Cover not available
Part of
L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts
Edited by Mimi Li and Meixiu Zhang
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 59] 2023
► pp. 32–52

Chapter 2
Metacognitive approaches to collaborative writing

Theoretical and pedagogical proposals

| Universidad Andres Bello
Collaborative writing (CW) presents unique L2 learning opportunities. While previous research primarily used cognitive and social approaches, the current chapter proposes a metacognitive approach to (1) advance our understanding of how CW supports L2 learning, and (2) explore pedagogical ideas that may further enhance CW effectiveness, that is, metacognitive instruction on CW. Three CW features relevant to both face-to-face and technology-mediated communication will be focused on. First, collaborative interaction – a prerequisite for CW to be effective – can be explained by metacognitive theories. Second, the provision and incorporation of feedback may be related to learners’ metacognition. Third, the CW sequence – planning what to write, drafting a text, and editing the text together – closely corresponds to metacognitive regulatory skills, that is, planning, monitoring, and evaluation.
Keywords: collaborative writing, metacognition, collaborative learning, feedbac, technology-mediated communication
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Metacognition and cognition in L2 learning
  • Interfaces between metacognition and CW
    • Collaboration
    • Feedback
    • CW sequence
  • Metacognitive instruction on CW
  • Future research directions
  • Pedagogical pointers
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.59.02sat
References (68)
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
Balaman, U. (2021). The interactional organization of video-mediated collaborative writing: Focus on repair practices. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 979–993. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 131–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budd, J. M., & Lloyd, A. (2015). Theoretical foundations for information literacy: A plan for action. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. del P. (2021). Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness, 30(1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, C.-Y., Pedersen, S., & Murphy, K. L. (2012). The influence of perceived information overload on student participation and knowledge construction in computer-mediated communication. Instructional Science, 40(2), 325–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, W., & Hapgood, S. (2021). Understanding knowledge, participation and learning in L2 collaborative writing: A metacognitive theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 256–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, W., & Ren, W. (2021). Educating L2 learners about collaborative writing: exploring the relationship between knowledge of collaborative writing and writing products. Language Awareness, 31(3), 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, W., & Yu, S. (2019). A longitudinal case study of changes in students’ attitudes, participation, and learning in collaborative writing. System, 82, 83–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, H., Kim, Y., & Park, S. (2021). Comparing students’ responses to synchronous written corrective feedback during individual and collaborative writing tasks. Language Awareness. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, K., Hale, D., Grainger, C., & Stewart, M. E. (2020). Evaluating metacognitive self-reports: Systematic reviews of the value of self-report in metacognitive research. Metacognition and Learning, 15(2), 155–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dao, P., & Sato, M. (2021). Exploring fluctuations in the relationship between learners’ positive emotional engagement and their interactional behaviours. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 972–994. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015). Promoting university students’ metacognitive regulation through peer learning: The potential of reciprocal peer tutoring. Higher Education, 70(3), 469–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Boer, H., Donker, A. S., Kostons, D. D., & van der Werf, G. P. (2018). Long-term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on student academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 98–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Dobao, A. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Collaborative writing in mixed classes: What do heritage and second language learners think? Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 48–68. 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
García Mayo, M. del P., & Agirre, A. I. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 83–106). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 379–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Sobocinski, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2021). Metacognition in collaborative learning. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 281–294). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904. 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
Lin, G.-Y. (2020). Scripts and mastery goal orientation in face-to-face versus computer-mediated collaborative learning: Influence on performance, affective and motivational outcomes, and social ability. Computers & Education, 143, 103691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, I. A., & Sippel, L. (2021). Providing vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., De Vleeschauwer, J., & Crawford, W. (2018). Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System, 74, 109–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, L. J., & Fyfe, E. R. (2019). Metacognitive monitoring and help-seeking decisions on mathematical equivalence problems. Metacognition and Learning, 14(2), 167–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 125–141). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Qiu, X., & Lee, M.-K. (2020). Regulated learning and self-efficacy beliefs in peer collaborative writing: An exploratory study of L2 learners’ written products, task discussions, and self-reports. System, 93, 102312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roebers, C. M. (2017). Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review, 45, 31–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning, 67(2), 249–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Oral peer corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In C. Lambert & R. Oliver (Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts (pp. 215–236). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2022). Metacognition. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 95–109). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Angulo, I. (2020). The role of L1 in L2 vocabulary development: A quasi-experimental study of languaging among high-proficiency learners. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 41–66). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Csizér, K. (2021). Combining learner psychology and ISLA research: Intersections in the classroom. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 839–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Dussuel Lam, C. (2021). Metacognitive instruction with young learners: A case of willingness to communicate, L2 use, and metacognition of oral communication. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 899–921. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Löffler, E. (2016). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 491–518). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286–305. 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
(2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Collaborative writing: Promoting languaging among language learners. In M. del P. García Mayo (Ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp. 13–34). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldossary, K. (2019). Peer feedback: An activity theory perspective on givers’ and receivers’ stances. In M. Sato & S. Loewen (Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 123–144). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Sato, M. (2019). Comparing the same task in different L2 learning contexts: An Activity Theory perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 50–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W., & Storch, N. (2020). Introduction. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–15). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teng, L. S., Sun, P. P., & Xu, L. (2018). Conceptualizing writing self-efficacy in English as a foreign language contexts: Scale validation through structural equation modeling. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 911–942. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teng, M. F. (2020). Tertiary-level students’ English writing performance and metacognitive awareness: A group metacognitive support perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 551–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021a). The effectiveness of incorporating metacognitive prompts in collaborative writing on academic English writing skills. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 659–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b). Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: Writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System, 97, 102426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theobald, M. (2021). Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66, 101976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Poel, K., & Gasiorek, J. (2012). Effects of an efficacy-focused approach to academic writing on students’ perceptions of themselves as writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 294–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villarreal, I., & Gil-Sarratea, N. (2020). The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 874–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinert, F. E. (1987). Introduction and overview: Metacognition and motivation as determinants of effective learning and understanding. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 1–16). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google 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
Winne, P. H. (2021). Cognition, metacognition, and self-regulated learning. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedias: Education. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, L. (2014). Examining the mediational means in collaborative writing: Case studies of undergraduate ESL students in business courses. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 74–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, D., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL) in second/foreign language teaching. In A. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 883–897). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M. (2022). A re-examination of pair dynamics and L2 learning opportunities in collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 26(1), 10–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., Gibbons, J., & Li, M. (2021). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A systematic review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 101976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 101976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wang, Kaixuan, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Maria Cooper
2024. Metacognitive Instruction for Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Writing for EFL Learners’ Writing Development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 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.