Peer interaction and attention to form in web-based synchronous and asynchronous L2 collaborative writing

Abstract

Previous studies on web-based collaborative writing have shown that task modality impacts peer interaction patterns and attention to form. However, these studies have primarily focused on contrasting a face-to-face oral condition with a text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) environment. Few studies have compared peer interaction patterns and attention to form between text-based SCMC and text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication (ACMC), the two common modes of computer-mediated communication. This study aimed at filling this research gap. Participants were 22 EFL learners who worked in self-selected pairs to complete two L2 collaborative writing tasks, one through text-based SCMC and the other text-based ACMC, using Google Docs. Patterns of interaction for each pair within each task mode were identified. Attention to form was measured through language-related episodes (LREs). Quality of attention to form was assessed via learners’ LRE engagement levels. The results show that task modality affected the occurrence but it did not affect the focus and outcome of LREs. Task modality, however, impacted peer interaction patterns and quality of attention to form, with more collaborative pair dynamics and elaborate LRE engagement being generated in text-based SCMC tasks.

Keywords:

• Computer mediated communication
• asynchronous
• synchronous
• L2 collaborative writing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Example 1. Collaborative interaction pattern (pair 8, text-based SCMC)

Example 2. Non-collaborative interaction pattern (pair 8, text-based ACMC)

Example 3. Non-collaborative interaction pattern (pair 9, text-based ACMC)

Example 4. Resolved target-like high-degree elaborate F-LRE (pair 7, text-based SCMC)

Example 5. Resolved non-target-like high-degree elaborate L-LRE (pair 1, text-based ACMC)

Example 6. Resolved target-like low-degree elaborate F-LRE (pair 9, text-based SCMC)

Example 7. Resolved target-like low-degree limited L-LRE (pair 3, text-based ACMC)

Example 8. Unresolved addressed high-degree elaborate L-LRE (pair 9, text-based SCMC)

Example 9. Unresolved ignored high-degree limited L-LRE (pair 8, text-based ACMC).

Notes

1 A cooperative pattern differs from a collaborative pattern in that in a collaborative pattern, both participants contribute to the joint task and engage with each other’s contributions (reflected in high equality and mutuality).

2 In Rouhshad and Neomy (2016), both participants could type and communicate instantly through text chat in SCMC; however, only one member of the pair could type the text on their Google Docs page.

3 This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of National Taiwan University (approval number 201905ES136) and has been classified as an exempt. The requirement for consent was waived by the ethics committee.

4 The learners had learned how to identify the thesis statement, topic sentences, and supporting details; how to check the relevance and organization of ideas; and how to check the language of their peers’ essays for grammatical accuracy, and give feedback.

5 Week 1 on Table 1 indicates the first week of the study. It was actually the second week of the semester.

6 The grading results were returned to the students when the collaborative writing tasks were completed so as to minimize the effect of grading and teacher feedback on students’ attention focus and patterns of interaction. That is, the grading results of collaborative writing task 1 were returned to the students when collaborative writing task 2 was submitted. The grading results of collaborative writing task 2 were returned to the students one week after it was submitted.

7 This is also a text-based function.

8 When changes or comments were made to a document, Google Docs sent notifications. Monitoring was then conducted.

9 In the present study, only scaffolding strategies that are responded to are coded as moderate to high mutuality.

10 It is possible that students may change their interaction patterns during a single task performance. When this occurred in the study, the pattern that was predominant for the majority of their communication was coded.

11 Pseudonyms are used.

12 The transition between MREs often occurred in the form of confirmation (e.g. ok, sure), suggestions (e.g. okay, let’s move on), or questions (e.g. do you have other idea? another idea?). The transition between LREs occurred when a different focus appeared.

13 Following Sauro and Smith (2010), effect sizes (r) were calculated by dividing the relevant z score by the square root of N (N = the number of groups). An effect size of r = 0.10 was defined as small, r = 0.30 as medium and r = 0.50 or larger as large.

14 Following Takimoto (2006), this study used a modified Bonferroni procedure rather than a Bonferroni adjustment, which becomes too conservative with a large number of comparisons. The modified Bonferroni procedure works as follows: (1) P-values are arranged from the lowest to the highest; (2) The significance of the first test (with the lowest p- value) is evaluated at 0.05/3 (number of the tests) and if the test statistic is significant after this adjustment, then move on to the test with the second lowest p- value and evaluate this statistic at 0.05/2 (number of tests -1). If this statistic is significant after the adjustment, proceed to the third p- value and evaluate it at 0.05/2 (number of tests-2); (2) Proceed in this fashion until a nonsignificant test statistic is obtained.

15 Type 2 errors occur when a null hypothesis is accepted when it should not have been accepted. Type 2 errors occur when N is small.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

Notes on contributors

Hsiu-Chen Hsu

Hsiu-Chen Hsu is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Linguistics and Language Studies at Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan. Her research focuses on exploring second language (L2) learning processes, task-based language teaching and learning, and collaborative L2 writing within the context of computer-mediated communication.