Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context

Kim McDonough, Jindarat De Vleeschauwer, William J Crawford

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although previous studies have compared the quality of collaborative writing texts to those written individually without any peer interaction, studies to date have not explored whether collaborative prewriting affords any of the same benefits of collaborative writing. Situated within the collaborative writing research, this study compares the text features and analytic ratings of paragraphs written by EFL students (N = 128) at a university in Thailand under three conditions: collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, or no collaboration. The students’ paragraphs were coded for linguistic measures of accuracy (errors/word) and subordination (dependent clauses/clauses), and were rated using a 30-point analytic rubric with three categories (content, organization, and language). The results revealed that the collaborative texts were more accurate than the collaborative prewriting and no collaboration texts, while the collaborative prewriting and no collaboration texts contained more subordination. Issues for future research about the role of collaboration at various stages in the L2 writing process are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)109-120
Number of pages12
JournalSystem
Volume74
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Thailand
student
rating
EFL Context
Collaborative Writing
linguistics
organization
university
interaction
language
Subordination
Paragraph
L2 Writing
Dependent Clauses
Language
Writing Research
Writing Process
Rating
Peer Interaction
Clause

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Education
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. / McDonough, Kim; De Vleeschauwer, Jindarat; Crawford, William J.

In: System, Vol. 74, 01.06.2018, p. 109-120.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{72ba4ff9b8df4742a9f554ee1b628212,
title = "Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context",
abstract = "Although previous studies have compared the quality of collaborative writing texts to those written individually without any peer interaction, studies to date have not explored whether collaborative prewriting affords any of the same benefits of collaborative writing. Situated within the collaborative writing research, this study compares the text features and analytic ratings of paragraphs written by EFL students (N = 128) at a university in Thailand under three conditions: collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, or no collaboration. The students’ paragraphs were coded for linguistic measures of accuracy (errors/word) and subordination (dependent clauses/clauses), and were rated using a 30-point analytic rubric with three categories (content, organization, and language). The results revealed that the collaborative texts were more accurate than the collaborative prewriting and no collaboration texts, while the collaborative prewriting and no collaboration texts contained more subordination. Issues for future research about the role of collaboration at various stages in the L2 writing process are discussed.",
author = "Kim McDonough and {De Vleeschauwer}, Jindarat and Crawford, {William J}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.system.2018.02.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "74",
pages = "109--120",
journal = "System",
issn = "0346-251X",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context

AU - McDonough, Kim

AU - De Vleeschauwer, Jindarat

AU - Crawford, William J

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Although previous studies have compared the quality of collaborative writing texts to those written individually without any peer interaction, studies to date have not explored whether collaborative prewriting affords any of the same benefits of collaborative writing. Situated within the collaborative writing research, this study compares the text features and analytic ratings of paragraphs written by EFL students (N = 128) at a university in Thailand under three conditions: collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, or no collaboration. The students’ paragraphs were coded for linguistic measures of accuracy (errors/word) and subordination (dependent clauses/clauses), and were rated using a 30-point analytic rubric with three categories (content, organization, and language). The results revealed that the collaborative texts were more accurate than the collaborative prewriting and no collaboration texts, while the collaborative prewriting and no collaboration texts contained more subordination. Issues for future research about the role of collaboration at various stages in the L2 writing process are discussed.

AB - Although previous studies have compared the quality of collaborative writing texts to those written individually without any peer interaction, studies to date have not explored whether collaborative prewriting affords any of the same benefits of collaborative writing. Situated within the collaborative writing research, this study compares the text features and analytic ratings of paragraphs written by EFL students (N = 128) at a university in Thailand under three conditions: collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, or no collaboration. The students’ paragraphs were coded for linguistic measures of accuracy (errors/word) and subordination (dependent clauses/clauses), and were rated using a 30-point analytic rubric with three categories (content, organization, and language). The results revealed that the collaborative texts were more accurate than the collaborative prewriting and no collaboration texts, while the collaborative prewriting and no collaboration texts contained more subordination. Issues for future research about the role of collaboration at various stages in the L2 writing process are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042924662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042924662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.system.2018.02.010

DO - 10.1016/j.system.2018.02.010

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85042924662

VL - 74

SP - 109

EP - 120

JO - System

JF - System

SN - 0346-251X

ER -