PEN-AND-PAPER VERSUS IN-PERSON COMPUTER-SUPPORTED L2 COLLABORATIVE WRITING: A MULTIMODAL (INTER)ACTION ANALYSIS

Abstract

Second language (L2) collaborative writing is a well-established research area. However, investigations of L2 collaborative writing beyond the written text are limited, particularly the multimodal aspects and the utilisation of novel digital tools and modes in the writing process (Elola & Oskoz, 2017; Li & Zhang, 2021; Strobl & Satar, 2017). The present study examines learners’ multimodal (inter)action in L2 collaborative writing and compares pen-and-paper collaborative writing (PPCW) and in-person computer-supported collaborative writing (iCSCW). By applying Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis (Norris, 2004, 2019, 2020) as the underlying framework, the present research delineates and compares the higher-level mediated actions (HLMAs) that learners in four triadic groups attended to throughout the writing process. It also examines the multimodal construction of the HLMAs of disagreeing and correcting at the micro-level, illustrating the lower-level mediated actions (LLMAs) and the utilisation of available mediational means. Analysis of the HLMAs that learners attended to in the writing process revealed that while there were some similarities between the two settings, there were also numerous contrasting points. The observed HLMAs were categorized under the main stages of the writing process, demonstrating that the iCSCW setting facilitated fluid transitions between different writing stages and enabled high levels of equality and mutuality amongst group members. It also showed that the roles of the typist/editor/reviewer were dynamically altered in the iCSCW, which, consequently, enabled a recursive writing style. In contrast, learners in the PPCW setting predominantly followed a linear route of planning, drafting and revising. The micro-level analysis of the HLMAs of disagreeing and correcting demonstrated that the learners exhibited varying hierarchical modal configurations across the two settings. Furthermore, the findings also revealed how the learners’ utilisation of the mediational means available in the iCSCW setting enabled negotiations, which, in turn, led to mutually agreeable disagreement resolutions. Additionally, the findings demonstrated that learners put extra effort into accomplishing the HLMA of correcting in the PPCW setting, producing a range of LLMAs compared to how smooth and effortless it was in the iCSCW setting. Moreover, it showed that the iCSCW setting could afford other-initiated other-corrections to emerge due to high levels of equality and mutuality. This study adds to our existing understanding of learners’ multimodal (inter)action during L2 collaborative writing and the impact of mediational means on the multimodal construction of disagreements and corrections. It also offers theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications.