Cover not available
Article published In:
Research on EFL learning by young children in Spain
Edited by María del Pilar García Mayo
[Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2] 2021
► pp. 246–274

Effects of proficiency and collaborative work on child EFL individual dictogloss writing

| Universidad del País Vasco | Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
| Universidad del País Vasco | Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Collaborative writing has been traditionally studied in terms of language-related episodes (LREs), which have been shown to be influenced by learner proficiency. Yet, the impact of collaboration on the written product has received less attention, especially regarding child EFL learners. Our study analyzes the individual reconstructions produced by 30 Spanish-Basque EFL children (aged 11–12) before and after (T1 and T3) they completed a collaborative dictogloss (T2). From the analysis of their LREs at T2, we predicted that certain areas (grammar and mechanics) could reflect more changes at T3 than others. Moreover, we wanted to determine whether those changes were moderated by the learners’ and their partners’ proficiency at T2: low (LP) or high (HP). Text-based and rubric measurements showed that only grammatical complexity improved in children’s individual writing from T1 to T3. Regarding proficiency, LP children performed significantly worse than their HP counterparts at T1 and T3 in most writing dimensions. Partner proficiency only influenced accuracy, and unexpectedly, working with an LP partner did not appear to have a detrimental effect. Our findings stress the need to carry out longitudinal studies to further determine the role of collaboration in L2 writing and knowledge development.
Keywords: EFL, young learners, dictogloss, L2 writing, collaboration, proficiency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The impact of collaboration on L2 writing
    • 2.2The role of proficiency in collaborative L2 pair work
    • 2.3Quantitative and qualitative measures of L2 writing
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Design and procedure
      • Proficiency test
      • The writing task
    • 3.3Data coding and analysis
      • Analytic measures
        • Complexity
        • Accuracy
        • Content accuracy
      • Overall text quality rubric measures
      • Interrater reliability
    • 3.4Results
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 27 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20003.cal
References (75)
References
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & Leeser, M. J. (2019). Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanca, M. J., Alarcón, R., & Arnau, J. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bret Blasco, A. (2014). L2 English young learners’ oral production skills in CLIL and EFL settings: A longitudinal study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 261, 42–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2009). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching (pp. 249–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2018). Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2020a). Child EFL grammar learning through a collaborative writing task. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 20–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2021). Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness, 30(1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2020b). Child EFL learners’ attitudes towards a collaborative writing task: An exploratory study. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2(1), 52–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge Assessment English. (2018). Young Learners Sample Papers 2018 – Flyers A2. Cambridge Assessment English. Retrieved from [URL]
Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 191, 727–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, L., & White, J. (2019). Observing language-related episodes in intact classrooms: Context matters! In R. M. DeKeyser & G. Prieto Botana (Eds.). Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom (pp. 9–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 651, 15–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Department of Education. (2020). ESE2 2019/2020 English literacy marking guidelines. Government of Navarre. Retrieved from [URL]
Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, F., & Etxeberria, J. (2015). Bilingual education in the Basque Country (1960–2013). In F. Tochon (Ed.), Language education policy unlimited: Global perspectives and local practices (pp. 249–277). Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press.Google Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freelon, D. (2013). ReCal OIR: Ordinal, interval, and ratio intercoder reliability as a web service. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 801, 165–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guiraud, P. (1960). Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 24.0. IBM Corp.Google Scholar
JASP Team (2019). JASP (Version 0.11.1) [Computer software].Google 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(2), 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J., & Herrington, R. (2010). Improving data analysis in second language acquisition by utilizing modern developments in Applied Statistics. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 368–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. Á. (2017). Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners: Does it make a difference? ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(2), 183–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, I. (2016). EFL writing in schools. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 113–139). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.) [Computer software]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Malmqvist, A. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 128–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of second and foreign language writing. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Mackey A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 1-21). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matsuda, P., & DePew, K. (2002). Early second language writing: An introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 111, 261–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, M., & García Fuentes, C. (2015). The effect of writing task and task conditions on Colombian EFL learners’ language use. TESL Canada Journal/Review TESL du Canada, 32(2), 67–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. M., & Miralpeix, I. (2017). Tools for researching vocabulary. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Michel, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning. teaching and research (pp. 232–255). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. DOI logoGoogle 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, 261, 10–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research: Effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C., & Schultz, J. M. (2012). Key issues in foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 22–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sample, E., & Michel, M. (2015). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 311, 23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, S-Y., Lidster, R., Sabraw, S., & Yeager, R. (2016). The effects of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20 (3), 366–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 34–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 141, 153–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Collaborative writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing. (pp. 387–406). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 821, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–117). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tejada Sánchez, I., & Pérez Vidal, C. (2018). Writing performance and time of exposure in EFL immersion learners. Analysing complexity, accuracy and fluency. In C. Pérez Vidal, S. López-Serrano, J. Ament, & D. J. Thomas-Wilhelm (Eds.). Learning context effects: Study abroad. formal instruction and international immersion classrooms (pp. 101–129). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tryon, W. W. (2001). Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy using inferential confidence intervals: An integrated alternative method of conducting null hypothesis statistical tests. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 371–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villarreal, I., & Gil-Sarratea, N. (2019). The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting, Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villarreal, I., & Munarriz-Ibarrola, M. (2021). “Together we do better”: The effect of pair and group work on young EFL learners’ written texts and attitudes. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp. 89–115). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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(2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yasuda, S. (2019). Children’s meaning-making choices in EFL writing: The use of cohesive devices and interpersonal resources. System, 851. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Azkarai, Agurtzane & Asier Calzada
2024. A multi-faceted view of engagement with language: a study with young EFL learners working on a collaborative writing task. Classroom Discourse ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Calzada, Asier & Agurtzane Azkarai
2024. Exploring learner-related variables in child collaborative writing: interaction mindset, willingness to communicate and proficiency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Chen, Xinlan, Cheng Zeng & Christiane Dalton-Puffer
2024. Learner repair during task-based peer interactions in an EMI classroom: a case study of a marketing class in a Chinese higher education setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 45:6 ► pp. 2282 ff. DOI logo
Delgado-Garza, Paloma & María del Pilar García Mayo
2024. Can we train young EFL learners to ‘notice the gap’? Exploring the relationship between metalinguistic awareness, grammar learning and the use of metalinguistic explanations in a dictogloss task. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Ruth, Elin
2024. EFL teacher beliefs about collaborative writing at Swedish primary school. Education Inquiry ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2023. Chapter 4. Do task repetition and pretask focus on form instruction impact collaborative writing performance?. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 80 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz, Carmen & Elsa Tragant
2023. Written and Oral Production Development through Primary and Secondary School. In Ten Years of English Learning at School, ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Roothooft, Hanne, Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola & Bram Bulté
2022. Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Child L2 Writers [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 32], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.