The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 563–573 | Cite as

An Exploratory Study on the Role of L2 Collaborative Writing on Learners’ Subsequent Individually Composed Texts

  • Wenting ChenEmail author
Regular Article


While research into the potential benefits of second or foreign language (L2 or FL) collaborative writing for jointly written texts has proliferated in the last few decades, it remains unclear whether texts that learners compose individually after such activities demonstrate improved quality, accuracy, fluency, and complexity. This study compares individually written texts produced by students on post-tests in two parallel classes (one exposed to collaborative writing practice for a semester and one without). Tests were delivered immediately after the class, as well as after a delay, in order to investigate the role of L2 collaborative writing in the production of new or subsequent texts at various periods of time. The findings indicate that students who were exposed to collaborative writing practice outperformed those who were not in terms of accuracy, fluency, and quality (organization, vocabulary, and grammar) in subsequent, individually produced texts. Also, the same measure in a 2-month delayed post-test found the same result in terms of accuracy, fluency, and quality (vocabulary, grammar) on subsequent texts; however, gains did not persist in organization. The implications of these findings for implementation of L2 collaborative writing are also discussed.


Collaborative writing L2 writing Complexity Accuracy Fluency Individually composed new texts 



  1. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dobao, A. F. (2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(2), 158–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language writing, 1, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pre-task modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15, 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21, 496–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Mythology and student assessment. The Language Teacher, 35, 6–10.Google Scholar
  18. Murray, D. E. (1992). Collaborative learning as literacy event: Implications for ESL instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 100–117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Niu, R., Jiang, L., & Deng, Y. (2018). Effect of proficiency paring on L2 learners’ language learning and scaffolding in collaborative writing. Asia-pacific Education Researcher, 27, 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shehadeh, L. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shi, L. (1998). Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students’ compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Cleveon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  25. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency, and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In R. Mancho (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 69–101). New York: De Gruyter Msouton.Google Scholar
  32. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar
  33. Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of the form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang, M. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classrooms: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of English, College English DepartmentCapital Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations