Although second language (L2) collaborative writing research has demonstrated that texts composed collaboratively are more accurate than individually-written texts, few studies have explored whether collaborative prewriting yields similar benefits. This study investigated whether collaborative prewriting, i.e. interacting with peers during the prewriting phase followed by individual writing, led to higher accuracy, complexity, or analytic ratings than individual prewriting. It also explored the relationship between these text features and student talk during collaborative prewriting. English L2 university students in Thailand (n = 57) were randomly assigned to write a problem and solution paragraph with either collaborative or individual prewriting. Their texts were analysed in terms of accuracy (errors/word) and complexity (coordination and subordination), and were rated using analytic rubrics (content, organization, language). Transcripts of the collaborative prewriting discussions were analysed in terms of the topic of student talk (content, organization, language, task management, off-task talk). The results showed that the collaborative prewriting texts were more accurate and received higher ratings than the individual prewriting texts. Furthermore, there was a significant correlation between prewriting time and accuracy. Implications for the use of collaborative prewriting tasks in settings for English as a foreign language (EFL) are discussed.
BachmanL.F. (1985). Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 61–70.
2.
BiberD.GrayB.PoonponK. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5–35.
3.
BrownJ.D. (1983). A closer look at cloze: Validity and reliability. In OllerJ.W.Jr. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 237–250). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
4.
BultéB.HousenA. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65.
5.
DeKeyser (Ed.) (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
EllisR.YuanP. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.
7.
Fernandez DobaoA. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
8.
GaillardS.TremblayA. (2016). Linguistic proficiency assessment in second language acquisition research: The elicited imitation task. Language Learning, 66, 419–447.
9.
JohnsonM.D.MercadoL.AcevedoA. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264–282.
10.
KaganS. (1995). Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership, 52, 68–71.
11.
KelloggR. (1988). Attentional overload and writing Performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 355–365.
12.
KelloggR. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. The American Journal of Psychology, 103, 327–342.
13.
LantolfJ. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In GassMackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York: Routledge.
14.
LemhöferK.BroersmaM. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343.
15.
MackeyA. (2007). Interaction as practice. In DekeyserR. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85–110). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
McDonoughK.García FuentesC. (2015). Writing to learn language: The effect of writing task on Colombian EFL learners’ language use. TESL Canada Journal, 32, 67–79.
17.
McDonoughK.NeumannH. (2014). Using prewriting tasks in L2 writing classes: Insights from three experiments. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 132–143.
18.
McDonoughK.CrawfordW.De VleeschauwerJ. (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In SatoBallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 185–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19.
McDonoughK.De VleeschauwerJ.CrawfordW. (2018). Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System, 74, 109–120.
20.
NeumannH.McDonoughK. (2014). Exploring the relationships among student preferences, prewriting tasks, and text quality in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 15, 14–26.
21.
NeumannH.McDonoughK. (2015). Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 84–104.
22.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards and organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 558–578.
23.
OjimaM. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System, 34, 566–585.
24.
OngJ. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers?Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17–30.
25.
OngJ.ZhangL. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233.
PhilpJ.AdamsR.IwashitaN. (2013). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.
28.
PlonskyL.OswaldF. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
29.
SatoM.BallingerS. (2016) Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. InSatoBallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30.
ShehadehA. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.
31.
ShiL. (1998). Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students’ compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 319–345.
32.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
33.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
34.
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
35.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
36.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. InGarcia MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
37.
StraussP.UA. (2007). Group assessments: Dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms. Higher Education Research & Development, 26, 147–161.
38.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
39.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
