Cooperative Writing: Perspectives from Three Intervention Studies

Session Page

Session Information

This page shows the session details and the presentations assigned to this session.

Back to programme overview
Add this session to calendar

Cooperative Writing: Perspectives from Three Intervention Studies

Type
Symposium
Keywords
collaborative writing;education;intervention study;writing processes
Domain
Learning and Social Interaction

Abstract

Writing, as a cognitively demanding skill, can be improved through various intervention approaches (Graham, 2025). One of these is cooperative writing, in which peers carry out various cognitive processes together in social contexts. Cooperative writing can be conceptualized as an umbrella term describing a process in which peers work together and serve different roles in the three main processes of writing: planning, drafting, and revising (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Svenlin & Sørhaug, 2023). The contributions of the symposium focus on these three main processes from three current intervention studies in primary and secondary schools. They show how writing research contributes to the improvement and better understanding of school writing practices. Contribution 1 combines generative artificial intelligence with cooperative planning dialogues among 8th grade students. The students write arguments, with AI supporting content generation and the students being responsible for selection and organization. The dependent measures concern writing motivation.Contribution 2 focuses on the interactive negotiation processes involved in science learning within a writing-to-learn setting. It supports cooperative formulation of 5th grade students with scaffolds and shifts the focus of analysis and evaluation to both writing and learning aspects.Contribution 3 deals with the effectiveness of three different revision approaches that are compared against each other with secondary school students. The effects of the interventions are scrutinized with a new task that captures evaluation with special emphasis on higher order concerns. References Alamargot, D. & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the Models of Writing. Springer. Graham, S. (2025). What Do Meta‑Analyses Tell Us about the Teaching of Writing? In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (3. Aufl., S. 181–202). Guilford. Svenlin, M. & Sørhaug, J. O. (2023). Collaborative Writing in L1 School Contexts: A Scoping Review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(6), 980–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2115128

Collaborative Writing Processes in Science Education

Keywords
cognitive processes;intervention study;speaking and writing;writing processes
Domain
-

Abstract

The research project Collaborative Writing in Science Education (KoSNaWi) examines how collaborative writing can serve as an effective tool for promoting both linguistic and conceptual learning in science classrooms.Background: In current science curricula, competency descriptions such as “describing processes” or “explaining relationships” illustrate the interdependence of linguistic and scientific competencies. Transforming immediate observations into explicit, decontextualized, and (typically) written representations is a demanding task. To support this process, students in primary schools are frequently asked to write collaboratively and are provided with scaffolds for text structure and linguistic formulations. KoSNaWi investigates such scaffolded collaborative formulation processes. Located at the intersection of language education and science education research, the project draws on theories of scaffolding (Gibbons, 2015), conceptual change (Möller, 2015), and writing-to-learn frameworks (Graham, 2019). KoSNaWi addresses a research gap by shifting the analytical focus from written products to the process of collaborative writing. It investigates the oral interactions accompanying pair-writing activities during the formulation phase, asking what learning potential lies in the co-constructively developed formulations emerging in these dialogues.Methodologically, the study follows a qualitatively oriented mixed-methods design (Qualitative Content Analysis, Interactional Linguistics) within an experimental intervention comparing three conditions: (1) writing without support (control group), (2) writing with a fixed “writing plan”, and (3) writing with an adaptive, on-demand writing plan. The sample comprises 120 fifth-grade students from 10 classes. The writing dialogues are video-recorded, transcribed, and analysed by an interdisciplinary research team.Preliminary findings: KoSNaWi analyses process data. We reconstruct how scientific concepts are modified during collaborative formulation processes. The writing dialogues are co-shaped by the different scaffolding measures. We examine the epistemic potential of these dialogues as a function of the scaffolding conditions under which they occur. ReferencesGibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Heinemann.Graham, S. (2019). Writers in Community Model: 15 Recommendations for Future Research in Using Writing to Promote Science Learning. In V. Prain & B. Hand (Eds.). Theorizing the Future of Science Education Research (pp. 43–60). Springer. Möller, K. (2015). Genetisches Lernen und Conceptual Change. In J. Kahlert et al. (Hrsg.). Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts (S. 243–249). Klinkhardt.

Peer Feedback and Text Evaluation

Keywords
cognitive processes;collaborative writing;intervention study;writing instruction
Domain
-

Abstract

The process of text revision is understood by cognitively oriented approaches as a sequence of activities that include reading through, evaluating, and revising the text (MacArthur, 2012). Effective peer feedback approaches address all three activities and support learners in different ways. The following questions can be used to guide these three activities: a) Reading through: How do I understand a text written by someone else? What is its overall idea? b) Evaluating: Can the author achieve the intended effect with the text? Does the text correspond to the respective genre? What should they change? c) Revising: How could the author implement these changes?In our intervention study regarding writing argumentative texts in grade 7 (N = 363), three peer feedback approaches are examined in comparison to a control group:· LUPA: an adaptation of CDO (De La Paz, Swanson & Graham, 1998).· SMABUSCH: explicit instruction of a revision strategy combined with teaching an argumentative text structure (Sturm, 2022).· REDIT: an editorial group discusses several texts and is observed by the audience (Amir, Atkin & Rijlaarsdam, 2021).While LUPA and SMABUSCH were implemented in pairs, REDIT was implemented in groups of up to eight students.Among other instruments, we used a task for evaluating a foreign text (analogous to López et al., 2021, but with authentic student texts), an argumentative writing task, and a reading comprehension test (Schneider, Schlagmüller & Ennemoser, 2017). Initial results of the evaluation task at t0 show that 33% of students failed to identify any higher order concerns (HOC), while another 29% identified only one out of six HOC passages. Students experienced even greater difficulty identifying underlying problems or proposing solutions.We will present first results on how evaluation skills develop across five measurement points, whether differences emerge depending on the peer feedback procedure, and the role of reading skills.

We, Myself and AI: On the Benefits of Combining AI and Cooperative Planning for Writing Motivation

Keywords
collaborative writing;Generative AI;writing beliefs;writing instruction
Domain
-

Abstract

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (genAI) is currently disrupting writing practices in schools and raises the question of how writing can be used meaningfully in the classroom. Against this background, we designed an intervention with adolescents that uses ChatGPT to generate arguments, which are then further developed during collaborative planning discussions. Many of the intervention features directly address motivational mechanisms from self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1997) but require empirical testing and generally remain in need of further research in the field of writing.Methodological design: We expect to see increases in autonomous writing motivation (H1) and declines in controlled writing motivation (H2). We will measure these changes using validated scales (Smedt et al., 2022). We also hypothesize improvements in self-efficacy in planning arguments (H3; scale by Smedt et al., 2022) and in self-regulated argumentative writing (H4, scale by Wang et al., in press). We will test the hypotheses using repeated-measurement variance analysis in a pre-post design with three randomly assigned groups of 389 eighth-grade students stemming from 23 intact classes: a genAI group, an alternative treatment, and a pure control groupExpected results: At the time of submission, the intervention study is still ongoing. We will present preliminary results at the conference and provide a more detailed introduction to the intervention. From an instructional design perspective, the project with its focus on the motivation and use of genAI for planning represents important work in writing research for the further development of writing practice.ReferencesBandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford. Smedt, F. de, Landrieu, Y., Wever, B. de & van Keer, H. (2022). Do Cognitive Processes and Motives for Argumentative Writing Converge in Writer Profiles? Journal of Educational Research, 115(4), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2022.2122020 Wang, J., Graham, S., Kim, Y.‑S. G. & Steiss, J. (in press). Zooming into Two Measurement Issues in Writing Self-Efficacy: Revision as a Distinct Dimension and the Generality Hypothesis in Argumentative Writing. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-025-10679-z