Speaker
Description
Collaborative Writing (CW) activities are low-stakes exercises that engage learners through social interaction, promote peer instruction, and develop critical thinking skills. This study compares individually and collaboratively written output by analyzing CAF (Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency) measures from a learner corpus of writing collected from students over the course of a semester (N = 37, ~50k words). The analysis also takes task type into consideration.
Abstract section 5: References
Elabdali, R. (2021). Are two heads really better than one? A meta-analysis of the L2 learning benefits of collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100788.
Li, M., & Zhang, M. (2023). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(1), 94-112.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100753
Abstract section 2: Contribution/research questions
RQ1 - Are there any differences in the CAF (Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency) measures between individually and collaboratively written paragraphs?
RQ2 - Does the task type affect any CAF measures?
RQ3 - Does proficiency level affect the CAF measures of the written output in any way?
Abstract section 3: Content/method
This study uses a quasi-experimental within-subjects design to compare student writing performance across collaborative and individual writing conditions (N = 37). Over one semester, students completed eleven in-class paragraphs collaboratively and eleven paragraphs individually for homework on different topics, resulting in a learner corpus of around 50k words. The corpus is analyzed using measures from the CAF (Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency) framework. In addition, the accuracy of clausal subordination (e.g., conjunction use) is analyzed.
Abstract section 1: Relevance
Previous research suggests that collaboratively written texts are generally shorter and more accurate than texts written individually. However, it remains unclear which specific linguistic features are affected by collaborative writing (CW), possibly due to substantial variation in how written output has been measured across studies. Meta-analyses suggest that the lack of the consistency of measures between studies warrants further research in order to confidently claim benefits of collaborative writing activities on content-generating tasks. Further yet, there are suggestions that outcomes might also be dependent on task type and proficiency level.
Abstract section 4: Outcomes/results
The results of the analysis will be given. The interpretation of the results will be offered, with special emphasis on the bearings of the results on classroom implementation of collaborative writing activities.
| Title | Collaborative Writing: A Learner Corpus Analysis |
|---|---|
| Teaching Context | College and university education |