Abstract

Research has shown that collaboratively produced texts are better in quality compared with individually written texts. However, no study has considered the role of collaboration in authorial voice, which is an essential element in current writing curricula. This study analyzes the effects of collaborative task performance in the quality of L2 learners’ argumentative texts and in their authorial voice strength. A total of 306 upper-intermediate L2 learners were selected and divided into independent ( N = 130) and paired ( N = 176) groups. Each learner/pair was asked to write one argumentative text. The quality of writings was determined by a quantitative analysis that included three measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Participants’ authorial voice strength was assessed by two raters using an analytic voice rubric. Comparison of means revealed that pairs outperformed independent writers in all CAF measures. However, the results for the role of collaboration in authorial voice were mixed: While pairs were more successful than independent writers in manifesting their ideational voice, independent writers outperformed pairs with regard to affective and presence voice dimensions and holistic voice scores. The article concludes that, despite its positive implications for L2 writing, collaborative writing may pose challenges for learners’ authorial stance taking.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2020-10-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088320939542
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Written Communication

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. College English
Also cites 40 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00035-2
  2. 10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4
  3. 10.58680/la20064909
    Language Arts  
  4. 10.1007/s10734-011-9428-9
  5. 10.1016/j.asw.2011.01.003
  6. 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80120-9
  7. 10.1075/lllt.11
  8. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
  9. 10.1017/S0272263100015047
  10. 10.1007/BF02903072
  11. 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.001
  12. 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00015-8
  13. 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00038-2
  14. 10.2307/30046464
  15. 10.1016/j.asw.2008.12.002
  16. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.405
  17. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.016
  18. 10.1080/09588220903467335
  19. 10.1017/CBO9781139524551.014
  20. 10.1093/applin/amp043
  21. 10.1016/j.asw.2011.07.001
  22. 10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
  23. 10.1057/9781137030825_10
  24. 10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003
  25. 10.1177/1362168810375364
  26. 10.1093/applin/amp044
  27. 10.4324/9781410604712
  28. 10.15702/mall.2011.14.1.121
  29. 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90013-2
  30. 10.1598/RRQ.46.1.4
  31. 10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00070-X
  32. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
  33. 10.1017/S0267190511000079
  34. 10.21832/9781847699954
  35. Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective
  36. 10.1177/0265532209104670
  37. 10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.04
  38. 10.1177/0265532212456965
  39. 10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.004
  40. 10.1016/j.asw.2008.10.003
CrossRef global citation count: 13 View in citation network →