Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-2053
  • E-ISSN: 2589-207x



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.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2007) Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. InM. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2013) Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. InK. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp.25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.34.05ch2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.05ch2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Basterrechea, M., & Leeser, M. J.
    (2019) Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness, 1–19. doi:  10.1080/09658416.2019.1606229
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1606229 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blanca, M. J., Alarcón, R., & Arnau, J.
    (2017) Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option?Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. doi:  10.7334/psicothema2016.383
    https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
    (2014) Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bygate, M.
    (2009) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. InK. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching (pp.249–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tblt.1.15eff
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.1.15eff [Google Scholar]
  8. (Ed.) (2018) Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11 [Google Scholar]
  9. Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2020a) Child EFL grammar learning through a collaborative writing task. InW. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp.20–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.55.01cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.01cal [Google Scholar]
  10. 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:  10.1080/09658416.2020.1751178
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1751178 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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:  10.1075/ltyl.19008.cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19008.cal [Google Scholar]
  12. Cambridge Assessment English
    Cambridge Assessment English (2018) Young Learners Sample Papers 2018 – Flyers A2. Cambridge Assessment English. Retrieved fromhttps://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/young-learners-sample-papers-2018-vol1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carrell, P.
    (1985) Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–752. doi:  10.2307/3586673
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586673 [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins, L., & White, J.
    (2019) Observing language-related episodes in intact classrooms: Context matters!InR. M. DeKeyser & G. Prieto Botana (Eds.). Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom (pp.9–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.52.02col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.02col [Google Scholar]
  15. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2011) Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:  10.1017/S0267190511000092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dao, P., & McDonough, K.
    (2017) The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65, 15–24. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2016.12.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.012 [Google Scholar]
  17. Department of Education
    Department of Education (2020) ESE2 2019/2020 English literacy marking guidelines. Government of Navarre. Retrieved fromhttps://www.educacion.navarra.es/documents/27590/1678902/ESO2_Competencia_Ingles_19_20_CC.pdf/dcd33fbc-5b1e-4b28-478e-777128d30273
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Donato, R.
    (1988) Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C.
    (2020) Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Etxeberria, F., & Etxeberria, J.
    (2015) Bilingual education in the Basque Country (1960–2013). InF. Tochon (Ed.), Language education policy unlimited: Global perspectives and local practices (pp.249–277). Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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:  10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2016) Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. InM. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp.33–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.45.02fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.02fer [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. 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, 80, 165–175. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2018.11.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.011 [Google Scholar]
  25. Guiraud, P.
    (1960) Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (Eds.) (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32 [Google Scholar]
  27. IBM Corp
    IBM Corp (2016) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 24.0. IBM Corp.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. JASP Team
    JASP Team (2019) JASP (Version 0.11.1) [Computer software].
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 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:  10.1177/1362168807086288
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lantolf, J.
    (2012) Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. InS. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.57–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (1978) An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448. doi:  10.2307/3586142
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586142 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. 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:  10.1093/applin/amp038
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp038 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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:  10.1075/itl.16024.laz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.16024.laz [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee, I.
    (2016) EFL writing in schools. InR. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp.113–139). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9781614511335‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-008 [Google Scholar]
  36. Leeser, M.
    (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. doi:  10.1191/1362168804lr134oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa [Google Scholar]
  37. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.) [Computer software]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Malmqvist, A.
    (2005) How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output?Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 128–141. doi:  10.1080/09658410508668829
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668829 [Google Scholar]
  39. Manchón, R. M.
    (2011) Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. InR. M. Manchón (Ed.). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp.61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.31.07man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31.07man [Google Scholar]
  40. Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K.
    (Eds.) (2016) Handbook of second and foreign language writing. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614511335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335 [Google Scholar]
  41. Marsden, E., Mackey A., & Plonsky, L.
    (2016) The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. InA. 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]
  42. Matsuda, P., & DePew, K.
    (2002) Early second language writing: An introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 261–268. doi:  10.1016/S1060‑3743(02)00087‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00087-5 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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:  10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1208
    https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1208 [Google Scholar]
  44. Meara, P. M., & Miralpeix, I.
    (2017) Tools for researching vocabulary. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Michel, M.
    (2017) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. InS. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp.50–68). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315676968‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ortega, L.
    (2009) Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. InR. M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning. teaching and research (pp.232–255). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691859‑013
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691859-013 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pallotti, G.
    (2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. doi:  10.1177/0267658314536435
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536435 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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:  10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  50. Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y.
    (2016) Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97. doi:  10.1017/S0267190516000015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000015 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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:  10.1111/lang.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  52. Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C., & Schultz, J. M.
    (2012) Key issues in foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 22–41. doi:  10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2012.01166.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01166.x [Google Scholar]
  53. 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, 31, 23. doi:  10.18806/tesl.v31i0.1185
    https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i0.1185 [Google Scholar]
  54. 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:  10.1177/1362168814567888
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814567888 [Google Scholar]
  55. Skehan, P.
    (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2016) Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49. doi:  10.1017/S0267190515000100
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000100 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2018) Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315629766
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315629766 [Google Scholar]
  58. Storch, N.
    (1999) Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374. doi:  10.1016/S0346‑251X(99)00031‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00031-7 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9922.00179
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2016) Collaborative writing. InR. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing. (pp.387–406). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9781614511335‑021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-021 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2019) Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40–59. doi:  10.1017/S0261444818000320
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 [Google Scholar]
  63. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A.
    (2013) Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. doi:  10.1177/1362168812457530
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530 [Google Scholar]
  64. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2007) Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. InM. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.157–177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Swain, M.
    (2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. InH. Byrnes (Ed.). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp.95–108). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01209.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x [Google Scholar]
  67. (2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. InM. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.99–117). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Tejada Sánchez, I., & Pérez Vidal, C.
    (2018) Writing performance and time of exposure in EFL immersion learners. Analysing complexity, accuracy and fluency. InC. 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: 10.5281/zenodo.1446470
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1446470 [Google Scholar]
  69. 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:  10.1037/1082‑989X.6.4.371
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.371 [Google Scholar]
  70. Villarreal, I., & Gil-Sarratea, N.
    (2019) The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting, Language Teaching Research. doi:  10.1177/1362168819829017
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829017 [Google Scholar]
  71. 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. InM. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp.89–115). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501511318‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511318-005 [Google Scholar]
  72. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 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:  10.1177/136216880607074599
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599 [Google Scholar]
  74. Wajnryb, R.
    (1990) Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Yasuda, S.
    (2019) Children’s meaning-making choices in EFL writing: The use of cohesive devices and interpersonal resources. System, 85. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2019.102108
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102108 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collaboration; dictogloss; EFL; L2 writing; proficiency; young learners
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error