Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Syntactic complexity in individual, collaborative and E-collaborative EFL writing: mediating role of writing modality, L1 and sustained development in focus

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the potential of individual, collaborative, and E-collaborative writing modalities on the development of syntactic complexity (SC), their sustained effect on SC development, and the potential meditating role of SC of L1 (First Language) in SC of L2 (Second Language). To this end, 90 Iranian intermediate EFL learners participated in individual, collaborative, and E-collaborative writing treatments for 10 sessions. L2 SC on three measures of pre, post, and delayed posttests in three writing modalities were assessed using multidimensional SC measures. Besides, the role of L1 syntactic complexity preferences in L2 SC was examined. The results of ANOVA (analysis of variance) and Repeated Measure ANOVA indicated that individual writing had the highest potential in developing SC of L2 in comparison with other writing modalities. As far as sustainable development is concerned, only the effect of collaborative writing was sustained in delayed posttest. Regression through mediation analysis indicated that the degree of syntactic complexity in L1 significantly mediated L2 SC under individual writing and its mediating effect faded away in collaborative and E-collaborative writing. Analysis of students' perceived efficacy of writing modalities through theme elicitation analysis of students' reflective essay suggests that the centrality of the role of instructors, group leadership and environmental supports in computer mediated learning need to be revisited. Implications and future research directions were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahangari, S., & Samadian, Z. (2014). The effect of cooperative learning activities on writing skills of Iranian EFL learners. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 2(4), 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alghasab, M., & Handley, Z. (2017). Capturing (non-) collaboration in wiki-mediated collaborative writing activities: The need to examine discussion posts and editing acts in tandem. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwi, N. A. N. M., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aminloo, M. S. (2013). The effect of collaborative writing on EFL learners writing ability at elementary level. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4, 801–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amiryousefi, M. (2016). The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1050–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biria, R., & Jafari, S. (2013). The impact of collaborative writing on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 164–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Challob, A. A. I., Bakar, N. A., & Latif, H. (2016). Collaborative blended learning writing environment: Effects on EFL students’ writing apprehension and writing performance. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students' strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazilatfar, A. M., Fallah, N., Hamavandi, M., & Rostamian, M. (2014). The effect of unfocused written corrective feedback on syntactic and lexical complexity of L2 writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 482–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goda, Y., & Yamada, M. (2013). Application of CoI to design CSCL for EFL online asynchronous discussion. Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice (pp. 295–316). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gökçe, İ. (2001). Effects of collaborative writing on attitudes of learners towards writing at Anadolu University Preparatory School. Bilkent University.

  • Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, Y. C. (2017). A case study of the dynamics of scaffolding among ESL learners and online resources in collaborative learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismael, A. A., Bakar, N. A., & Latif, H. (2016). Collaborative blended learning writing environment: Effects on EFL students’ writing apprehension and writing performance. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalili, M. H., & Shahrokhi, M. (2017). Impact of collaborative writing on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of Iranian EFL Learners’ L2 writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(4), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Toward a cooperative effort: A response to Slavin. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 80–81.

  • Karimi, M. N., & Asadnia, F. (2015). EFL teachers’beliefs about oral corrective feedback and their feedback-providing practices across learners’proficiency levels. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 34(2), 39–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatib, M., & Meihami, H. (2015). Languaging and writing skill: The effect of collaborative writing on efl students’ writing performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 203–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, O. P., & Maarof, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in summary writing: Student perceptions and problems. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 599–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lines, H. E. (2014). "It's a matter of individual taste, I guess": Secondary school english teachers' and students' conceptualisations of quality in writing. Exeter: University of Exeter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in collegE-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, E. M., Oliveira, T. C., Farias, K., & Alencar, P. S. (2017). CollabRDL: A language to coordinate collaborative reuse. Journal of Systems and Software, 131, 505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., & Kay, J. (2015). TSCL: A conceptual model to inform understanding of collaborative learning processes at interactive tabletops. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 83, 62–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, M. D. P. G., & Ibarrola, A. L. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehr, H. S., Zoghi, M., & Assadi, N. (2013). Effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication and facE-to-face interaction on speaking skill development of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(5), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melissourgou, M. N., & Frantzi, K. T. (2015). Testing writing in EFL exams: The learners’ viewpoint as valuable feedback for improvement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohamadi, Z. (2018a). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohamadi, Z. (2018b). Comparative effect of project-based learning and electronic project-based learning on the development and sustained development of english idiom knowledge. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, Z. (2017). Interactional complexity development, interactional demonstrators and interaction density in collaborative and E-collaborative writing modalities. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(2), 75–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozafarian Pour, A., & Tahriri, A. (2016). Impact of synchronous computer-mediated communication on EFL learners’ collaboration: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 34(4), 115–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student assessment. The Language Teacher, 35(3), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naghdipour, B. (2016). English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, J., Dafouz, E., Diez, M., & Prieto, R. (2004). Contrastive discourse analysis. Discourse Across Languages and Cultures, 68, 267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, L. V. (2008). Computer mediated communication and foreign language education: Pedagogical features. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(12), 23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orvis, K. L., & Lassiter, A. L. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. Teaching and learning with virtual teams (p. 158). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pae, J.-K. (2011). Collaborative writing versus individual writing. Multimedia Assisted Language Learning, 14(1), 121–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo-Ballester, C., & Cabello, A. C. (2016). L2 collaborative E-writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 601–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, J. (2010). Handbook of research on personal autonomy technologies and disability informatics. Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2009). Design patterns for monitoring and evaluating CSCL processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1020–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Sánchez-Gómez, M. C., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Casillas-Martín, S. (2016). Students’ perceptions and attitudes towards asynchronous technological tools in blended-learning training to improve grammatical competence in English as a second language. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt, E., & Brooks, F. B. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign language development. Language Learning, 52(2), 365–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

  • Rabiee, A., Nazarian, Z., & Gharibshaeyan, R. (2013). An explanation for internet use obstacles concerning E-learning in Iran. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 361–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7–55). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeidi, M., & Sahebkheir, F. (2011). The effect of model essays on accuracy and complexity of EFL learners’ writing performance. MiddlE-East Journal of Scientific Research, 10(1), 130–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safarmoghadam, A. (2011). Speech and writing types in teaching farsi to non-farsi speakers. Linguistics, Institute of Humanistic Sciences and Cultural Studies, 2, 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Soleimani, M., Modirkhamene, S., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Peer-mediated vs. individual writing: Measuring fluency, complexity, and accuracy in writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 86–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asyncronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 77–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2006, 409–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stickler, U., & Shi, L. (2016). TELL us about CALL: An introduction to the Virtual Special Issue (VSI) on the development of technology enhanced and computer assisted language learning published in the System Journal. System, 56, 119–126

  • Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms (Vol. 31). Bristol: Multilingual matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabari, M. A. (2016). The effects of planning time on complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexical variety in L2 descriptive writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teow, W. S. (2017). The role of ICT in scaffolding collaborative writing. The English Teacher, 1, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, S. L., & Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Collaborative learning: A guide to research. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 231–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twiner, A., Littleton, K., Coffin, C., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Meaning making as an interactional accomplishment: A temporal analysis of intentionality and improvisation in classroom dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 94–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2013). Teacher interventions in a synchronous, co-located CSCL setting: Analyzing focus, means, and temporality. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1377–1386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Weijen, D., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of second language writing, 18(4), 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2017). Adolescent ELLs' collaborative writing practices in facE-to-face and online contexts: From perceptions to action. System, 65, 78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S. C. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi, A. (2012). On the factors influencing L1 transfer. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. English Translation and Teaching Department, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran

    Zohre Mohamadi Zenouzagh

Authors
  1. Zohre Mohamadi Zenouzagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zohre Mohamadi Zenouzagh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author acknowledge that there is no conflict of interest with this research report.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

Table 12 Syntactic complexity rubric
Full size table
Table 13 Intraclass correlation coefficient; pretest
Full size table
Table 14 Intraclass correlation coefficient; posttest
Full size table
Table 15 Intraclass correlation coefficient; delayed posttest
Full size table
Table 16 Intraclass correlation coefficient; L1 (Farsi) writing
Full size table
Table 17 Intraclass correlation coefficient; nine teachers ninety articles
Full size table
Table 18 Intraclass correlation coefficient; three teachers three articles
Full size table
Table 19 Results of regression through mediation
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. Syntactic complexity in individual, collaborative and E-collaborative EFL writing: mediating role of writing modality, L1 and sustained development in focus. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 2939–2970 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09818-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09818-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation