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.
AtkinsonD. (2001). Reflections and refractions on the JSLW special issue on voice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 107–124.
2.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.
3.
BaoshuY.ChuanbiN. (2015). Planning and working memory effects on L2 performance in Chinese EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 44–53.
4.
CappelloM. (2006). Under construction: Voice and identity development in writing workshop. Language Arts, 83(6), 482–491.
5.
CastelloM.InestaA.PardoM.LiesaE.Martinez-FernandezR. (2012). Tutoring the end-of-studies dissertation: Helping psychology students find their academic voice when revising academic texts. Higher Education, 63(1), 97–115.
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
DiPardoA.StormsB. A.SellandM. (2011). Seeing voices: Assessing writerly stance in the NWP Analytic Writing Continuum. Assessing Writing, 16(3), 170–188.
8.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ. P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex.
9.
ElbowP. (1999). Individualism and the teaching of writing: Response to Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 327–338.
10.
ElbowP. (2007). Reconsiderations: Voice in writing again: Embracing contraries. College English, 70(2), 168–188.
11.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins.
12.
ElolaI.OskozA. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.
13.
Fernandez-DobaoA. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58.
14.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323.
15.
GhorbaniN.WatsonP. J.KraussS. W.BingM. N.DavisonH. K. (2004). Social science as dialogue: Narcissism, individualist and collectivist values, and religious interest in Iran and the United States. Current Psychology, 23(2), 111–123.
16.
HamedaniN. G.PurvisT. M.GlazerS.DienJ. (2012). Ways of manifesting collectivism: An analysis of Iranian and African cultures. University of Maryland Centre for Advanced Study of Language. http://www.casl.umd.edu/sites/default/files/TR_82133_TD.pdf
17.
Helms-ParkR.StapletonP. (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 245–265.
18.
HiroseK. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181–209.
19.
HirvelaA.BelcherD. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 83–106.
20.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
21.
HoldingM. (2005). Liberating the student’s voice: A teacher’s story of the college essay. English Journal, 94(4), 76–82.
22.
HongY.WanC.NoS.ChiuC. (2007). Multicultural identities. In KitayamaS.CohenD. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 323–345). Guilford.
HylandK. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27(2), 159–188.
25.
JefferyJ. (2009). Constructs of writing proficiency in US state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability. Assessing Writing, 14(1), 3–24.
26.
JohnstoneB. (2000). The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29(1), 405–424.
27.
JoshanlooM.GhaediG. (2009). Value priorities as predictors of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. Personality and Individual Difference, 47(4), 294–298.
28.
KaplanR. B. (1990). Writing in a multilingual/multicultural context: What’s contrastive about contrastive rhetoric?The Writing Instructor, 10(1), 7–18.
29.
KesslerG.BikowskiD. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous language learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58.
30.
KimU.TriandisH. C.KagitcibasiC.ChoiS.-C.YoonG. (1994). Introduction. In KimU.TriandisH. C.KagitcibasiC.ChoiS.-C.YoonG. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 1–16). Sage.
31.
KrollB. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In KrollB. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights from the classroom (pp. 140–154). Cambridge University Press.
32.
KuhnD.HembergerL.KhaitV. (2016). Tracing the development of argumentative writing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communication, 33(1), 92–121.
33.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589.
34.
LlosaL.BeckS. W.ZhaoC. G. (2011). An investigation of academic writing in secondary schools to inform the development of diagnostic classroom assessments. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 256–273.
35.
LongM. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW. C.BhatiaT. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
36.
MatsudaP. K.JefferyJ. V. (2012). Voice in student essays. In HylandK.Sancho-GuindaC. (Eds.), Voice and stance in academic writing (pp. 151–165). Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
McDonoughK. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 23(2), 207–224.
38.
NassajiH.TianJ. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397–419.
39.
NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
40.
OhtaA. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
PaeJ. K. (2011). Collaborative writing versus individual writing: Fluency, accuracy, complexity, and essay score. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 14(1), 121–148.
42.
RamanathanV.KaplanR. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 21–34.
43.
ReidJ. (2001). Advanced EAP writing and curriculum design: What do we need to know? In SilvaT.MatsudaP. K. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 143–160). Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
SperlingM.ApplemanD.GilyardK.FreedmanS. (2011). Voice in the context of literacy studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 70–84.
45.
StapletonP. (2002). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning spotlight to ideas. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 177–190.
46.
StewartD. C. (1992). Cognitive psychologists, social constructionists, and three nineteenth-century advocates of authentic voice. Journal of Advanced Composition, 12(2), 279–290.
47.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.
48.
StorchN. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288.
49.
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: New perspective on language and education. Multilingual Matters.
50.
StraussP. (2001). “I’d rather vomit up a live hedgehog”—L2 students and group assessment in mainstream university programs. Prospect, 16(2), 55–66.
51.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
52.
SwainM. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In ByrnesH. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). Continuum.
53.
VinkenH.SoetersJ.EsterP. (Eds.). (2004). Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective. Brill.
54.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466.
55.
WolfeC. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28(2), 193–219.
56.
Wolfe-QuinteroK.InagakiS.KimH. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawaii at Manoa.
57.
YehH.-C. (2014). Exploring how collaborative dialogues facilitate synchronous collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 23–37.
58.
ZabihiR. (2018). The role of cognitive and affective factors in measures of L2 writing. Written Communication, 35(1), 32–57.
59.
ZabihiR.Mehrani-RadM.KhodiA. (2019). Assessment of authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative written task performances: Contributions of voice components to text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 331–355.
60.
ZhaoC. G. (2013). Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30(2), 201–230.
61.
ZhaoC. G. (2017). Voice in timed L2 argumentative essay writing. Assessing Writing, 31, 73–83.
62.
ZhaoC. G.LlosaL. (2008). Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing Writing, 13(3), 153–170.
