Understanding an assessment approach in computer-mediated collaborative writing: Learner perceptions and interactions

Abstract

While much research supports the benefits of computer-mediated collaborative writing (CW) in second language (L2) classrooms, the assessment of CW has received scant attention. This study proposed an assessment scheme considering both the products and processes when assessing online synchronous CW, and explored its effects on learners’ interactions and perceptions of the process-and-product-based assessment approach through qualitative analyses. Through analyzing 21 dyads’ online pair talk and revision histories in CW tasks, post-task reflections, and interviews, this study found that assessment approach impacted patterns of collaboration, as well as the quantity and quality of peer interaction. Also, learners reported multiple advantages of the process-and-product-based assessment approach in computer-mediated CW, including increasing fairness, promoting better performance, and facilitating effective collaboration. Further, the process-and-product-based CW assessment approach raised learners’ awareness of the value of the collaboration process, motivated students to be critical collaborators, and promoted regulated learning. Nevertheless, students expressed concerns that this assessment approach might bring pressure and disrupt idea negotiation. The findings can further our understanding of the role that assessment plays in computer-mediated CW tasks and shed new light on possible ways of implementing CW assessment practices that may facilitate learning and positive learner perceptions in L2 writing classrooms.

ABSTRACT IN CHINESE

尽管许多研究表明计算机辅助合作写作在第二语言课堂中有很多益处, 但如何评价和评估合作写作却很少受到关注。本研究提出了一同时考虑写作结果和写作过程的对线上同步合作写作的评估方法, 并通过定性分析探讨了学习者对这一评估方法的态度以及在使用这一评估方法时对学习者合作互动的影响。通过对21组学习者合作写作时的在线合作对话, 修改历史记录, 任务后反思和访谈的分析, 本研究发现, 基于合作写作过程和结果的评估方法影响了学习者合作写作的互动模式以及同伴互动话语的数量和质量。此外, 学习者还报告了基于过程和结果的评估方法在计算机辅助合作写作中的多重优势, 包括提高公平性、促进更好的合作表现和提高写作质量。此外, 基于过程和结果的合作写作评估方法提高了学习者对合作写作过程价值的认知, 激励学生成为思辨的合作者, 并促进了学习者写作过程中自主调节学习。同时, 学习者也指出这种评估方法可能存在的问题, 例如, 可能给合作者带来压力或阻碍讨论的深度。总之, 该研究的结果可以进一步加深我们对写作测评在计算机辅合作写作任务中的作用的理解, 并为实施合作写作评估实践的可能方式提供新的视角, 这些实践可以促进二语写作学习和提高学习者的积极认知。.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

While much research discusses the benefits of writing collaboratively for second language learners in online settings, little research has studied how to grade learner performance when English learners complete collaborative writing (CW) tasks. We provided a method in this study to evaluate language learners’ performance when they work in pairs to write essays online. This method considers both the quality of their co-constructed texts and the extent to which they actively participate in the discussions during the writing process. We also looked at how Chinese English learners perceived this grading method and how this method influenced their participation. Through analyzing 21 online pair talks and revision histories in CW tasks, post-task reflections, and interviews, we found that the grading method that we proposed impacted how much and how well students responded to each other and whether or not their active participation would solve the problems encountered in the CW process. Learners also reported many advantages of this grading method, including increasing fairness, promoting better writing performance, and facilitating effective collaboration. This grading method also helped the learners value the collaboration process, motivated them to be critical collaborators, and encouraged them to regulate their behaviors for better revisions in the writing process. Nevertheless, students expressed concerns that this grading method might bring pressure and disrupt their thinking while developing or negotiating ideas.

Keywords:

• Collaborative writing
• computer-mediated communication
• writing assessment
• learner perception
• peer interaction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This project is funded by Beijing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. SM202010028001) awarded to the first author.

Notes

1 Participant identification: Each pair was marked as P + pair number. Two students in each pair were respectively marked as S1 and S2. For example, the first student in the third pair was marked as P3S1.

2 Data source identification: The two reflective journals were marked as R1 and R2. Semi-structured interviews were marked as I. The stimulated recall interview was marked as SRI. For example, quotes from P2S1 in Interview were marked as P2S1-I.