Collaborative writing as a bridge from peer discourse to individual argumentative writing

Converging evidence indicates that argumentative thinking and writing are promoted by peer discourse. Here it is proposed that collaborative writing can serve as a bridge from peer discourse to individual argumentative writing. Three groups of sixth graders participated in a study that tested this hypothesis. Two of the groups took part in a month-long intervention that emphasized engagement and practice in dialogic argumentation. These two groups differed only in addition of a joint writing activity in one group. The third group served as a non-intervention control. Final individual essays showed superior performance by the joint writing group. Essays of the superior group more frequently included evidence-based arguments. They also more often integrated belief-incongruent statements with belief-congruent ones. Group differences transferred in several respects to essays on a new topic. Results support the claim that engagement in collaborative writing offers a promising path in developing argumentative writing.