This study investigated the conflict dynamisms during peer interaction at a key university in South Central China. A total of 27 students from an intact class taking an integrated English course formed small groups of 3 and wrote 3 essays collaboratively. This qualitative inquiry focused on three case groups. With data triangulation from observation notes, screen recording transcripts, retrospective interviews, and students’ reflection papers, the study revealed that during the three collaborative writing tasks, the small groups displayed distinct and dynamic conflict patterns. Students’ second language writing improvements after the three collaborative writing tasks were closely related with the conflict patterns that they experienced. The four distinct conflict patterns identified in this study, distinguishable in terms of cognitive conflict levels and socio-emotional (& process) conflict levels, formed a comprehensive model for guiding future research and practice in collaborative work.
AbramsZ.I. (2019). Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs. Language Learning and Technology, 23(2), 22–42.
2.
AriasiN.MasonL. (2011). Content and process of small-group discussions in conceptual change learning: The role of cognitive and social conflict. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 897–925.
3.
AzkaraiA.CalzadaA. (2024). A multi-faceted view of engagement with language: A study with young EFL learners working on a collaborative writing task. Classroom Discourse, 15(4), 353–373.
4.
BradleyB.H.AndersonH.J.BaurJ.E.KlotzA.C. (2015). When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for beneficial conflict in groups and teams under three perspectives. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(4), 243–257.
5.
ButeraF.SommetN.DarnonC. (2019). Sociocognitive conflict regulation: How to make sense of diverging ideas. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 145–151.
6.
ChenW. (2020). Disagreement in peer interaction: Its effect on learner task performance. System, 88, 102179.
7.
ChenW.YuS. (2019). Implementing collaborative writing in teacher-centered classroom contexts: Student beliefs and perceptions. Language Awareness, 28(4), 247–267.
8.
ChenX.LeeI. (2022). Conflicts in peer interaction of collaborative writing – a case study in an EFL context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, 100910.
9.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
10.
DaoP.McDonoughK. (2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 60–72.
11.
DeChurchL.A.Mesmer-MagnusJ.R.DotyD. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559–581.
12.
DemirciogluT.KarakusM.UcarS. (2023). Developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in science classes. Science & Education, 32(4), 1165–1195.
13.
de WitF.R.C.GreerL.L.JehnK.A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.
14.
DoiseW.MugnyG. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Pergamon.
15.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ.P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
16.
DuffP. (2018). Case study research in applied linguistics. In LitosselitiL. (Ed.), Research methods in linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 305–330). Bloomsbury.
17.
EllisR. (2009). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
18.
Fernández DobaoA. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58.
19.
Fernández DobaoA. (2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33–61). John Benjamins.
20.
FernyhoughC.BorghiA.M. (2023). Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(12), 1180–1193.
21.
FredricksonB.L.BraniganC. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.
22.
GuetzkowH.GyrJ. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human Relations, 7, 367–381.
23.
HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H.VittaJ.P.WuJ. (2024). Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research, 28(1), 201–230.
24.
HsuH.C.LoY.F. (2018). Using wiki-mediated collaboration to foster L2 writing performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 103–122.
25.
JehnK.A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557.
26.
JehnK.A.MannixE.A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
27.
JehnK.A.NorthcraftG.B.NealeM.A. (2008). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 571–598.
28.
JeongI.GongY.ZhongB. (2023). Does an employee-experienced crisis help or hinder creativity? An integration of threat-rigidity and implicit theories. Journal of Management, 49(4), 1394–1429.
29.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 51–69.
30.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
31.
KesslerG.BikowskiD.BoggsJ.(2012).Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects.Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109.
32.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114–130.
33.
KimY.S.G.WoltersA.MercadoJ.QuinnJ. (2022). Crosslinguistic transfer of higher order cognitive skills and their roles in writing for English-Spanish dual language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(1), 1.
34.
LiC.R.LiC.X.LinC.J. (2019). The effect of individual task conflict on employee creativity: A moderated mediation model. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 112–124.
35.
LiM. (2022). Comparing the quality of collaborative and individual digital multimodal compositions in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 101065.
36.
LiM.KimD. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–42.
37.
LiM.ZhangM. (2023). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(1), 94–112.
38.
LiM.ZhuW. (2013). Individual novices and collective experts: Collective scaffolding in wiki-based small group writing. System, 41(3), 752–769.
39.
LiM.ZhuW. (2017). Explaining dynamic patterns of dyadic interaction in L2 collaborative writing: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 740–755.
40.
LiN.WangY. (2025). Effects of dyadic patterns on the distribution and resolution of cognitive conflict episodes in collaborative writing. System, 133, 103747.
41.
LiX.ChenG.YangC. (2021). How cognitive conflict affects judgments of learning: Evaluating the contributions of processing fluency and metamemory beliefs. Memory & Cognition, 49(5), 912–922.
42.
LongM.H.InagakiS.OrtegaL. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–371.
43.
MackeyA.GassS.M. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.
44.
MuntiglP.TurnbullW. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225–256.
45.
O’NeillT.A.McLarnonM.J. (2018). Optimizing team conflict dynamics for high performance teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 378–394.
46.
O’NeillT.A.McLarnonM.J.HoffartG.OnenD.RosehardW. (2018). The multilevel nomological net of team conflict profiles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 29(1), 24–46.
47.
O’NeillT.A.McLarnonM.J.HoffartG.C.WoodleyH.J.AllenN.J. (2018). The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. Journal of Management, 44(2), 811–836.
48.
PoloC.PlantinC.LundK.NiccolaiG. (2016). Group emotions: The social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. Argumentation, 30(2), 217–242.
49.
PrattA.LoganJ. (2014). Improving language-focused comprehension instruction in primary-grade classrooms: Impacts of the Let’s Know! experimental curriculum. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 357–377.
50.
QiuX.LeeM.K. (2020). Regulated learning and self-efficacy beliefs in peer collaborative writing: An exploratory study of L2 learners’ written products, task discussions, and self-reports. System, 93, 102312.
51.
RobinsonP.MackeyA.GassS.M.SchmidtR. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In GassS.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 247–267). Routledge.
52.
RuthE. (2024). EFL teacher beliefs about collaborative writing at Swedish primary school. Education Inquiry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2024.2408938
53.
Sánchez MedinaJ.A.Alarcón RubioD.De la Mata BenítezM.L. (2009). Private speech beyond childhood: Testing the developmental hypothesis. In WinslerA.FernyhoughC.MonteroI. (Eds.), Private speech, executive functioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation (pp. 188–198). Cambridge University Press.
54.
ShantzC.U. (1987). Conflicts between children. Child Development, 58(2), 283–305.
55.
SharmaB.K. (2012). Conceding in disagreements during small group interactions in academic writing class. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 4–28.
56.
ShehadehA. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286–305.
57.
StawB.M.SandelandsL.E.DuttonJ.E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524.
58.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.
59.
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
60.
SwainM. (2010). “Talking-it-through”: Languaging as a source of learning. In BatstoneR. (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on second language learning and use (pp. 112–129). Oxford University Press.
61.
SwainM. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207.
62.
SwainM.BrooksL.CameronD. (2011). Languaging: A collaborative dialogue with the self. In SwainM.BrooksL.CameronD. (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency: Languaging as a source of learning (pp. 1–26). Cambridge University Press.
63.
Tocalli-BellerA. (2003). Cognitive conflict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative groups: Affective and social dimensions from an insider’s perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(2), 143–172.
64.
TugadeM.M.DevlinH.C.FredricksonB.L. (2021). Positive emotions. In C.R. Snyder, S.J. Lopez, L.M. Edwards, & S.C. Marques (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (3rd ed., pp. 18–32). Oxford University Press.
65.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
66.
WangY. (2019). The impact of disagreement on group dynamics and learning outcomes in collaborative writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(4), 652–668.
67.
WeingartL.R.JehnK.A.KruegerK.L. (2023). Manage intrateam conflict through collaboration. In C.L. Pearce & E.A. Locke (Eds.), Principles of organizational behavior: The handbook of evidence-based management (3rd ed., pp. 403–427). John Wiley & Sons.
68.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466.
69.
XieJ.L.LuanS. (2014). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 338–348.
70.
XieX.-Y.LuanK. (2014). When business becomes personal: The catalyst implication of subgroup perception underlying the co-occurrence of task and relationship conflict. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(1), 87–99.
71.
YilmazY.GranenaG. (2019). Cognitive individual differences as predictors of improvement and awareness under implicit and explicit feedback conditions. The Modern Language Journal, 103(3), 686–702.
72.
ZabihiR. (2022). The effects of task type on the resolution of grammatical cognitive conflict episodes and grammar learning. The Language Learning Journal, 50(3), 297–309.
73.
ZabihiR.GhahramanzadehB. (2022). Proficiency pairing and engagement with language in L2 peer interaction. System, 105, 102725.
74.
ZhaiM. (2021). Collaborative writing in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom: Learners’ perceptions and motivations. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53, 100836.
75.
ZhangB. (2021). Engaging in dialogue during collaborative writing: The role of affective, cognitive, and social engagement. Language Teaching Research, 25(1), 1–20.
76.
ZhangM.ChenW. (2022). Assessing collaborative writing in the digital age: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 57, 100868.
77.
ZhangY.GaoY. (2024). Exploring the dynamics of student engagement with receiving peer feedback in L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 60, 100842.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
