Abstract
The present study tests the effect of ability pairing in two instructional methods in L2 collaborative revision. Two continuous indices determine a pair: individual proficiency level, distance in proficiency between pair members (heterogeneity), and the interaction between both indices. Instructional methods tested are modelling and practising. Results show that the effect of pair composition depends on instructional strategies. In the Practising condition less proficient learners profit most from a heterogeneous ability pair, whereas more proficient learners are best paired homogeneously. In the Modelling condition no effect of pair composition factors was observed. This result illustrates that Modelling is a powerful instructional method for complex learning tasks like collaborative revision in L2 as it overrides some of the grouping effects which can be found in more traditional learning conditions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allal, L., & Chanquoy, L. (2004). Introduction: Revision revisited. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 1–7). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1.
Bartlett, E. J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of of written discourse (pp. 345–363). New York: Academic Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modification of the Hayes and Flower model to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice. Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing (Vol. 2, pp. 57–82). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Braaksma, M. (2002). Observational learning in argumentative writing (Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model–observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405–415. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.
Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & Hout Wolters, B. A. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of the writing process. Cognition & Instruction, 22, 1–36. doi:10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_1.
Chanquoy, L. (2008). Revision processes. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 80–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing. Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84. doi:10.1037/a0021950.
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Cambridge University Press.
Couzijn, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9, 109–142. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00040-1.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write: Can novices be masters? Cognition and Instruction, 10(4), 281–333.
Daneman, M., & Stainton, M. (1993). The generation effect in reading and proofreading. Reading and writing, 5(3), 297–313. doi:10.1007/BF01027393.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00052.
De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analysing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 37(5), 481–506.
Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Knowledge in writing. Illustration from revision studies. New York: Springer.
Francis, M., & McCutchen, D. (1994, April 4–8). Strategy differences in revising between skilled and less-skilled writers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 227–267. doi:10.3102/00028312035002227.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Association, 34, 174–206. doi:10.3102/00028312034001174.
Galbraith, D. (1992). Conditions for discovery through writing. Instructional Science, 21, 45–73. doi:10.1007/BF00119655.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 612–634. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.008.
Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revision across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 245–266.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Research on the rating process. Rating nonnative writing: the trouble with holistic scoring. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 759–762. doi:10.2307/3588173.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 9–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics. Reading, writing, and language processing (Vol. 2, pp. 176–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky’s theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 39–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holliway, D. R., & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers’ composing and revising. Reading as the reader. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 87–101). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(4), 413–424.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27–40. doi:10.1007/BF02296436.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379–390. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.004.
Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in the development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 811–817. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.811Development.
Leonard, J. (2001). How group composition influenced the achievement of sixth-grade mathematics students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 175–200. doi:10.1080/10986065.2001.9679972.
Lindgren, E., Spelman Miller, K., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2008). Development of fluency and revision in L1 and L2 writing in Swedish high school years eight and nine. ITL—International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 133–151. doi:10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034428.
Lloyd-Jones, R. (1977). Primary-trait scoring. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 33–68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(4), 201–210.
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes. Implications for theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003.
Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.
Murray, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure (pp. 85–103). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
New, E. (1999). Computer-aided writing in French as a foreign language: A qualitative and quantitative look at the process of revision. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 80–97. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00007.
Oxford University Press. (2001). Oxford computer-based Quick Placement Test (QPT). Oxford, UK: Author.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.
Patchan, M. M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41(2), 381–405. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9236-3.
Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Plumb, C., Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Error correction in text. Testing the processing deficit and knowledge deficit hypotheses. Reading and Writing, An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(4), 347–360. doi:10.1007/BF01028848.
Quené, H., & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multilevel modeling of data from repeated measures: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43, 103–121. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2004.02.004.
Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W. J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2009). MLwiN (Version 2.10). [Computer software]. Bristol, UK: Centre for Multilevel Modelling.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Kieft, M., Broekkamp, H., et al. (2005). Psychology and the teaching of writing in 60 minutes. In P. Tomlinson, J. Dockrell, & P. Winne (Eds.), BJEP Monograph Series II, No. 3: Pedagogy—Teaching for Learning (pp. 127–153). Leicester: The British Psychological Society. doi:10.1348/000709905X62156.
Rijlaarsdam, G., & Couzijn, M. (2000). Writing and learning-to-write. A double challenge. In R. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 157–190). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). The study of revision as a writing process and as a learning-to-write process. Two prospective research agendas. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 189–207). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.43.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Schoonen, R. (2012). The validity and generalizability of writing scores: The effect of rater, task and language. In E. Van Steendam, M. Tillema, G. Rijlaarsdam, & H. Van den Bergh (Eds.), Measuring Writing: Recent insights into Theory, Methodology and Practices (Vol. 27, pp. 1–22). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281–303). New York: Plenum Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–677. doi:10.2307/3587400.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–387.
Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & De Glopper, K. (2006). Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 201–233. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.06.002.
Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76–103.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pairwork activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(31), 31–48. doi:10.1177/1362168812457530.
Sutherland, J. A., & Topping, K. J. (1999). Collaborative creative writing in eight-year olds: Comparing cross-ability, fixed and same-ability reciprocal role pairing. Journal of Research in Reading, 22(2), 154–179. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00080.
Thorson, H. (2000). Using the computer to compare foreign and native language writing processes: A statistical and case study approach. Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 155–170.
Tobias, S. (2010a). The expertise reversal effect and aptitude treatment interaction research (Commentary). Instructional Science, 38, 309–314. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9103-z.
Tobias, S. (2010b). Aptitudes and instructional methods. In K. L. Rasmussen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 38–40). New York: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412961288.
Topping, K., Nixon, J., Sutherland, J., & Yarrow, F. (2000). Paired writing: A framework for effective collaboration. Reading (UKRA), 34(2), 79–89. doi:10.1111/1467-9345.00139.
Van den Bergh, H. (1990). On the construct validity of multiple choice items for reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(1), 1–12. doi:10.1177/014662169001400101.
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316–327. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51–75. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.491.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(1), 54–66.
Wallace, D. L., Hayes, J., Hatch, J., Miller, W., Moser, G., & Silk, C. (1996). Better revision in eight minutes? Prompting first-year college writers to revise globally. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 682–688.
Webb, N. M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educational Psychologist, 15, 69–83. doi:10.1080/00461528009529217.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642–655. doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607–651. doi:10.3102/00028312035004607.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 943–989. doi:10.3102/00028312039004943.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.
Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381–418. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00447.x.
Wiedmann, M., Leach, R. C., Rummer, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science, 40, 711–730. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y.
Winters, F. I., & Alexander, P. A. (2011). Peer collaboration: The relation of regulatory behaviors to learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 39, 407–427. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9134-5.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282. doi:10.1348/000709901158514.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165–187. doi:10.2307/3586647.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660–668. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G.C.W., Van den Bergh, H.H. et al. The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing. Instr Sci 42, 905–927 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5