SYNCHRONOUS SMALL-GROUP COLLABORATIVE WRITING VIA WEB- BASED WORD PROCESSING: WHAT FACILITATES OR CONSTRAINS LEARNERS TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS IN SUMMARY REPORTS? by Hye Yoon Cho A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of PhiLosophy Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/ University of Toronto © Copyright by Hye Yoon Cho 2018 Synchronous small-group collaborative writing via web-based word processing: What facilitates or constrains learners to achieve their goals in summary reports? Hye Yoon Cho Doctor of Philosophy Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto 2018 Abstract ColLaborative writing has become a common pedagogicaL activity in second language (L2) cLasses, informed by socioculturaL theory and supported by studies highlighting the importance of peer interaction in learners’ language deveLopment (e.g., Storch, 2002). With the emergence of Web 2.0, web-based writing applications such as wikis, blogs, and Google Docs have been implemented into L2 writing activities. The few previous studies that have investigated interaction patterns in peer writing have found variations in these patterns and suggested that colLaborative patterns might benefit students’ language learning (Storch, 2002). Informed by socioculturaL theory and motivated by the need to understand learners’ experiences in order to make online colLaborative writing more beneficiaL to their learning, this study examined factors that mediate smaLL-group interaction in synchronous web-based colLaborative writing using Google Docs and text/voice-chat in the context of a debate cLub. Adult ESL learners from a voluntary debate cLub met weekly to practice English communication skiLLs through debating. Four groups of three debate teams participated in this study (N=12). Data were colLected from muLtiple sources incLuding a survey questionnaire, debate summaries, screen recordings, and stimulated-recaLLs. The survey questionnaire eLicited the learners’ background information and individuaL goaLs for the writing tasks. Debate summaries, transcripts of screen recordings, and stimulated recaLL interviews were anaLyzed to investigate interaction patterns of the groups and mediating factors in their colLaborations. Interaction patterns of groups were ii identified by employing Storch’s (2002) dyadic interaction modeL, reveaLing four patterns: faciLitator/participants, colLaborative, leader/participants, and cooperative. Guided by activity theory (Engeström, 1999) mediating factors of group interaction were identified. The primary mediating factors influencing the quaLity of colLaboration incLuded participants’ goaLs and goaL-directed actions, matches/mismatches between seLf-perceived and other-perceived goaLs, task representations, and modes of communication. In addition, participants’ goaLs were found to be reciprocaLLy influenced by the group interactions. These findings heLp to explain why interaction patterns vary in colLaborative writing groups and provide insights into how web-based colLaborative writing activities can be designed and utiLized in L2 writing cLasses. iii Acknowledgements My thesis is an outcome derived from multiple triangLes of academic and sociaL activities that stimulated me academicaLLy and provided me with generous support and encouragement. I wish to thank everyone in my PhD journey for such interactions. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation supervisor, Dr. ALister Cumming, for his expertise, thoughtful guidance, and constant support for being aLways avaiLable for consultation through my thesis process. He aLso guided and encouraged me to grow as an independent researcher. Thank you, ALister, for enriching my thesis journey. My sincere appreciation aLso goes to Dr. Julie Kerekes, one of my committee members, for her invaLuable advice and support for the quaLitative anaLyses in my thesis. I am truly grateful to Dr. Clare Brett, the other member of my thesis committee, for her guidance and support. I was inspired to conduct CMC research by taking her online course. My heartfeLt appreciation aLso goes to my externaL examiner, Dr. Neomy Storch, for her thought-provoking questions and insightful suggestions on my dissertation. I aLso extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Jim SLotta and Dr. Jim Hewitt for their constructive comments and questions during my oraL examination. ALso, I would like to thank Dr. Lourdes Ortega, who trained me as a researcher to pursue my dream during my Master’s program. My sincere thanks aLso go to Dr. Sun-Woong Kim and Dr. Deok-Jae Park who provided generous support for me to pursue graduate studies abroad. This dissertation would not be possible without the kindness of my participants. I’m deeply indebted to my participants for their wiLLingness to share their time and insights with me. ALso, I would like to extend my profound gratitude to the English Debate Club Toronto and the co-organizer of the debate cLub, Garth Gayle, who was exceptionaLLy supportive of my study, despite his hectic life. iv I would aLso like to thank my friends and colLogues. I like to send a speciaL thank you to Yuko, Gina, ChoongiL, In ChulL, Heejin, Jinsuk, Reed, Jon, Jonathan, and David. Not only did you provide me with vaLuable comments and generous support for my study but aLso you kept me staying heaLthy, happy, and sane during my PhD journey. Last but not least, I’m extremeLy grateful to my parents, Seok-Kyu Cho and Young-Min Kim, who supported me and my study-abroad for over a decade with unconditionaL love. I love you so much! I would like to express my appreciation to my baby brother, Sung-Ho Cho, and sister-in-Law, Nam-Hee Kim, for being sweet, loveLy, and supportive siblings. FinaLLy, I would Like to thank my famiLy dog, Toto, for keeping my parents busy and happy during my absence. Thank you so much! I love you, aLL! 여러분 모두 사랑하고 감사합니다. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xi Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Theories and Research ............................................................ 6 2.1) Theoretical orientations: Sociocultural theory and activity theory .............................. 6 2.1.1) SocioculturaL views of learning in L2 ........................................................................... 6 2.1.2) Learners’ goaLs ............................................................................................................. 9 2.1.3) Activity theory ............................................................................................................ 10 2.2) Previous research on collaborative writing ................................................................... 14 2.2.1) ColLaborative writing in L1 ........................................................................................ 14 2.2.2) ColLaborative writing in L2 ........................................................................................ 15 2.2.3) Web-based L2 colLaborative writing .......................................................................... 18 2.4) Summary of literature review ........................................................................................ 27 Chapter 3: Methods .................................................................................................................... 29 3.1) Research site and participants ........................................................................................ 29 3.1.1) English Debate Club ................................................................................................... 29 3.1.2) The participants .......................................................................................................... 30 3.2) Writing tasks .................................................................................................................... 33 3.3) Google Docs and Skype as collaborative writing tools ................................................. 36 3.4) Data collection procedure ............................................................................................... 36 3.4.1) Participant recruitment and profiLes ........................................................................... 36 3.4.2) Training on online writing and screen recording tools ............................................... 37 3.4.3) Debate summary writing sessions .............................................................................. 39 3.4.4) Stimulated-recaLL interviews ....................................................................................... 40 3.4.5) Sources of data ...........................................................................................................