ABSTRACT

The concept of collaboration has been valued in second language pedagogy. However, it was found that the use of pair/group work in an L2 writing class has always been limited to pre-writing and re-writing stages, not yet applicable to the writing stage itself. From the limited number of empirical studies conducted concerning collaborative writing, collaboratively produced texts are found consistently more grammatically accurate. In addition, during collaborative writing process, students are found to engage in activities such as co-constructing knowledge, scaffolding, and pooling resources to each other, which are believed to be effective in improving the quality of their produced text and in facilitating their learning.
However, due to the limitation of the experimental design in previous studies, participants could only choose to write collaboratively or individually. Very little research allowed participants to experience both writing modes besides their perceptions were investigated. The present study attempts to fill such a gap in addition to have a more comprehensive understanding of collaborative writing.
Among various web 2.0 technologies, wikis have drawn many researchers’ attention as a good platform for collaborative-writing projects. With the assistance of wikis, the current study aims to compare collaboratively and individually produced texts, explore the nature of collaboratively composed process, and investigate students’ perspectives on wiki-based collaborative writing.
Eighteen EFL college English-major junior students as nine pairs took part in this study. This study contained three phases. In the first phase, students received training sessions about the use of wikis and peer-reviewing skills. The second phase consisted of two writing cycles. The nine pairs of students were divided into two groups: collaborative (CG) and individual (IG) ones. In the first writing cycle, five pairs volunteered to be in the collaborative group (CG) while the other four pairs were in the individual group (IG). While students in the CG discussed with their partners to compose drafts, students in the IG worked by themselves. After the first drafts were done, students in the two groups invited their classmates to peer-review the drafts and give them comments. Again, students in the CG made revisions together while those in the IG did it by themselves. The writing cycle ended with students’ revised drafts. In the second writing cycle, the two groups of students reversed their writing modes, and they followed the same procedures the other group did in the first writing cycle to complete another essay. In the final phase, an overall evaluation questionnaire was administered to participants to elicit their responses regarding wikis-based writing experience.
Triangulation of different data sources was adopted in this study, including copies of students’ writing products in the two writing cycles, MSN discussion logs, time logs, revision history as recorded by wikis, and students’ responses to a self/peer evaluation questionnaire and an overall evaluation questionnaire. The texts are measured quantitatively in terms of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Analysis of the data from MSN discussion logs, time logs, and revision history presented a qualitative picture of how students engaged in collaborative work. The self/peer and overall evaluation questionnaires were designed with the aim to understand students’ attitudes toward wiki-based writing experience, and what they think they learnt from each other during the collaborative process.
The findings revealed that firstly, when students were allowed more time to work on the collaborative writing task as a take-home assignment, pairs consistently produced longer and more accurate texts than individuals. Exploration of students’ collaborative process indicated that they were willing to work more collaboratively to enhance the quality of writing products once their awareness was raised. In addition, pairs were found to make fewer revisions but higher percentage of text-base changes, large-scale meaning changes, at the re-writing phase than individuals, which indicated that with their partners’ assistance, pairs seemed to be confident in making more text-base changes. Thirdly, students’ positive attitudes toward product, process, and effects of the wiki-based collaborative writing task showed that it is feasible to implement such a task in an EFL college class.
This study provided significant evidence that the wiki-based collaborative writing task, combining the advantages of wikis and collaborative writing, could not only be implemented successfully as an after-class assignment but also offered students great opportunities to learn from each other and improve their writing. Implications and future research are discussed.

Abstract (Chinese) i
Abstract (English) iii
Acknowledgement v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
Acknowledgements v

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 2 Literature review 4
2.1 Collaborative writing 4
2.1.1Theoretical framework and pedagogical application 4
2.1.2 A proposed pedagogy 5
2.1.3 Empirical studies in L1contexts 6
2.1.4 Empirical studies conducted in L2 contexts 8
2.2 Web 2.0 technologies 12
2.3 CALL and Collaborative writing 13
2.4 Wiki-based collaborative writing 16
2.4.1 Wikis as a collaborative writing platform 16
2.4.2 Empirical studies with the use of wikis in L2 settings 17
2.4.3 An important dimension for future research 20
2. 5 Summary of chapter two 21

Chapter 3 Methodology 23
3.1 Participants and Setting 23
3.2 Research Design 24
3.2.1 Three-phase study and two writing cycles 24
3.2.2 The collaborative group (CG) and individual group (IG ) 24
3.3 Instruments 26
3.3.1 Two writing assignments 26
3.3.2 Computer mediated tools: MSN discussion logs and a wiki platform 26
3.3.3 Time logs 30
3.3.4 Three questionnaires 30
3.4 Procedures 31
3.5 Data Collection 34
3.6 Data Analysis 35
3.6.1 Product 35
3.6.2 Process 39
3.6.3 Students’ Perceptions 42

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 43
4.1 Fluency, accuracy, and complexity of writing products 43
4.1.1 Fluency 43
4.1.2 Accuracy 45
4.1.3 Complexity 46
4.1.4 Discussion 47
4.2 The nature of collaborative and individual composing processes 49
4.2.1 Time allotment 49
4.2.2 Negotiation during pre-writing and revision processes 51
4.2.3 The number of revisions and revision types 54
4.2.4 Discussion 55
4.3 Students’ perspectives 57
4.3.1 Self/peer evaluation questionnaire 57
4.3.2 Overall evaluation questionnaire 58
4.3.3 Discussion 61

Chapter 5 Conclusion 63
5.1 Summary of the findings 63
5.2 Pedagogical implications 64
5.3 Limitations of the study 65
5.4 Directions for future research 66

References 67
APPENDIX A Topics for the two writing cycles 71
APPENDIX B Time log 72
APPENDIX C Background questionnaire 73
APPENDIX D Self/peer evaluation questionnaire 74
APPENDIX E Overall evaluation questionnaire 76
APPENDIX F Wiki user guide 78
APPENDIX G Peer-review guidance sheets 82
APPENDIX H Guidelines for coding and assessing writing 84

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Retrieved December 5, 2008 from http://www.middlebury.edu/nr/rdonlyres/2c9efffc-00b4-46e9-9ce5-32d63a0fe9b5/0/unbound_02_02_web2.pdf
Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning & Technology, 10 , 42-66. Retrieved August, 20, 2009 from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol10 num1/arnoldducate/
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2009). Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from culture projects in German classes. In Lomicka, L. &Lord, G. (Eds.). The Next Generation: Social Networking and Online Collaboration in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 115-144). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.
Boulos, M.N.K., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(41). Retrieved August 31, 2009 from http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-6-41.pdf
Carr, T., Morrison, A., Cox, G. & Deacon, A. (2007). Weathering wikis: Net-based learning meets political science in South African university. Computers and Composition, 24, 266-284.
Ede, A. L., & Lunsford, A. A.(1990). Singular text/Plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Faigley, L.,& Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.
Gerben, C. (2009, Fall). Putting 2.0 and two together: What web 2.0 can teach
composition about collaborative learning. Computers and Composition Online. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://edutech.elte.hu/karpati/content/download/publikacio/RECALL%202009_4.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration.
Language Learning & Technology, 7, 12-16. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol7 num2/emerging/
Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting, and assessing writing online. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 7-13. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/emerging.pdf
Higgins, L., Flower, L., & Petraglia, J. (1992). Planning text together. The role of critical reflection in student in student collaboration. Written Communication, 9(1), 48-84.
Ho, M. C., & Savigon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290.
Honeycutt, B. L. (2000). Comparing E-mail and synchronous conferring in online peer response. Written Communication, 18 (1), 26-60.
Kárpáit, A. (2009). Web 2 technologies for net native language learners: a ‘social call. Journal of EUROCALL. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://edutech.elte.hu/karpati/content/download/publikacio/RECALL%202009_4.pdf
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language & Technology, 7, 12-16. Retrieved Oct 21, 2009 from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol13 num1/kessler.pdf
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: attention to meaning amond students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58.
Lamb, B. (2005) Wide open spaces: wikis, ready or not, Educause Review, 39(5), 36-48.
Liou, H. C. 2010 (Jan.). A case study of web-based peer review for college English writing. Curriculum and Instruction 《課程與教學季刊》, 13(1), 173-208
Liou, H. C., & Peng, C. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514-525.
Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 25, 432-448.
Lunsford, A. A., & Ede, A. L. (1994). Collaborative authorship and the teaching of
writing. In M. Woodmansee and P. Jaszi (Eds.), The Construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 417-38). Durham: Duke UP.
Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers & Education, 40, 377-391.
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36,437-455.
Mutch, A. (1998). Employability or learning? Group work in higher education. Education and Training, 40(2), 50-56.
Newman, J. and Newman, R. (1992). Three modes of collaborative authoring. In P.O. Holt and N. Williams (Eds.), Computers and writing: State of the art (pp. 20-28). Oxford: Intellect Books.
Notari, M. (2006). How to use a wiki in education: Wiki based effective constructive learning. Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis, Odense, Denmark: August 21-23, 131-132. Retrieved September 1, 2009 from
http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/proceedings/p131.pdf
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved July 31, 2008 from http://oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228
Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 81, 443-56
Pai, C. W., & Liou, H. C. (2009a). Comparing synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated peer review of EFL college students. In Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of National Tsing Hua University, (compiled), Proceedings of 26th Conference of English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C. (pp. 630-643). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Pai, C. W. & Liou, H. C. (2009b). Collaborative writing with blogs and wikis in EFL college context. In Dept. of Applied English, Ming Chuan University, (compiled) The Proceedings of 2009 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 368-377). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Polio. G.C (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101-143.
Posner, I. R., & Baecker, R. M. (1993). How people write together. In R.M. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work: Assisting human-human collaboration (pp. 239-250). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. T. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528-546.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363-374.
Storch, N. (2002). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305-322.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing,14, 153-173.
Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a
collaborative learning project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25,
43-55.
Tsinakos, A. A. (2006). Collaborative student modeling—a new perspective using
wiki. WSEAS TRANS. on Advance in Engineering Education, 6, 475-481.
Vie, S. (2008). Digital divide 2.0:”Generation M” and online social networking sites
in the composition classroom. Computers and Composition, 25, 9-23.
Vrettaros, J., & Argiri, K. (2008, July). Web 2.0 tools in education. Paper presented
at 12th WSEAS International Conference on COMMUNICATIONS, Herakllon,
Greece.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki:
Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 39, 987-995.
Wiggleworch, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.