Pair dynamics has received much attention in collaborative writing (CW) research. Prior research on the link between pair dynamics and L2 learning opportunities (often operationalized as language related episodes; LREs) in CW has primarily focused on the quantity, length, and outcome of LREs, but rarely considered the quality of the LREs. Also, scarce research has considered the fluctuating nature of pair dynamics and its impact on the L2 learning opportunities. This study employs an approach of detecting pair dynamics that accounts for its fluid nature to investigate how learners’ collaboration in various aspects of CW may influence the quantity, quality, focus, and outcome of the LREs in CW tasks by intermediate L2 learners. Results indicated that while discussion on task management and organization generally took up a limited portion of dyadic interaction, unbalanced contribution to these aspects, especially when coupled with an unequal involvement in content elicitation, greatly affected the quantity and quality of L2 learning opportunities in CW. Also, pairs who participated unequally in discussing language use might still generate many LREs. However, a moderate portion of these LREs represented one learner’s externalized private speech, and thus might not be very beneficial for the other pair member.
BasterrecheaM.LeeserM.J. (2019). Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness28: 97–113.
2.
ChenW.HapgoodS. (2019). Understanding knowledge, participation and learning in L2 collaborative writing: A metacognitive theory perspective. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 11 April 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819837560.
3.
ChenW.YuS. (2019). A longitudinal case study of changes in students’ attitudes, participation, and learning in collaborative writing. System, 82, 83–96.
4.
DaoP.McDonoughK. (2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 60–72.
5.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
Fernández DobaoA. (2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70, 158–187.
7.
García MayoM.P.Imaz AgirreA. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–175.
8.
GassS.MackeyA. (2007) Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In VanPattenBWilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
GötzS. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
10.
JacobyS.GonzalesP. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2). Epub available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fd7z5k4.
11.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
12.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
13.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15, 183–199.
14.
KowalM.SwainM. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
15.
LantolfJ.ThorneS.L.PoehnerM. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In van PattenB.WilliamsJ.(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 207–226). New York: Routledge.
16.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
17.
LiM.KimD. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–42.
18.
LittlewoodW.WilliamL. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BhatiaT.K.(Eds.) Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
20.
McDonoughK.CrawfordW.De VleeschauwerJ. (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 185–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21.
OhtaA.S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
PlonskyL. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.
23.
ShehadehA. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.
24.
StaplesS.BiberD. (2015) Cluster analysis. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 243–274). New York: Routledge.
25.
StorchN. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
26.
StorchN. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
27.
StorchN. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305–322.
28.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
29.
StorchN. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143–159.
30.
StorchN. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.
31.
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
32.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
33.
SwainM. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In ByrnesH. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
34.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
35.
SwainM. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of learning. In ChapelleC., (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 3218–3225). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
36.
ThorneS.L.HellermannJ. (2015). Sociocultural approaches to expert–novice relationships in second language interaction. In MarkeeN. (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 281–297). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
37.
van LierL. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman.
38.
VillarrealI.Gil-SarrateaN. (2019). The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 15 February 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819829017.
39.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
40.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17, 115–130.
41.
ZhangM. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1–12.
42.
ZhangM. (2019a) Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 4 July 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819859911.
43.
ZhangM. (2019b). Using a lexical bundle approach to examine learner texts in a classroom-based study. Corpus Linguistics Research, 5, 1–27.
44.
ZhangM. (2019c). Towards a quantitative model of understanding the dynamics of collaboration in collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 16–30.
