong or right.

Fading (Fluency Development Activities)
The fading theory from Puntambekar and Hübscher (2015) carries out Nation's last language strand, fluency development activities. Fading occurs only when students have grown accustomed to their particular task where they can learn on their own or independently. Fluency development can happen during fading as fluency depends largely on students' knowledge and how vast it is. Therefore, it may take a while before students can work on their tasks without aid from someone, in this case, from the tutor.
In the tutoring session, the knowledge of vocabularies and structure plays a major role in students' independence from the tutors because they have to be able to assess themselves in their writing skills performance. Language components such as tenses, punctuations, cohesion, and coherence, and other technicalities should be their second nature once they understand how to utilize them in their writing. Spotting their own errors which have been discussed previously is one example of students practicing learning by themselves. However, there is one more activity in the tutoring session that manifests students' independence: it is the point where tutors could ask them to proofread their own works.
Based on the interview with the students, it was found that only 2 students had the chance to learn independently. One of the students was asked to read her introductory paragraph from the beginning until the end once the tutor noticed her mistake on a preposition. The tutor wanted the student to check if there were any other similar errors. Another student was asked to proofread her own essay after revisions were made. Analysis of Students' Writing before and after the Tutoring Session The result of students' academic word is the fact that there were still students who had very low academic word percentage. Ideally, academic writing should contain 8.5% -10% of academic words. However, there are students who had the result as low as 2% -4% range. This shows that their vocabulary knowledge should be expanded, and students have to start practice using them in variations so that their work would be considered academic in college-level writing. It is possible to have tutors help the students using academic vocabulary when their vocabulary knowledge is vaster than the students. However, it is important to know that academic vocabulary in a text is heavily influenced by the topic of the text as well. It is a misconception to say that tutors should have prior knowledge of every student's topic. That is why a non-directive tutoring method can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, if the tutors are more knowledgeable than the students, they can use the method to lead students up to a necessary point the tutors have already known. On the other hand, they can use the non-directive method to gain knowledge from the students who know more about a certain topic.

Conclusion
The result of this study shows that not many students went through the stages of the academic writing process, ranging from prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. The majority of the students only made use of the writing center to have support with the revising stage, and there are some parts from the stage are worth highlighting: 1) only one tutor asked her student to reread her own writing, meaning that the majority of the tutors have not tried to encourage independent learning to their students; 2) the majority of revision was made in terms of students' essay structure including a thesis statement, supporting details, organization of sentences and paragraphs, transitions, and students' grammar; 3) more than half of the students participated actively in the discussion with the tutor and although it was a good start, all students should have engaged in a conversation with their tutors; and 4) a range of 80%-100% feedback from tutors was used by students, showing that tutors or a writing center play a vital role in helping students improve their writing skills.
In terms of collaborative learning, the majority of activities have been implemented effectively in the writing center, but students' independent learning is the part that needs some improvement. On the other hand, the four concepts of scaffolding that were used to measure the collaborative learning in the writing center, the result shows that intersubjectivity, seemed to have been owned by the majority of participantsseven of them to be exactas they came to the writing center on their own. As the majority of the students were able to convey the message, this shows the tutors' effort to emphasize content first before technical errors as it has been suggested by many scholars.
For future reference, students should also be aware of their time limitation before coming to the writing center. As there are a variety of difficulties students have, ranging from content to mechanical errors, a writing center is indeed still needed to help students developing their writing skills. Students have mentioned the areas they have managed to improve after the tutoring sessions, and it shows the benefits of having a place to consult about writings. A chance for students to talk through their writing is most likely to be better than having online tutoring because students can directly discuss their ideas. Finally, tutors will be able to know how to help students with particular difficulties once they hear how students speak out their content with their language level.