Cover not available
Part of
L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts
Edited by Mimi Li and Meixiu Zhang
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 59] 2023
► pp. 53–77

Chapter 3
Collaborative writing in face-to-face and computer-mediated L2 settings

A methodological perspective

| Texas Tech University
| Texas A&M University-Commerce
In this chapter, we synthesize the methodological approaches, research techniques, analytic frameworks, and research practices in existing collaborative writing (CW) empirical research. We start with an overview of both the predominant and emerging research techniques in existing CW literature, and then examine how the four major components of face-to-face and computer-mediated collaborative writing have been analyzed in prior research: peer interaction, revisions, patterns of collaboration, and written products. In reviewing the various analytic frameworks, we identify possible ways in which they may complement each other. Lastly, we review the research practices in this area, noting aspects in need of further consideration. We conclude this chapter by discussing noticeable methodological patterns and calling for more methodological discussion in this domain.
Keywords: collaborative writing, methodological review, L2 writing, research practice
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Research approaches in CW
  • Analytical frameworks in CW
    • Peer interaction
    • Revision
    • Patterns of collaboration
    • Collaborative writing product
  • Methodological practices in CW research
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.59.03zha
References (78)
References
Abe, M. (2020). Interactional practices for online collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abrams, Z. (2019). Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 22–42. DOI logoGoogle 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(7), 664–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 23–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9, 2–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79–99.Google Scholar
Bradley, L., Lindstrom, B., & Rystedt, H. (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for language learning in a wiki. ReCALL, 22(2), 247–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the editor. Modern Language Journal, 97, 825–827. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Y. C. J., & Lo, H. C. (2011). Students’ perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for learners of English as a foreign language. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 395–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, H. (2017). Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.Google Scholar
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 9–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2019). Collaborative writing, academic socialization, and the negotiation of identity. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 177–194). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering L2 development and mastery of writing conventions. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51.Google Scholar
Faigley, L, & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(2), 158–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 175–199). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Newbury House.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K. (1996). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 139–732.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(1): 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korea as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., Lei, C., & Liu, Y. (2016). The nature of collaboration and perceived learning in wiki-based collaborative writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 80–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H. (2020). Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in) formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 100850. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levrai, P., & Bolster, A. (2019). A framework to support group essay writing in English for Academic Purposes: A case study from an English-medium instruction context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 186–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, M. (2013). Individual novices and collective experts: Collective scaffolding in wiki-based small group writing. System, 41(3), 752–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Small group interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida.
(2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, M., & Zhang, M. (2023). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(1), 94–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 62–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96–120.Google Scholar
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (2011). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., Crawford, W., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J. & Musgrave, J. (2014). Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J. (2014). Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. The Modern Language Journal, 100(2), 538–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61(2), 325–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2015). Meta-analyzing second language research. In E. Marsden, A. Mackey, & L. Plonsky (Eds.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 106–128). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing: The case of text-based studies. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91–116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research5, 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1),119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tardy, C. & Gou, H. (2021). Identifying and analyzing genre-related episodes (GREs) in collaborative writing: A methodological approach. Language Teaching, 54, 567–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres, J., & Cung, B. (2019). A comparison of advanced heritage language learners’ peer interaction across modes and pair types. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 815–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, D., Olson, J. S., Zhang, J., Nguyen, T., Olson, G. M. (2015). How students collaboratively write using Google Docs. Paper presented at iConference 2015, Newport Beach, CA.
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(2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wikborg, E. (1990). Types of coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: misleading paragraph division. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp.131–149). TESOL.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146–165.Google Scholar
Zhang, M. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Towards a quantitative model of understanding the dynamics of collaboration in collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 16–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). A re-examination of pair dynamics and L2 learning opportunities in collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 26(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 338–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., Gibbons, J., & Li, M. (2021). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A systematic review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., & Crawford, W. J. (2022). Attention to form in collaborative writing: Language-related episodes in L1 and L2 use conditions. Language Awareness, 31(2), 194–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., Akoto, M., & Li, M. (2023). Digital multimodal composing in post-secondary L2 settings: A review of the empirical landscape. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 694–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar