The aim of this qualitative research is to improve the recently developed pedagogical Collaborative Writing Model (CWM) (Jyrkiäinen & Koskinen-Sinisalo 2012). CWM aims to help pupils 1) to become interested in their own language and co-operation, 2) to learn the concepts of language and 3) to become active and ethically responsible actors in society. The objectives of this study are to clarify collaborative modeling carried out by teachers and to identify pupils’ roles in the CWM. Examining CWM in practical context enhances curriculum design and its practical enactment (Van den Akker 2010). 

This study builds on the socio-constructivist and socio-cultural theories of learning (Vygotsky 1978; Lave & Wenger 1991). According to them social interaction and language play a crucial role in the process of cognitive development. 

In the last report on the mother tongue skills of Finnish teenagers The Finnish National Board of Education (Lappalainen 2011) discovered that Finnish pupils, especially boys, have problems with writing. Pupils need more varied practice and guidance to advance their writing skills. Hence, one important question is what kinds of pedagogical methods best support pupils’ social needs and improve their literacy skills. 

During the last decade increasing attention has been paid to genre pedagogy in literature teaching in Finnish schools. Genre pedagogy (Christie & Martin 2005) is based on the idea of familiarizing pupils with different text types and guiding them through discussing in the context of a shared experience. It means teaching pupils to read, analyse and compare different kinds of texts in different contexts. Learning different genres is a goal-oriented social process. (Luukka 2004.) In this study genre pedagogy is the pedagogical basis of the CWM. 

CWM includes eight steps: 1) Orientation, 2) Studying genre, 3) Assignment and modeling, 4) Clarifying the criteria, 5) Writing in groups, 6) Rewriting the text, 7) Displaying and 8) Assessment. In our research much emphasis is put on both collaborative modeling (Step 3 in CWM) and the pupils’ roles in the groups (Step 5 in CWM). 

In this cycle of design research two teachers are modeling in collaboration how to formulate good questions, use arguments, ask for clarification and share opinions with each other. Bandura (1977, 23) argues that most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action. Modeling allows pupils to observe elements of co-operation and engages pupils with the imitation of particular behaviors, which encourages them to adopt new behaviors (Higgs & McMillan 2006). 

Pupils have different kind of roles in groups at school. Teachers have to plan how to socialise pupils into a learning community and support their active role in learning. (Goffman 1959; Vass & Littleton 2009; Conderman et al. 2012.) 

Research questions are

1. What were the most successful elements of collaborative modeling carried out by the teachers in CWM? 

2. What kind of roles do pupils adopt during collaborative writing process?

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Christie, F. & Martin, J.R. (2005). Genre and institutions: social processes in the workplace and school. London: Continuum. Conderman, G, Bresnahan, V & Hedin, L. (2012). Promoting active involvement in classrooms. Education Digest, 77(6), 33–39. Design-based research collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational researcher, 32 (1), 5–8. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday. Higgs, A. L. & McMillan, V. M. (2006). Teaching through modeling: Four schools' experiences in sustainability education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1), 39–53. Jyrkiäinen, A. & Koskinen-Sinisalo, K-L. (2012). Collaboration in Writing. In Aoibheann, Bernadette, Gene, Gillian (Ed.) Creating multiple pathways to powerful literacy in challenging times. Dublin, Ireland: RAI, 84–92:8. Lappalainen, H-P. (2011). Sen edestään löytää –Äidinkielen ja kirjallisuuden oppimistulokset perusopetuksen päättövaiheessa 2010. Opetushallitus. Web site: http://www.oph.fi/download/132347_Sen_edestaan_loytaa.pdf. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luukka, M-R. (2004). Genrepedagogiikka: askelia tekstitaitojen jatkumolla. In M-R. Luukka & P. Jääskeläinen (Ed.) Hiidenhirveä hiihtämässä: Hirveä(n) ihana kirjoittamisen opetus. Helsinki: ÄOL, 145–160. Nieveen, N. (2007). Formative evaluation in educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Ed.) An introduction to educational design research. SLO. Netherlands institute for curriculum development, 89–102. Van den Akker, J. (2010). Building bridges: how research may improve curriculum policies and classroom practices. In S. Stoney (Ed.) Beyond Lisbon 2010: Perspectives from research and development for education policy in Europe. Slough: NFER. Vass, E. & Littleton, K. (2009). Analysing role distribution in children's computer-mediated collaborative creative writing. In K. Kumpulainen, C. Hmelo-Silver, & M. César (Ed.). Investigating classroom interaction. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers, 99–119. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.