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
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

References (62) · 11 in this index

  1. 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00035-2
  2. 10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4
  3. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. 10.58680/la20064909
    Language Arts  
  5. 10.1007/s10734-011-9428-9
Show all 62 →
  1. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
  2. Assessing Writing
  3. Vygotskian approaches to second language research
  4. 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80120-9
  5. College English
  6. 10.1075/lllt.11
  7. Language Learning & Technology
  8. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
  9. 10.1017/S0272263100015047
  10. 10.1007/BF02903072
  11. Hamedani N. G., Purvis T. M., Glazer S., Dien J. (2012). Ways of manifesting collectivism: An analysis of Ira…
  12. 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.001
  13. 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00015-8
  14. 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00038-2
  15. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations acros…
  16. 10.2307/30046464
  17. Handbook of cultural psychology
  18. Elementary English
  19. Written Communication
  20. Assessing Writing
  21. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.405
  22. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.016
  23. The Writing Instructor
  24. 10.1080/09588220903467335
  25. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods, and applications
  26. 10.1017/CBO9781139524551.014
  27. Written Communication
  28. 10.1093/applin/amp043
  29. Assessing Writing
  30. 10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
  31. 10.1057/9781137030825_10
  32. 10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003
  33. 10.1177/1362168810375364
  34. 10.1093/applin/amp044
  35. 10.4324/9781410604712
  36. 10.15702/mall.2011.14.1.121
  37. 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90013-2
  38. On second language writing
  39. 10.1598/RRQ.46.1.4
  40. 10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00070-X
  41. Journal of Advanced Composition
  42. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
  43. 10.1017/S0267190511000079
  44. 10.21832/9781847699954
  45. Prospect
  46. Sociocultural theory and second language learning
  47. Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky
  48. Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective
  49. 10.1177/0265532209104670
  50. Written Communication
  51. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity
  52. Language Learning & Technology
  53. Written Communication
  54. Journal of Writing Research
  55. 10.1177/0265532212456965
  56. Assessing Writing
  57. Assessing Writing