Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-246sw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-12T00:15:03.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2011

Neomy Storch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Collaborative writing is the joint production of a text by two or more writers. Despite the widespread use of collaborative writing in the world outside the second language (L2) classroom, the use of collaborative writing tasks in L2 classes, to date, seems relatively limited. The overarching aim of this article is to suggest that collaborative writing activities, if carefully designed and monitored, may form an optimal site for L2 learning. The article begins by providing a brief theoretical rationale for collaborative writing, drawing on both cognitive and sociocultural theories. It then reviews the small number of published studies that have investigated collaborative writing in different L2 contexts. This review provides empirical evidence that working jointly on producing a written text provides opportunities for language learning, but that factors such as task type, L2 proficiency, and the relationships that the learners form affect these opportunities and may also affect language-learning gains. The chapter then considers new directions in implementing collaborative writing: online collaboration via wikis. The article concludes by highlighting the factors that need to be considered in order to maximize the language-learning potentials of collaborative writing in face-to-face and online modes.

Type
SECTION D: INSTRUCTION IN SPECIFIC SKILL AREAS
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 31 , March 2011 , pp. 275 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Storch, N. (2009). The nature of pair interaction. Learners’ interaction in an ESL class: Its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

REFERENCES

Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In Belcher, D. & Hirvela, A. (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 210–225). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Aldosari, A. (2008). The influence of proficiency levels, task type and social relationships on pair interaction: An EFL context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 42–66.Google Scholar
Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 58–89). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511.Google Scholar
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Pare, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
de la Colina, A. A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). London, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J. P. & Appel, G. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Elgort, I., Smith, A., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, X. (2008). What does metalinguistic activity in L2 learners’ interaction during a collaborative writing task look like? Modern Language Journal, 92, 519–537.Google Scholar
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 79–95.Google Scholar
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343–358.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthew, K., Felvegi, E., & Callaway, R. (2009). Wiki as a collaborative learning tool in a language arts methods class. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirel, B., & Spilka, R. (Eds.). (2002). Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2007). Meaning L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitive-interactionist SLA perspective. In DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.), Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 180–207). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peretz, A. (2005). Teaching scientific/academic writing: A place for new technologies. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 3, 55–66.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). Comparing ESL learners’ attention to grammar on three different collaborative tasks. RELC Journal, 32, 104–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 5, 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2009). The nature of pair interaction. Learners’ interaction in an ESL class: Its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.157–177). London, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Strauss, P. (2001). “I'd rather vomit up a live hedgehog”—L2 students and group assessment in mainstream university programs. Prospect, 16, 55–66.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2010). “Talking-it-through”: Languaging as a source of learning. In Batstone, R. (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 27.1–27.24.Google Scholar
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 605–635.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.Google Scholar
Weissberg, R. (2000). Developing relationships in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing versus speech. Learning and Instruction, 10, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking and writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 987–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pairs versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.Google Scholar
Wilkoff, B. (2007, May 10). Safety vs. panic [Web log post]. Discourse about discourse [blog]. Retrieved from http://yongesonne.edublogs.org/2007/05/10/safety-vs-panic/Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2008). The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In Belcher, D. & Hirvela, A. (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 10–25). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar