VASS Friendship and Collaborative Creative

8/12/2019 VASS Friendship and Collaborative Creative

1/9

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning(2002)18, 102-110

102 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd

Friendship and collaborative creativewriting in the primary classroom

E.Vass

Psychology Department, The Open University

Abstract A case study is reported investigating the nature of paired talk

and the role of friendship in collaborative creative writing activities. This

forms the initial phase of a larger research project driven by socio-cultural

theory, studying the beneficial effects of friendship pairing and the role of

the computer tool in the development of creative writing skills. The joint

poem writing episodes of four 8-year-old girls, one friendship and one

acquaintance pair, were observed on a number of occasions during a two-

week long literacy project. The observations were of ongoing classroom

activities in the IT suite and in the literacy classroom of their school; the

observed children worked alongside the rest of the class in their natural

context. It was predicted that there would be differences between the two

pairs in terms of the process and the outcome of their collaborations which

could be explained by the differences in their respective relationships. To

investigate such differences (if any), a functional model of discourse

analysis was used, developed specifically for the context of collaborative

creative writing. It is claimed that the proposed model is useful to describe

discourse patterns characteristic of paired writing and to identifyproductive discourse styles in this specific setting. It helps to understand

how the collaborating writers engage in talk to cope with the demands of

the task, and how they use discourse to support different phases of the

joint writing process.

Keywords:Case study; Collaboration; Communication; Computer;

Creativity; Friendship; Literacy; Primary, Socio-cultural theory

Introduction

Socio-cultural theory which draws heavily upon the works of Vygotsky (1962)

views human learning and development as fundamentally social processes, embed-

ded in the immediate and wider context and mediated by cultural tools and artefacts.Research with such theoretical orientation is concerned with studying and under-

standing the mediational role of social interaction and cultural resources in learning.

Although contemporary neo-Vygotskian theory places growing emphasis on peer

interaction among children, the dynamics and cognitive outcomes of different peer

relationships, such as friendship, are rarely investigated (Azmitia, 1996; Hartup,

1996). Yet, pairing children with a friend is clearly beneficial when they are working

Accepted: 6 November 2001

Correspondence: Eva Vass, Psychology Department, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes,MK7 6AA Email: [email protected]


2/9

Creative writing in the primary classroom 103

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 102-110

on challenging problem solving tasks (Azmitia & Montgomery, 1993) or engaged in

activities relying on metacognitive processes, such as creative writing (Hartup, 1996;Jones & Pellegrini, 1996). The question is, which features of friends collaborative

dialogues contribute to their greater efficiency, when benefits are reported over

nonfriendship pairings. In order to find an answer to this question one first needs to

look at how the nature of the task (for example problem solving or creative design)

impacts on the nature of the collaborative activity and shapes paired discourse.

It has been suggested that creative writing differs from scientific problem solving

in the sense that it is an unstructured activity with no fixed goals or clearly specified

and ordered stages (Sharples, 1999). It involves both content generation

(engagement) and reflection (reviewing, contemplation and planning), and relies on

affect-linked thinking: the deliberate re-creation of emotional experience in the

mind (Sharples, 1996 p. 134). If so, collaborative writing activities may require or

allow for discourse patterns different from paired problem solving, and a newtypology is needed to map features of paired talk to cognitive and emotional

processes associated with the composition of written texts.

This paper presents the findings of a case study, which forms the initial phase of

a longitudinal research project on childrens collaborative creative writing. Drawing

on contemporary neo-Vygotskian theory, the research seeks to identify features of

friendship discourse which mediate joint work in this particular context and examine

how the computer tool can support collaborative writing activities.

Method

Participants

The study followed a two-week long creative-writing project in a Year 3 class

(children aged between 8 and 9) of a Milton Keynes middle school, located in thecentral England. Due to practical limitations, the researcher focused on the

collaborative writing episodes of two pairs only, selected by their form teachers. The

four children were of the same gender (girls) and of matching (mainstream) ability.

The friendship pair (FP) were close friends both in and outside school, and the

acquaintance pair (AP) were not regarded and did not regard themselves as

friends, yet they had a positive attitude to working together.

Procedure

The study comprised of naturalistic observations of poem-writing activities (acrostics

and limericks) of the four children, whose collaborative work was observed and

recorded by using video and audio equipment in the literacy classroom (two

occasions each) and in the IT suite (one occasion each) of the school. Since the

researcher studied ongoing classroom activities with no intervention, the length and

content of the recordings varied according to the teachers lesson plan. The observed

children were working together alongside the rest of the class and were not asked to

do anything differently.

Acrostics are poems in which the first letter of each line forms a meaningful word, usually the title orthe theme of the poem. Limericks are humorous poems with a strict syllabic and rhythmic pattern. Thereare five lines, the first two rhyme with the fifth one and have three feet each, whereas the third and fourthform an independent rhyming couplet, 2 feet each.


3/9

104 E. Vass


Discourse analysis

The recordings were transcribed and the conversational turns were counted in eachtranscript. Each time a child spoke without interruption was regarded as a turn,

ranging from one word to several statements. However, a pause longer than 3 s or a

change in the subject was taken as the marker of a new conversational turn,

regardless of no interruptions. The transcripts were analysed in terms of discourse

functions linked to underlying processes of content generation and reflection, as

illustrated in Table 1.

Turns were coded into five categories, or otherwise were left uncoded. Four out of

the five functions were content-oriented:

Content generation (CG) [Child A: S-A, S-A-I. I, what do we do for I? Ice-

creams melting] (Note that the study did not distinguish instances of affect-

linked thinking from other sequences of content generation.);

Planning(CP) [Child A: We do sailing Child B: Yeah, we do sailing];

Editing(CE) [Child A: Remember, you are not supposed to end with -ork, you

are supposed to end with another sound Child B: I said the pork was so FAT, F-

A-T!];

Transcribing(CT) [Child A:What does it say? I dont understand your writing]. Process-oriented(P) was used to label discussion about the step-by-step

procedure, management issues, role division, sharing, strategies for collaboration,

or the use of technical equipment (Child A: [looking at their printed draft] Lets

use this to help us).

However, the model was not intended to focus on individual turns. Rather, the focus

of analysis was extended to longer sequences, in which utterances were coded as

centring around one or the other function. On the basis of the categories, friendship

and acquaintance episodes associated with different functions were identified and

compared in a qualitative fashion. (Note however, that content-generation and

reflection are not completely separate but intertwining processes: the coauthors may

alternate them cyclically, or in the extreme, may appear to be engaged in the two

processes simultaneously, which makes coding difficult.) The ultimate aim was toanalyse how children engaged in talk to cope with the demands of the task, and how

talk is used to mediate different phases of the joint writing process.

Findings

Table 2 does not reveal major differences between the two pairs in terms of the

proportion of different discourse functions. High ratios of editing (40 and 31% of the

friendship and acquaintance discourse, respectively) and transcribing (24% for FP

and 33% for AP) imply that the reflective phases took up a large proportion of the

childrens joint efforts. On the other hand, talk was used less frequently for the

Table 1 Processes central to writing and associated discourse functions

Processes central to writing Associated discourse functions

Content generation Collective thinking: free pooling, joint brainstorming, moulding:the extension and refinement of ideasAffect-linked thinking: musing, acting out, humour

Reflection PlanningEditingTranscribing, spelling


4/9



generation (13% for FP and 9% for AP) and planning of content (6 and 3% for FP

and AP, respectively), or to discuss process-related issues (10 and 16% for FP and

AP). These numbers indicate that the childrens difficulties with the task of poem-

writing (constraints of syllabic and rhythmic pattern) and their inexperience in

spelling resulted in an increased emphasis on these areas, allowing less time and

effort spent on others. Note however, that the friendship pair paid twice as much

attention to editing as to problems of transcription (40 and 24 per cent, respectively),

whereas the two acquaintances dedicated an equal amount to both (31 and 33%).

Yet, such differences in emphasis are most probably due to differences among

individual children (such as varying levels of confidence in spelling), rather than to

the nature of the relationship between the partners. There was also a slight difference

in the amount of process-oriented language (10% for FP and 16% for AP,

respectively). This may be due to the fact that, at least initially, the acquaintance pair

engaged in frequent discussions about role management, which may explain the

higher proportion of talk dedicated to process-related issues.

Although the analysis of individual turns does not uncover much about the

dynamics of social interaction, the study of longer sequences of the discourse

highlights important distinctions in terms of the particular styles the children adopted

to support different functions. The following discussion concentrates on differences

in content generation, editing and process-related discourse.

Individualistic style

Episodes of content generation by the acquaintanceship pair were highly

individualistic, with the exception of one possible episode at the end of the writing

project. The children developed ideas individually, challenged or accepted each

others ideas, but did not use them as raw material for joint association. The lack of

collectivity is highlighted by the sequence below (Sequence 1).

Collective thinking

In contrast, the friendship pair had a different strategy for content-generation, often

engaging in talk which reflected collective thinking, as shown in Sequence 2.

(Although their content generation was not solely collective, this style was

predominant in their joint brainstorming episodes.)

The two lines the friends come up with in Sequence 2 (Sharks swimming swish-

swash and Sharks eating scales of fish) cannot be attributed to either child. Indeed,

most of the utterances themselves are better seen as working on collective ideas

rather than on ideas of individuals. This sort of organic talk, in which each idea

seems to enter into a collective pool, open to extension or elaboration for both

Table 2. Discourse functions

Occurrence of turns CP CE CG CT P Other Total

with function*

Friendship pair 27 187 60 112 49 36 471Acquaintance pair 22 265 72 280 137 73 849

*sum of occurrence in 3 episodes

Sequence 1.

G Now, think. We have got some Yorkshire pork,M (interrupting/overlapping) I thought.G (continues without a pause, overlapping) then he got a fork and started toM Now, look, thats what I am gonna put! (takes the draft paper and is about to write)G No, wait a minute, tell me first, tell me first, because I might agree, I might agree.


5/9

106 E. Vass


children, was a distinctive discourse feature of the friendship pair. A further example

is given in Sequence 3 below.

The above sequences (2 and 3) consist of short utterances which either build on ideas

uncritically, without challenging or evaluating them using repetitions and reform-

ulations with slight changes or reject them without any reasons offered. Such

cumulative or disputational features are not typically associated with productive

discourse (e.g. Mercer, 1995). Yet, the above sequences highlight how cumulative

discourse can be used to glue individual ideas together and thus mould the material.In episodes of such lively brainstorming explicit argumentation is superfluous, it

would probably hinder the processes of joint pooling and free association.

Another important distinction related to content generation is the use of musing

and acting out reflecting affect-linked thinking to enhance the process. As

Sequences 2 and 3 reveal, musing and acting out was a strategy favoured by the

friends, whereas no such features were found in the acquaintance discourse. The

friends emotional engagement with their work is also obvious from the following

extract (Sequence 4).

Editing

The acquaintance pairs individualistic style was not restricted to content generation.

The following extract is an example of individualistic or parallel editing, often

occurring in the AP discourse.

In Sequence 5 both children are trying to reshape the drafted line, but seem to be

working simultaneously, until one of them decides to pay attention to the other. In

Sequence 2.

C: Right. We do sailing. There. What can we do for S?I: Sharks, swimmingC & I: Swish-swashI: Swish-swash.C: No (singing voice, followed by gestures): SHarks, SWimming, SWish-SWash!I: Swish-swash!C: Sea,I: Shall wexxxx (inaudible) this one!C: Right.I: Sharkseating.I KNOW! SharksC& I: EatingC: Scales of FISHYeah.

Sequence 3.

I Ocean octopus.C Octopus (giggling).I CrunchingC Octopus (now facing the other, heads close, almost touching, funny intonation)

Octopusxxx (inaudible) eyes looking everywhere.I (looking at the other) No, beady eyes.C OK.

Sequence 4.

C Its here(printed sheet with previous poem). Youd better copy it. I think if youcopy that line, thats xxx (inaudible), I really like that, I like them two lines best.

Especially Natures best under the sea, I like that. Under the sea, under the sea(mocking/teasing intonation, giggling).I I copy that down.C Under the sea, under the sea (giggling, talking straight into the microphone with a

funny voice)


6/9



contrast, such parallel editing was highly infrequent in the friendship discourse.

Furthermore, the use of recital as an editing strategy is a key featuredistinguishing the two pairs. The friends used this strategy during each observed

poem-writing episode, just as they were about to finish their work. Reciting seemed

to be a natural, familiar finishing point for both of them (see Sequence 6 below). The

acquaintances, in contrast, only recited their poems when prompted.

Process oriented talk

Finally, process-oriented episodes are also interesting to compare. The friendship

pair was exclusively concerned about the technical details of the task and the step-

by-step procedure to follow during the activities (see Sequence 7 for an example of

discussion relating to technical issues). The friendship discourse contained no

discussion about collaborative strategies or problems with sharing at all.

In contrast, the acquaintance pair mostly talked about how to share the work,

devising collaborative strategies and constantly renegotiating the roles. This resulted

in frequent disputes regarding every possible aspect of the activity, as it is shown in

Sequence 8.

Explicit reasoning

In contrast to phases of content generation, both pairs made frequent use of explicit

Sequence 5.[The children are editing the lines There was a boy from York, who sat on some pork

from York, and changing the second York in order to avoid repetition.]

M Some pork from Cork.G Who sat on some pork from York -Shire!M No, I thought we could do this: Corks from York!G What did you say?M Corks from York

Sequence 6.

I Shall I do the next line?C Shall we read it through?I Yeah.C Sharks eating sca.you do it with me!C & I Sharks eating scales of fish(they are reading the poem together)

Sequence 7.

C What do we need nowI Clicker.C Microsoft Word.I I thought it was Clicker.

Sequence 8.

G Where(looking for the draft sheet) Here it is. (Tapping on the microphone) Illwrite it down.

M No, I wanna write.G Oh, but I want to write it down.M And so can I. Whats my idea, Im gonna write it down.G Yeah, but you go down in slopes.M Yeah, but its because I cant read, I cant do it that way (the draft paper is in

front of G) Come on, let me see i t too.G Let me write. There was a young (M is still holding the pen) Yeah, but you

should do it sideways. (M agrees and G gives her the draft sheet.)


7/9

108 E. Vass


reasoning by offering justifications and reasons for challenges or extensions of

ideas in reflective and process-oriented phases. Sequence 8 contains explicitargumentation regarding role division, whereas in the next sequence (Sequence 9)

the friends rely on explicitness in order to sort out problems with the syllabic pattern

of their poem (limericks).

Such variance in the adopted styles in different phases hint at the complexity of the

writing process, building on a very rich repertoire of discursive tools. These findings

highlight the need to characterise patterns of paired writing discourse differently

from those in collaborative problem solving contexts. The advantage of the

functional approach outlined above is its ability to describe text composition in its

full complexity, and to show how particular discourse styles support some phases butnot others.

In sum, the identification of discourse functions linked to the underlying

processes of writing, and the study of how these discourse functions are reflected by

paired talk, helped to make interesting distinctions between the two pairs. These can

be summed up as the display of different levels of collectivity, indicative of the

differences in the shared histories and collaborative experiences of friends and

acquaintances. The friendship pairs discourse was described as reflecting more

collective thinking (a key feature differentiating between the pairs), which was

regarded as an advanced form of mutual engagement and the possible key to

productive collaboration in the context of creative writing. Note however, that the

analysis of the product (the compositions) was beyond the scope of the present study.

Future research needs to link such demonstrations of collective thinking with

productivity indicated by the quality of the resulting compositions.

Discussion

The study investigated processes of joint poem writing through the analysis of paired

discussion. It evaluated joint activities in this specific context, linking paired talk to

discourse functions associated with processes of writing, and looking at what

language forms/discourse patterns are used for these functions. Such model is useful

to investigate how collaborative discourse supports the creative planning,

composition and editing of texts.

Sequence 9.

C There was a young girl from York. So we have to xxx I wonder, I want to know ifall thats one beat.

I (counting) There was a young girl fromYeah.C (Interrupting) Young-e, young-e, young-e, young-eI Young.C Young-e, young-e young-e (almost singing)I There was a young girlC No,I (interrupting) There was a young girl

C (interrupting) There was a young-eI (interrupting) No, she said young upon there.C girl.I Simultaneously. She said upon there.C from York I Yeah but she said up there. Like it used to be young up there, and then we said

no because thats got one beatC Oh, yeah, beat. So we do one beat.I Yeah.


8/9



It was argued that creative writing is not simply a complex problem solving

activity. It requires the use of language to reflect upon, explore and express onesown experiences in a unique, imaginative but meaningful way. In this sense,

productive talk can be defined as the sharing and the joint exploration and

expression of such experiences, and communication in which children put ideas

together which would otherwise not have occurred to the person working alone

(Miell & McDonald, 2000 p. 350). The function-based analysis revealed important

differences in the discourse of the two pairs for example in discourse patterns

linked to the functions of paired content generation and editing, which are rooted in

the different levels of collectivity achieved between the two partners. This, in turn,

was explained by the differences in the shared histories and collaborative experience

of the two pairs. Finally, it was suggested that differences between individualised

and collective thinking influenced by the nature of the relationship between

partners may impact upon the productivity of collaboration in the context ofpaired creative writing.

To summarise, Table 3 presents the discourse functions and forms that were

found central to the processes of joint creative writing in the study (features present

in the friendship discourse but often absent from the acquaintance talk).

The study has the limitation of focusing on one gender group only, and offering no

links between processes and outcomes. Subsequent studies are intended to test how

gender-specific or generalisable the insights drawn from the study are, and to find

evidence for the links between the discourse styles identified by this study as

beneficial and the productivity of joint writing episodes. Also, further

investigations are planned to test the framework on other genres, such as narration,

dialogues, picture books, etc., and to extend the analysis to study how different

technologies such as pen-and-paper vs. information technology mediate

processes of collaborative writing.

Table 3. Discourse functions and discourse forms associated with collaborative writing

Processes central Description Associated

to writing discourse forms

Content generationCollective thinking: The constraint-free generation of ideas with typically Organictalk:free pooling, short exchanges, where propositions, challenges and cumulative,joint brainstorming, alternatives are typically offered without explicit disputationaljoint moulding: argumentation, and the incorporation of each others features,

the extension and ideas in a new proposition is typically not accompanied overlapsrefinement of ideas by visible reasoning and interruptions,Affect-linked thinking: The re-creation of emotional experience, reflected in intensitymusing, acting out, and supported by musing over input, acting ideas out, Repetitions,humour. and using humour. intonation, playful

language

Reflection

Joint planning goal setting, the discussion of theme, form, style or Explicit reasoningcontent; often involves explicit reasoning in the formof longer, more elaborate exchanges.

Joint editing The discussion of emerging problems with the written Explicit reasoning,material, redrafting; often involves explicit recitingargumentation (reasons for challenges and alternativesare offered) and can take the form of longer turns

Joint transcribing, The discussion of spelling problems prior or after Question-responsespelling writing; exchanges about the form of the text during sequences,

transcribing monologue


9/9

110 E. Vass


References

Azmitia, M. (1996) Peer interactive minds: developmental, theoretical, and methodological

issues. InInteractive Minds Life-Span Perspectives on the Social Foundation of

Cognition(eds. P.B. Baltes & U.M. Staudinger) pp. 133-162. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Azmitia, M. & Montgomery, R. (1993) Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the

development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2, 3, 202221.

Hartup, W.W. (1996) Cooperation, close relationships, and cognitive development. In The

Company They Keep Friendship in Childhood and Adolescence(eds. W.M. Bukowski,

A.F. Newcomb & W.W. Hartup) pp. 213-237. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jones, I. & Pellegrini, A.D. (1996) The Effects of Social Relationships, Writing Media and

Microgenetic Development on First-Grade Students Written Narratives. American

Educational Research Journal, 33, 3, 691718.

Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Miell, D. & MacDonald, R. (2000) Childrens Creative Collaborations: The Importance ofFriendship when Working Together on a Musical Composition. Social Development, 9, 3,

348369.

Sharples, M. (1996) An Account of Writing as Creative Design, In The Science of Writing

Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications(eds. C.M. Levy & S.

Ransdell) pp. 127-148. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Sharples, M. (1999)How We Write Writing as a Creative Design.Routledge, London.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Why JCALonline ?

With online access toJCALthere is no longer a problem of a class of students on a course allchasing the one printed copy of a reference in the Library. Accessing your journal online isthe best way to improve the quality of your research time.

You should register for free at: http://www.blackwell-science.com Select table of contents email alerts sent directly to your desktop, keeping you up-to-datewith the latest articles in your field.

Search across all full text articles for key words or phrases to find the most relevantarticles for you. Every word is indexed and searchable!

Find the exact article youre looking for using the QuickLink option. Access free sample issues from every online journal. Browse all journal tables of contents and abstracts, and save favorites on your own

custom page. Purchase online subscriptions or individual articles to gain immediate full-text access.

When an Institution/Library takes out an online subscription to JCAL, all staff and students of

that Institution become 'authorised users'. They can access JCAL online from the Institution

and the Librarian can also make the journal available to people working from home.

If you are within an institution with an online subscription to JCAL, you will be able to

access the full-text articles within the journal on Blackwell Synergy. This is because the

librarian will have registered the institution's IP addresses to allow seamless access to the

content for users. If you are in an institution without an online subscription, you can still

browse through the table of contents and abstracts, then purchase a single article or take out

your own online subscription.

Blackwell Synergy's 'Notify a Colleague' feature allows the library user to automatically

send an email and highlight an article of interest to their friends and colleagues. A user

opening this email will be directed straight to the full text if they are authorised, or to the

abstract for free if they are not an authorised user. With the online version of the journal users

are allowed to print copies for private research use, save to disc for private research studies.

You and your Institution will find the great value that this system brings to Institutions

giving much greater accessibility to all staff and students than a single paper copy of a shelf.

Documents

VASS Friendship and Collaborative Creative