Are Two Voices Better Than One? Comparing Aspects of Text Quality and Authorial Voice in Paired and Independent L2 Writing

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.

The Effect of Joint Production on the Accuracy and Complexity of Second Language Writing

“…Not surprisingly, the finding about accuracy corroborates most recent studies on collaborative writing (Dobao, 2012 ; Elabdali, 2021 ; Shehadeh, 2011 ; Zabihi & Bayan, 2020 ) and WCF (Van Beuningen et al, 2012 ; Kurzer, 2018 ; Fukuta et al, 2019 ; Han, 2019 ; Lee, 2020 ; ; Sinha & Nassaji, 2021 ), thus further extending and establishing the positive roles of feedback and collaboration in promoting L2 writing development. Similarly, the finding about learners’ lack of development in complexity was also reported in the literature (Dobao, 2012 ; Sajedi, 2014 ; Storch, 2005 ).…”

“…A meta-analysis of 33 studies suggests that collaboratively written texts were more accurate than individually written texts, with a mean effect size of a medium magnitude (g = 0.73) and that a large magnitude difference in rubric scores (g = 0.94) was found in favor of individual texts written after experimental CW conditions compared to those written after control individual writing conditions (Elabdali, 2021 ). For example, Zabihi and Bayan ( 2020 ) examined the effect of peer collaboration on an argumentative writing task in the CAF framework (complexity, accuracy, and fluency). Complexity was measured as the number of subordinate clauses to T-units, accuracy as the number of error-free T-units against the total number of T-units, and fluency as the average number of words per T-unit.…”

Task Type and Discussion of Language Form in L2 Pair Interaction

“…Languaging manifests itself when learners get involved in completing communicative tasks through collaborative dialogues. Various studies (Kobayashi, 2003 ; Lapkin et al, 2002 ; Morris & Tarone, 2003 ; Storch, 1998 , 2004 ; Swain & Lapkin, 1998 ; Tin, 2003 ; Zabihi & Bayan, 2020 ; Zabihi & Ghahramanzadeh, 2022 ) have demonstrated that student collaboration, frequently referred to as small-group work, is of great significance in second language (L2) acquisition, social aspects of the classroom (i.e., how learners join together), and language pedagogy since working collaboratively enables learners to have a relatively better performance than working alone (e.g., Storch, 1999 ). One way for benefiting from collaboration is through a specific kind of interaction known as collective scaffolding (Donato, 1994 ), where learners can pool their cognitive and linguistic knowledge and work together to solve their language-related problems.…”

Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda

“…Second, an analysis of the rhetorical (e.g., rhetorical moves) and discoursal features (e.g., authorial voice, metadiscourse) in learners’ collaborative texts may provide valuable insights when relevant to the research goals and tasks. A handful of studies have attended to such aspects, including Li and Zhu (2017b) who analyzed the presence/absence of essential rhetorical elements in research proposals, Kuteeva (2011), who examined interactional metadiscourse (e.g., engagement markers, hedges, attitude markers) to understand the writer-reader relationship in wiki-based CW, and Zabihi and Bayan (2020), who studied multilingual learners’ authorial voice in collaborative argumentative writing tasks. For research that deems CW as a site for discourse co-construction and/or identity co-construction, the above-mentioned constructs provide additional perspectives to understand written products.…”