Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-2053
  • E-ISSN: 2589-207x
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Collaborative writing (CW) and task repetition have been claimed to aid language acquisition. Students produce better texts when writing with a peer and their drafts improve if they write the same composition twice (same task repetition, STR). However, little is known about young learners, about the effects of combining both constructs and, finally, about a more common type of repetition in language lessons: repeating the same procedure with different content (procedural task repetition, PTR). This study analyses the effects of CW (vs. individual writing) and of PTR (vs. STR). To do so, the writings of 59 Spanish young learners (aged 11) of English divided into four groups were analysed. Two of these groups ( = 9,  = 10) wrote a composition individually while two ( = 20,  = 20) wrote a composition in pairs. A week later, one individual ( = 9) and one collaborative group ( = 20) wrote the same composition again (STR) while the other individual ( = 10) and collaborative ( = 20) groups wrote a new composition following the same procedure (PTR). Unlike findings from adult learners, our students’ drafts show no differences that could be attributed to the collaboration. However, some improvements upon repetition were hinted at, with students in the STR group obtaining greater holistic rates.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abrams, Z., & Byrd, D. R.
    (2017) The effects of meaning-focused pre-tasks on beginning-level L2 writing in German: An exploratory study. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 434–453. doi:  10.1177/1362168815627383
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815627383 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, J.
    (2008) Does writing influence learner attention to form?InD. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection. Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp.243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amiryousefi, M.
    (2016) The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1052–1068. doi:  10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
    (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783095056
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A. M.
    (2018) Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 81, 1–13. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bygate, M.
    (1996) Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. InJ. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.136–146). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2018) Introduction. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp.1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.intro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.intro [Google Scholar]
  8. Cambridge English
    Cambridge English (2014) Young learners. Young learners English tests (YLE). Sample Papers. Flyers. Practice Test 3. (p.3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cambridge English
    Cambridge English (2014) Young learners. Young learners English tests (YLE). Sample Papers. Flyers. Volume1 (p.36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J.
    (2014) Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485. doi:  10.1017/S0272263113000612
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000612 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fernández-Dobao, A. F.
    (2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and Individuals work. Journal of Second Language Writing21(1), 40–58. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. García Mayo, M. P.
    (2002) Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323–341. doi:  10.1016/S0883‑0355(03)00008‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00008-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A.
    (2016) EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes?InM. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Research agenda and pedagogical potential (pp.241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.45.10gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.10gar [Google Scholar]
  14. García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A.
    (2016) Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. Language Learning Journal, 44, 451–466. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799 [Google Scholar]
  15. García Mayo, M. P., Imaz Agirre, A., & Azkarai, A.
    (2018) Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based interaction. InM. J. Ahmadian & M. P. García Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp.11–28). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9781501503399‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503399-002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hidalgo, M. A., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2019) The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research. doi:  10.1177/1362168819865559
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819865559 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hidalgo, M. A., & 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:  10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.5
    https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, Y.
    (2013) Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 8–35. doi:  10.1002/tesq.52
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.52 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N.
    (2013) The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction?System, 41, 829–840. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kormos, J.
    (2014) Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. InH. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp.193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7.08kor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.08kor [Google Scholar]
  21. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A.
    (2012) The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439–472. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00695.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. A.
    (2017) Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners: Does it make a difference?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]
  23. Long, M. H.
    (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. doi:  10.1093/applin/4.2.126
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mackey, A.
    (2007) Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M.
    (2006) Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178. doi:  10.1017/S0272263106060086
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060086 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1075/lllt.31.07man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31.07man [Google Scholar]
  27. (2014) The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 14, 13–41. doi:  10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02
    https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02 [Google Scholar]
  28. McDonough, K., & García Fuentes, C.
    (2015) The effect of writing task and task conditions on Colombian EFL learners’ language use. TESL Canada Journal, 32, 67–79. doi:  10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1208
    https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1208 [Google Scholar]
  29. McDonough, K., de Vleeschauwer, J., & Crawford, W.
    (2018) Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System, 74, 109–120. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2018.02.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nassaji, H., & Tian, J.
    (2010) Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397–419. doi:  10.1177/1362168810375364
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375364 [Google Scholar]
  31. Nitta, R., & Baba, K.
    (2014) Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. InH. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp.107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7.05nit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.05nit [Google Scholar]
  32. Patanasorn, C.
    (2010) Effects of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
  33. Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S.
    (2006) Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301–338. doi:  10.1017/S027226310606013X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606013X [Google Scholar]
  34. Pinter, A.
    (2006) Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 24, 615–630. 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2007) Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10 year-old children practicing with a communicative task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 189–207. doi:  10.1177/1362168807074604
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074604 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2011) Children learning second languages. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230302297
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230302297 [Google Scholar]
  37. Shehadeh, A.
    (2011) Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  38. Storch, N.
    (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]
  39. (2007) Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143–159. doi:  10.1177/1362168807074600
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074600 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2011) Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. doi:  10.1017/S0267190511000079
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000079 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2013) Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi:  10.21832/9781847699954
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2016) Collaborative writing. InR. M. Manchón & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp.387–406). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9781614511335‑021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-021 [Google Scholar]
  43. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2007) Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. InM. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.157–177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Swain, M.
    (2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B.
    (1994) Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Teng, M. F.
    (2017) The effectiveness of group, pair and individual output tasks on learning phrasal verbs. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 187–200. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2017.1373841
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1373841 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M.
    (2017) The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67, 394–430. doi:  10.1111/lang.12228
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12228 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
    (2009) Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. doi:  10.1177/0265532209104670
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2012) What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  50. Zalbidea, J.
    (2017) One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 335–352. doi:  10.1111/modl.12389
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12389 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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