Microgenetic analysis of written languaging attributes on form-focused and content-focused e-collaborative writing tasks in Google Docs

Abstract

Written languaging (WL) as a facilitator of second/foreign language (L2) learning has been investigated by several researchers. Yet, the dynamic nature of WL episodes has remained under-researched. This study aimed to examine whether the focus of e-collaborative writing and the mediation modalities in Google Docs would have differential impacts on the attributes of WL episodes. To do so, 68 Iranian English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) university students were selected, paired, and randomly assigned to two advanced-level groups. By producing WL episodes, pair languagers collaborated on either a form-focused (translation) or a content-focused (data commentary) procedural writing task. Both groups received asynchronous teacher-led mediation and Google Docs automated mediation on their task performance. The WL episodes were analyzed for their quantity, focus (on grammar, lexis, and discourse markers), and resolution. Statistical results indicated that (1) the form-focused writing task could generate more WL episodes than the content-focused writing task, (2) pair languagers focused on grammar more than lexis and discourse markers on both tasks, (3) the teacher-led mediation and Google Docs automated mediation could generate a similar number of WL episodes, and (4) Google Docs automated mediation caused more successful resolution of WL episodes than teacher-led mediation. Pedagogical implications of the study recommend that L2 teachers blend task-based writing, student collaboration, and mediation modalities in e-learning contexts. The re-evaluation of Google Docs for the restricted focus of its automated mediation on lower-level linguistic features of grammar and lexis can also direct future advanced educational technology research.

An Output-oriented Approach to the Impact of Online Written Languaging on Form-Focused Writing Tasks

“…By adopting Nord's functional approach, SLA researchers responded to the L2 practitioners' growing interest in translation tasks while recommending the translation of "carefully selected, authentic texts with a clear context and purpose" (Károly, 2014, p. 90). As a result, the dynamic code-switching strategies in translation tasks can have the potential to draw the L2 learners' focus on form, make a decision, foster self and collective scaffolding, and externalize their metatalk through languaging (Kazemi et al, 2022;Keshanchi et al, 2022;Rodrick Beiler & Dewilde, 2020).…”

“…In the research literature on languaging, Kazemi et al (2022) are among the few who focused on computer-mediated languaging in L2 writing tasks. To compare the impacts of collaborative writing and mediation modalities in determining the WL attributes in Google Docs, the researchers selected 68 EFL learners.…”

“…Therefore, it simultaneously provoked a large amount of WL episodes in the two +WL groups who could visualize their WL episodes as well. As a result, Google Docs could benefit the +WL groups with more opportunities to notice their linguistic errors, self-repair, and deliberate (Falhasiri, 2021;Kazemi et al, 2022;Yamashita, 2021).…”

“…Despite the growing interest of second language acquisition (SLA) researchers in the constructive role of languaging in L2 learning, they have more focused on the attributes of oral languaging (Ammar & Hassan, 2018;Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020;Heidari et al, 2019;Lavasani et al, 2021) with less interest in languaging in written modality (Yilmaz, 2016). Moreover, SLA researchers narrowed their scope to study the languaging production on content-focused writing tasks such as picture description or data commentary (Kazemi et al, 2022;Falhasiri, 2021;Pourdana & Asghari, 2021), with minimal attention to form-focused writing tasks such as translation (Keshanchi et al, 2022). Similarly, adopting an output-oriented approach to WL on production-based tasks or comprehension-based tasks has been the subject of scrutiny in only a few studies (Pourdana et al, 2012;Storch, 2013;Suzuki & Itagaki, 2009;Zhang, 2021), with scant attempts to cross-examine the impact of WL on writing tasks performance with production-based and comprehension-based output orientation.…”