Cover not available
Part of
Writing and Language Learning: Advancing research agendas
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 56] 2020
► pp. 281–308

Chapter 12
The meaning-making potential of collaborative L2 writing at tertiary level

| University of Paderborn

This chapter reports on a longitudinal study on collaborative writing by advanced L2 university students. In an attempt to elucidate the language-learning potential of collaborative writing over one semester, a mixed-method, descriptive, exploratory study with students writing essays in digital environments individually (n = 11) and in pairs (n = 15) was designed. Data consisted of the audio recordings of dyadic interaction, surveys, and expository essays. Results provide evidence of dyads deliberating upon complex meaning-making decisions, indicate positive responses to collaborative writing, and suggest heterogeneous development of syntactic complexity features characteristic of academic writing between the groups. Findings will be discussed from the point of view of research and pedagogy.

Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Theoretical framework
    • Cognitive perspective
    • Sociocultural perspective
    • Functional perspective
  • The present study
    • Aims and research questions
  • Method
    • Research site
    • Research approach
    • Participants
    • Instruments
    • Audio recordings
    • Surveys
    • Expository essays
  • Data analysis procedures
    • Discourse analysis of dyadic interaction
    • Language-related episodes
    • Non-linguistic Episodes
    • Survey analysis
    • Corpus analysis of expository essays
  • Results and discussion
    • Collaborative L2 writing and meaning negotiations
    • Meaning negotiations
    • Content negotiations
    • Students’ perceptions of collaborative L2 writing
    • Quantitative survey results
    • Qualitative survey results
    • Collaborative L2 writing and syntactic complexity development
  • Conclusion and implications
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 20 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.12sal
References
Biber, D., & Gray, B.
(2016) Grammatical complexity in academic English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
(2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H.
(2009) Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20, 50–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Theorizing language development at the intersection of ‘task’ and L2 writing: Reconsidering complexity. In H. Byrnes & R.M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R.M.
(2014) Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing: An introduction. In H. Byrnes & R.M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Crossley, S.A., & McNamara, D.S.
(2014) Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A.
(1990) Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7(4), 482–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R.
(1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M.P., & Azkarai, A.
(2016) EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göknil, A.
(2018) L2 collaborative writing at tertiary level: An analysis of topic sentence formation in academic essays (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Münster.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(2002) Spoken and written modes of meaning. In J.J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar (pp. 323–351). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M.
(2004) An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2008) The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liardét, C.L.
(2013) An exploration of Chinese EFL learner’s deployment of grammatical metaphor: Learning to make academically valued meanings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 161–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M.H.
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Manchón, R.M., & Roca de Larios, J.
(2007) Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E. Alcón Soler & M.P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–121). Dordrecht: Springer. 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
Martin, J.R.
(1989) Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J.
(2015) Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B.
(1990) Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nitta, R., & Baba, K.
(2014) Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In H. Byrnes & R.M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norrby, C., & Håkansson, G.
(2007) The interaction of complexity and grammatical processability: The case of Swedish as a foreign language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 45–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2015) Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J.
(2014) Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinders, H.
(2009) Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar-oriented production activities. Language Teaching Research, 13(2), 201–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Manchón, R.M.
(1999) The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 13–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M.
(2015) A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 51–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A.
(2011) Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(1999) Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374. 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, 153–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
(2007) Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Swain, M.
(1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. 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
Williams, J.
(2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 312–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar