Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 36:2 (2023) ► pp.643–671

Engaging lower proficiency learners of Spanish in collaborative writing tasks

ORCID logo | Université du Québec à Montréal
ORCID logo | Georgetown University
This study examines the influence of task complexity on collaborative dialogue and written texts with lower proficiency learners of Spanish. English-speaking students of Spanish from two intact classrooms (N = 24) were assigned to a simple or a complex writing group. In dyads, learners completed two information-exchange tasks that differed in complexity and produced two collaborative texts, on two separate days. Interactions produced during the writing tasks were transcribed and coded for collaborative dialogue, operationalized as language-related episodes. Written texts were rated holistically for originality, engageability, and quality. Results show that collaborative dialogue about lexis was most frequent, regardless of the task complexity. Further, increases in task complexity appeared to have influenced opportunities for collaborative dialogue and for the production of more engaging texts. Results are discussed in light of current scholarship on collaborative writing and insights are offered on the value of implementing writing tasks with lower proficiency learners.
Keywords: collaborative writing, collaborative dialogue, Spanish learners, task complexity, language-related episodes, LREs, lower proficiency learners, US college Spanish courses, Instructed Second Language Acquisition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Collaborative writing
  • 3.Task complexity
  • 4.Rationale for the study
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Materials
    • 5.3Procedure
    • 5.4Data analysis
      • Language-related episodes
      • Written output
  • 6.Results
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Pedagogical implications
  • 9.Limitations
  • 10.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 11 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.21019.pay
References (55)
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. The Oral/Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing and Other Media Connections, 210–225.Google Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. (2020). Language-related episodes and pair dynamics in primary school CLIL learners: A comparison between proficiency-matched and student-selected pairs. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10 (3), 423–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & Martínez de Lizarrondo Larumbe, P. (2017). Collaborative writing in the EFL secondary education classroom: Comparing triad, pair and individual work. Filología y Didáctica de La Lengua, 17 1, 254–275. [URL]
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press. [URL]
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. Language Processing in Bilingual Children, 70–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elabdali, R. (2021). Are two heads really better than one? A meta-analysis of the L2 learning benefits of collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 100788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (1), 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., & Ellis, R. (2018). Task-based language teaching for beginner-level learners of L2 French: An exploratory study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74 (1), 1–26. 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 (1), 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
García Mayo, M. D. 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, 80 1, 165–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. D. P., & Zeitler, N. (2017). Lexical language-related episodes in pair and small group work. International Journal of English Studies, 17 (1), 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2015). Comprehensible Input and Output in Classroom Interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction (pp. 182–197). John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, M. Á., & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2020). Task repetition and collaborative writing by EFL children: Beyond CAF measures. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10 (3), 501–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsu, H.-C., & Lo, Y.-F. (2018). Using wiki-mediated collaboration to foster L2 writing performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22 (3), 103–123.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 114–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37 (2), 254–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 (04), 627–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The role of tasks as vehicles for language learning in classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 163–181). John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle 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
Kim, Y., & Payant, C. (2014). A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning, 151–177.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99 (4), 656–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5 1, 195–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasito, & Storch, N. (2013). Comparing pair and small group interactions on oral tasks. RELC Journal, 44 (3), 361–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, S. H.-J., & Lan, Y.-J. (2016). Social constructivist approach to web-based EFL learning: Collaboration, motivation, and perception on the use of Google docs. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (1), 171–186.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda, 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, B. T. T., & Newton, J. (2020). Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance. Language Teaching Research, 24 (5), 588–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18 (3–4), 384–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, J. (2014). How do Planning Time and Task Conditions Affect Metacognitive Processes of L2 Writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23 (1), 17–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payant, C. (2018). Effects of L3 learner proficiency and task types on language mediation: A sociocultural perspective. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. del P. García Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 99–120). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Payant, C., & Kim, Y. (2019). Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (5), 614–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (s1), 162–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. Cognition and Second Language Instruction. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Cognitive Complexity and Task Sequencing: Studies in a Componential Framework for Second Language Task Design. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (3), 193–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (3), 153–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms (Vol. 311). Multilingual Matters. 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: Comparing individual and collaborative writingtle. In M. del P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2012). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tian, J. (2011). The effects of peer editing versus co-writing on writing in Chinese-as-a-foreign language [Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Villarreal, I., & Gil-Sarratea, N. (2020). The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research, 24 (6), 874–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhai, M. (2021). Collaborative writing in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom: Learners’ perceptions and motivations. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53 1, 100836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar