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

102 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd

Friendship and collaborative creative
writing 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 identify
productive 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: E.Vass@open.ac.uk
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 new
typology 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 the
central 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 or
the theme of the poem. Limericks are humorous poems with a strict syllabic and rhythmic pattern. There
are five lines, the first two rhyme with the fifth one and have three feet each, whereas the third and fourth
form an independent rhyming couplet, 2 feet each.
104 E. Vass
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 102-110
Discourse analysis
The recordings were transcribed and the conversational turns were counted in each
transcript. 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 to
analyse 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 ideas
Affect-linked thinking: musing, acting out, humour
Reflection Planning
Editing
Transcribing, spelling
Creative writing in the primary classroom 105
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 102-110
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 36 471
Acquaintance 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 to
M 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.
106 E. Vass
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 102-110
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, swimming
C & I: Swish-swash
I: 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! Sharks
C& I: Eating
C: Scales of FISHYeah.
Sequence 3.
I Ocean octopus.
C Octopus (giggling).
I Crunching
C 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 you
copy 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)
Creative writing in the primary classroom 107
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 102-110
contrast, such parallel editing was highly infrequent in the friendship discourse.
Furthermore, the use of recital as an editing strategy is a key feature
distinguishing 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 now
I 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) Ill
write 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 it 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.)
108 E. Vass
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 102-110
reasoning by offering justifications and reasons for challenges or extensions of
ideas in reflective and process-oriented phases. Sequence 8 contains explicit
argumentation 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 but
not 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 if
all thats one beat.
I (counting) There was a young girl fromYeah.
C (Interrupting) Young-e, young-e, young-e, young-e
I Young.
C Young-e, young-e young-e (almost singing)
I There was a young girl
C No,
I (interrupting) There was a young girl
C (interrupting) There was a young-e
I (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 beat
C Oh, yeah, beat. So we do one beat.
I Yeah.
Creative writing in the primary classroom 109
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 102-110
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 ones
own 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 of
paired 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 generation
Collective thinking: The constraint-free generation of ideas with typically Organic talk:
free pooling, short exchanges, where propositions, challenges and cumulative,
joint brainstorming, alternatives are typically offered without explicit disputational
joint moulding: argumentation, and the incorporation of each others features,
the extension and ideas in a new proposition is typically not accompanied overlaps
refinement of ideas by visible reasoning and interruptions,
Affect-linked thinking: The re-creation of emotional experience, reflected in intensity
musing, 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 reasoning
content; often involves explicit reasoning in the form
of longer, more elaborate exchanges.
Joint editing The discussion of emerging problems with the written Explicit reasoning,
material, redrafting; often involves explicit reciting
argumentation (reasons for challenges and alternatives
are offered) and can take the form of longer turns
Joint transcribing, The discussion of spelling problems prior or after Question-response
spelling writing; exchanges about the form of the text during sequences,
transcribing monologue
110 E. Vass
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 102-110
References
Azmitia, M. (1996) Peer interactive minds: developmental, theoretical, and methodological
issues. In Interactive 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 of
Friendship 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 JCAL online ?
With online access to JCAL there is no longer a problem of a class of students on a course all
chasing the one printed copy of a reference in the Library. Accessing your journal online is
the 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-date
with the latest articles in your field.
Search across all full text articles for key words or phrases to find the most relevant
articles 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.