What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback
Highlights
► We discuss how socio-cultural theoretical approaches impact on writing. ► Writing collaboratively may activate mechanisms which enhance learning for participants. ► Different types of feedback provided in response to writing can lead to varied levels of engagement. ► Much more research into writing as vehicle to enhance learning is required.
Section snippets
Writing collaboratively?
While writing is generally considered a solitary activity, in real world contexts, collaborative writing is far from unusual. In higher education contexts learners are frequently asked to work in pairs or groups to complete written assignments, although research which examines the implications of this assessment process is far and few between. Similarly in the workplace, group projects are quite common (see Ede & Lunsford, 1990) and part of the reason that higher education learners are expected
From writing to feedback
We now turn our attention to the potential language learning benefits of processing feedback in pairs. We focus in particular on corrective feedback (CF), that is, feedback on errors in the use of language rather than any other aspects of writing (e.g. structure of the text, development of ideas). The aim of CF is ultimately language learning (writing-to-learn). CF is provided on the assumption that it will lead not only to improved accuracy in the short term (on immediate revisions) but to L2
Advancing the field
Existing research, albeit limited in volume, does suggests that pair composition and pair processing of feedback provides learners with opportunities for language learning. When writing and processing feedback, learners working in pairs engage in a number of cognitive processes that are conducive to language learning. When composing in pairs, they deliberate about language choice, test hypotheses, and offer each other immediate feedback. In our research on collaborative processing of feedback,
Conclusion
Returning to Manchón's (2011) four influential foci of SLA research, we can now draw together the various strands. The first, Skills Learning Theory, argues that a great deal of time and practice is required in order to reach the point at which second language knowledge is both consolidated and automatic (DeKeyser, 2007). To date the small amount of research on collaborative writing suggests that repeated collaborative writing activities affords learners repeated practice in deliberating about
Gillian Wigglesworth is Professor of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, and Associate Dean, Research, in the Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne. Her research interests include second language acquisition, language testing and assessment and first language acquisition, with a particular focus the languages Australia's Indigenous children are learning in multilingual settings.
References (58)
Evidence in support of written corrective feedback
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2008)Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to “Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008)”
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2009)A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2012)The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2003)Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2012)- et al.
Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2001) Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2011)Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy
System
(1999)Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflection
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2005)- et al.
Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation
International Journal of Educational Research
(2002)
The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately
Journal of Second Language Writing
The potential role(s) of writing in second language development
Journal of Second Language Writing
Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting
The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation
Applied Linguistics
Collective scaffolding in second language learning
Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse
Annual review of applied linguistics
Singular texts/plural authors
Treatment of error in second language student writing
Writing to learn in content areas: Research insights
The language learning potential of form-focused feedback on writing: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions
Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing
The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college level writing classes
Foreign Language Annals
A narrow thinking system: Non-native English speaking students in group projects across the curriculum
TESOL Quarterly
The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition
Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research
Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
The role of consciousness in second language learning
Applied Linguistics
Attention
Cited by (149)
Cyclical interplay between L2 writing, WCF processing and rewriting: Explaining modification and consolidation in L2 development
2024, Journal of Second Language WritingPeer leadership in collaborative argumentative writing: A qualitative case study of blended design
2023, Journal of Second Language WritingAn investigation into L2 writing teacher beliefs and their possible sources
2023, Assessing WritingModels in collaborative writing among CLIL learners of English in primary school: Linguistic outcomes and motivation matters
2022, SystemCitation Excerpt :Most studies on WCF initially concentrated on feedback types that address formal aspects of the language and focus on isolated errors, usually distinguishing between direct feedback, which implies providing the correct forms, and indirect feedback, which usually consists of underlining or circling the errors (Ellis, 2016). Despite some evidence that WCF reduces errors only in immediate texts but does not enhance students' L2 writing ability (Truscott, 2010; Truscott & Hsu, 2008), WCF has been generally claimed to positively impact L2 learning (e.g., Bitchener, 2012; Ellis, 2016; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012; Williams, 2012). While the debate about which type is more effective remains open, a well-established finding is the fact that the effects of any type of WCF are mediated by a host of variables, for example, by age (Kang & Han, 2015).
Gillian Wigglesworth is Professor of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, and Associate Dean, Research, in the Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne. Her research interests include second language acquisition, language testing and assessment and first language acquisition, with a particular focus the languages Australia's Indigenous children are learning in multilingual settings.
Neomy Storch is a senior lecturer in ESL and Applied Linguistics at the School of Languages & Linguistics, the University of Melbourne. Her research has focused on issues related to second (L2) pedagogy. These issues have included second language writing development, feedback and revision in L2 writing, the nature of peer collaboration on writing tasks, and the role of L1 in L2 classes.