两个声音比一个好吗?配对和独立二语写作中文本质量和权威声音的比较

IF 1.9 1区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Written Communication Pub Date : 2020-07-13 DOI:10.1177/0741088320939542
R. Zabihi, M. Bayan
{"title":"两个声音比一个好吗?配对和独立二语写作中文本质量和权威声音的比较","authors":"R. Zabihi, M. Bayan","doi":"10.1177/0741088320939542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":47351,"journal":{"name":"Written Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0741088320939542","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Two Voices Better Than One? Comparing Aspects of Text Quality and Authorial Voice in Paired and Independent L2 Writing\",\"authors\":\"R. Zabihi, M. Bayan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0741088320939542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Written Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0741088320939542\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Written Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320939542\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Written Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320939542","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

研究表明,与单独编写的文本相比,合作编写的文本质量更好。然而,没有研究考虑合作在作者声音中的作用,这是当前写作课程的基本要素。本研究分析了协作任务表现对二语学习者议论文质量和作者语声强度的影响。本研究共选取306名中高水平L2学习者,分为独立组(N = 130)和成对组(N = 176)。每个学习者/对被要求写一篇议论文。文章的质量由定量分析决定,包括复杂性、准确性和流畅性(CAF)三个指标。参与者的写作声音强度由两名评分员使用分析语音规则进行评估。方法比较显示,在所有CAF措施中,成对的表现优于独立作者。然而,合作在作者声音中的作用的结果是喜忧参半的:虽然情侣比独立作家更成功地表达了他们的思想声音,但独立作家在情感和存在的声音维度以及整体声音得分方面表现优于情侣。文章的结论是,尽管合作写作对第二语言写作有积极的影响,但它可能对学习者的作者立场提出挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are Two Voices Better Than One? Comparing Aspects of Text Quality and Authorial Voice in Paired and Independent L2 Writing
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Written Communication
Written Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.80%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Written Communication is an international multidisciplinary journal that publishes theory and research in writing from fields including anthropology, English, education, history, journalism, linguistics, psychology, and rhetoric. Among topics of interest are the nature of writing ability; the assessment of writing; the impact of technology on writing (and the impact of writing on technology); the social and political consequences of writing and writing instruction; nonacademic writing; literacy (including workplace and emergent literacy and the effects of classroom processes on literacy development); the social construction of knowledge; the nature of writing in disciplinary and professional domains.
期刊最新文献
What Is a Workplace? Principles for Bounding Case Studies of Genres, Processes, Objects, and Organizations Writing Storybooks as Storytelling: A Case Study of Two Families with Refugee Backgrounds Writing Quality Predictive Modeling: Integrating Register-Related Factors Charting RAD Research as an Orientation to Creativity in Writing Studies The Topoi of Small Business Entrepreneurship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1