Collaborative and Individual Writing: Effects on Accuracy and Fluency Development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi33.18124Keywords:
Sociocultural Theory, Collaborative Writing, Fluency, AccuracyAbstract
The present study investigates the differential effects of collaborative vs. individual writing approaches on the development of fluency and accuracy among male and female EFL learners. The study is unprecedented in terms of investigating the effect of these two approaches on fluency and accuracy development in the long-run through a delayed posttest. Additionally, the study examines the development of fluency and accuracy over seven successive sessions longitudinally. The written outputs, produced by the participants, were scored for fluency and accuracy according to the method applied by Wigglesworth and Storch (2009). The Data, analyzed through MANCOVA and ANOVA analyses, revealed that collaborative writing led to more fluent texts for both males and females in the short and the long run. Also, the collaboratively written compositions were more accurate in comparison to those written individually for males and females in the short and long run.
Downloads
References
Alghasab , M., Hardman, J., & Handley, Z. (2019). Teacher-student interaction on wikis: Fostering collaborative learning and writing. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21: 10-20.
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 4, 465-483.
Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., and Snow, C. (1987). What experienced collaborators say about CW, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 1(2), 70-90.
Bikowski, D. & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual writing development”. Language Learning and Technology, 20 (1), 79-99.
Biria, R. & Jafari, S. (2013). The impact of CW on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4 (1),164-175.
Block, D. (1996). Not so fast: Some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings and the heart and soul of SLA. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 63-83.
Bruffee, K. A. (1973). Collaborative Learning: Some practical models. College English, 34 (5), 634-643.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English, 46 (7), 635-652.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.
Chen, W. & Yu, Sh. (2019). A longitudinal case study of changes in students’ attitudes, participation, and learning in collaborative writing. System, 82: 83-96.
DiCamilla, F. J. & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the Collaborative Discourse of L2 Learners: A Vygotskian Perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53 (4), 609-33.
Dobao, A. F. (2012). CW tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (1), 40-58.
Dobao, A. F. and Blum, A. (2013). CW in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.) Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Donato, R. & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (4), 453-464.
Ede, L. & Lunsford, A. (1985). Let them write- together. English Quarterly, 18 (4), 119-127.
Elola, I. & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14 (3), 51-71.
Farrah, M. (2012). The impact of peer feedback on improving the writing skills among Hebron university students. An-Najah Univ. J. Res. (Humanities), 26 (1), 179-210.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 1-23.
Fung, Y. M. (2010). CW features. RELC Journal, 41 (1), 18-30.
Gousseva-Goodwin, J. V. (2000). CW assignments and on-line Discussions in An advanced ESL composition class (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, USA.
Hirvela, A. (1999). CW instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7-12.
Huberty, C. J. (2002). A history of effect size indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62 (2), 227-240.
Jafari, N. & Nejad Ansari, D. (2012). The effect of collaboration on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. International Education Studies, 5, (2), 125-131.
Kang, S. & Lee, J. H. (2019). Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 61-72.
Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4): 343-358.
McDonough, K., De Vleeschauwer, J. & Crawford, W. (2018). Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System, 74: 109–120.
Neumann, H. & McDonough, K. (2014). Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27: 84-104.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Saunders, W. M. (1989). CW tasks and peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 13 (1), 101-112.
Soleimani, M., Modirkhamene, S. & Sadeghi, K. (2015). Peer-mediated vs. individual writing: Measuring fluency, complexity, and accuracy in writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 1-15.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363-374.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29-53.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 (1), 119-158.
Storch, N. (2005). CW: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (3), 153–173.
Storch, N. (2011). CW in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 275-288.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 320-337.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. Using Multivariate Statistics, 3, 402-407.
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Socialcognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51–75.
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision in L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. New York: The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Williams, J. (2001). The Effectiveness of Spontaneous Attention to Form. System, 29(3), 325–340.
Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.A
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- The authors retain copyright and guarantee to the journal the right to be the first to publish the work as well as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the authorship of the work and the initial publication in this journal.
- Authors may separately enter into additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (e.g., placing it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their own website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
