2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
109
2
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 169 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
3
109
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This explanation is confirmed by some studies (e.g., Jafari & Ansari, 2012;Shehadeh, 2011) that found collaboration to improve the quality of writing. In this respect, some researchers pointed out that collaboration in writing leads to more correct grammar and lexis (Li & Kim, 2016), improved content and organization (Shehadeh, 2011), a stronger reader-writer relationship (Kuteeva, 2011), increased sense of audience (Sun & Chang, 2012), and better solutions to the linguistic problems writers usually encounter (Dobao, 2012). Moreover, collaboration forces student writers to share responsibility for the written product (Dobao, 2012), helps them acquire different writing skills (Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011), evokes a positive sense of competition among them (Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016), and enables them to recognize the weaknesses in their writing (Elola & Oskoz, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This explanation is confirmed by some studies (e.g., Jafari & Ansari, 2012;Shehadeh, 2011) that found collaboration to improve the quality of writing. In this respect, some researchers pointed out that collaboration in writing leads to more correct grammar and lexis (Li & Kim, 2016), improved content and organization (Shehadeh, 2011), a stronger reader-writer relationship (Kuteeva, 2011), increased sense of audience (Sun & Chang, 2012), and better solutions to the linguistic problems writers usually encounter (Dobao, 2012). Moreover, collaboration forces student writers to share responsibility for the written product (Dobao, 2012), helps them acquire different writing skills (Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011), evokes a positive sense of competition among them (Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016), and enables them to recognize the weaknesses in their writing (Elola & Oskoz, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, it is largely expected that in the near future, cloud tools will have a significant impact on education, enabling both learners and teachers to do their work effectively with less cost (Zurita, Baloian, & Frez, 2014). The collaborative potential of cloud tools and the widespread availability of social software in L2 teaching have brought a renewed attention to collaborative writing (Li & Kim, 2016;Liou & Lee, 2013;Liu, Liu, & Liu, 2018;Wang, 2016;. Therefore, cloud-based collaborative writing (henceforth CBCW) is viewed as a means to integrate technology into writing instruction (Yim et al, 2014) through facilitating content construction (Elola & Oskoz, 2010) and enhancing learner-to-learner writing (Strobl, 2015).…”
Section: Cloud-based Collaborative Writing (Cbcw)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the transcriptions, the children's interactions during the play were organised into episodes following the rhythm of the game: an episode is a single unit of discourse during which the participants discussed solving one game task (cf. Li & Kim, 2016). We only transcribed speech related to the phonological tasks-for example, lengthy negotiations regarding taking turns were not transcribed.…”
Section: Transcriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this episode, Veera initiates interaction (cf. Li & Kim, 2016) and assists Emma by whispering the correct answer to her (the word-initial syllable ka). This resembles stating one's ideas as a language function, as suggested by Li & Kim (2016).…”
Section: Production Of Individual Syllablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation