Cover not available
Part of
Writing and Language Learning: Advancing research agendas
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 56] 2020
► pp. 255–280

Chapter 11
Investigating the relationship between peer interaction and writing processes in computer-supported collaborative L2 writing

A mixed-methods study

 | Lancaster University
 | Groningen University
Twenty-first century technology has created new digital contexts (e.g., shared online writing platforms) that influence the potential of collaborative writing for second language (L2) learning. Making a methodological contribution to studying L2 computer-supported collaborative writing (CSCW), the present chapter reports on an exploratory yet innovative investigation triangulating data from text mining, interaction analyses, eye-tracking, and stimulated recall. Eight international students in the UK used Google Docs for paired collaborative writing tasks. Results of quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal the many ways in which peers interact with each other and the nature of the emerging text during CSCW. Findings illustrate the complexities of CSCW and indicate how triangulating different methods facilitates the study of the affordances of CSCW and its potential contribution to L2 learning.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Collaborative writing in an L2 in a digital age
    • The language learning potential of collaborative writing
    • Patterns of interaction in collaborative writing
    • L2 writing in CSCW
    • Eye-tracking methodology when studying collaborative writing: Insights and challenges
  • The present study
    • Research question
  • Method
    • Research context and participants
    • Task
    • Data collection tools and procedure
    • Data coding and analysis: Equality and mutuality
    • Text generation and editing of (peer) text
    • Chat interactions
    • Visual attention as measured by eye gazes
    • Contributing and editing during text generation
    • Contributing to and language functions within text chat conversations
    • Eye-gaze data
  • Data triangulation and discussion
    • Classification of Interaction Patterns Based on Data Triangulation – The Value of Self-reports (Pair 1 – Dominant/Passive)
    • Classification of a highly dynamic process of interaction during CSCW – the value of eye-gaze information (Pair 2 – alternating between collaboration and cooperation)
    • Affordances and limitations of communication during CSCW (Pair 3 – Dominant/Passive)
    • Computer-supported collaborative writing as observational learning tool (Pair 4 – Expert / Novice)
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 20 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.11ste
References (64)
References
Abrams, Z. (2016). Exploring collaboratively written L2 texts among first-year learners of German in Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1259–1270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2016). What do sociocultural studies of writing tell us about learning to write? In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 11–23). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, H. (2017). Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 37–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2016). Using eye-tracking in applied linguistics and second language research. Second Language Research, 32(3), 453–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7(4), 482–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinction among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 9–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian apporaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Eddy-U, M. (2015). Motivation for participation or non-participation in group tasks: A dynamic systems model of task-situated willingness to communicate. System, 50, 43–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 329–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(04), 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bathia (Eds.), Second language acquisition, Vol. 2: Handbook of language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 3–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning, 57(4), 549–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., & O’Rourke, B. (2019). What drives alignment during text chat with a peer vs. a tutor? Insights from cued interviews and eye-tracking. System, 83(50–63). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., & Smith, B. (2017). Eye-tracking research in computer-mediated language learning. In S. May (Ed.), Language and technology: Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
(2018). Measuring lexical alignment during L2 chat interaction: An eye-tracking study. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer mediated communication and language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 227–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Using eye-tracking to investigate gaze behaviour in synchronous computer-mediated communication for language learning. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), Researching online interaction and exchange in foreign language education: Methods and issues (pp. 305–341). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). The acquisition in of second language writing. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–334). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2006). Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human computer interaction (pp. 211–219). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reichle, E. D. (2006). Computational models of eye-movement control during reading: Theories of the “eye–mind” link. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 2–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. & Michel, M. (Eds.) (2019). Methodological advances in investigating L2 writing processes. Special Issue, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3).Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviors: A mixed methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 605–631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., & Murphy, L. (2006). Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problem solving formulation processes. Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 100–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Nicolás-Conesa, F., & Coyle, Y. (2016). Focus on writers: Processes and strategies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 267–286). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In M. Sato & S. G. Ballinger (Eds.), Language learning & language teaching. Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2016). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 514–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Satar, M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 595–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of second language grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96–120.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-initiated self-repair in an SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 231–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., & Renaud, C. (2013). Using eye tracking as a measure of foreign language learners’ noticing of recasts during computer-mediated writing conferences. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 147–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stickler, U., & Shi, L. (2015). Eye movements of online Chinese learners. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 380–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The nature of pair interaction. Learners’ interaction in an ESL class: its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
(2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. New perspectives on language and education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Collaborative writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (387–406). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Implementing and assessing collaborative writing activities in EAP classes. In J. Bitchener, N. Storch, & R. Wette (Eds.), Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students: Instructional approaches (pp. 130–142). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (97–114). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tan, L. L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 27.1–27.24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, D. (2016). DocuViz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yim, S., Wang, D., Olson, J., Vu, V., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Synchronous collaborative writing in the classroom: Undergraduates’ collaboration practices and their impact on text quality, quantity, and style. Proceedings of the 20th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 468–479). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146–165.Google Scholar
Young, A., & Tedick, D. J. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom. In M. Sato & S. G. Ballinger (Eds.), Language learning & language teaching. Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Leow, Ronald P. & Melissa A. Bowles
2023. Chapter 5. Verbally mediated data. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Julio Roca de Larios
2023. Chapter 1. The study of L2 writing processes. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Révész, Andrea
2021. Exploring task-based cognitive processes. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 1:2 ► pp. 266 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.