Research into the potential of collaborative writing is relatively new. Similarly, task repetition (TR), which has been claimed to be a valuable tool for language learning, has been rarely explored in the context of writing. Therefore, little is known about the potential of combining TR and collaborative writing, and even less if we focus on young learners (YLs), who constitute a generally under-researched population. With these research gaps in mind, the present study examines the compositions of 10 pairs of learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) (aged 12) who write the same text in response to the same picture prompt three times over a three-week period. Our analysis includes the language-related episodes (LREs) that learners generate while writing collaboratively and, also, a thorough analysis of the three drafts that students produce, including quantitative (complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF)) and holistic measures. Results show that learners’ compositions improve with repetition when measured by holistic ratings although CAF measures fail to grasp this improvement. As for the LREs, a great amount was found, most of the episodes were focused on form, most were successfully resolved and their amount declined with TR. In light of these results we argue in favor of the inclusion of holistic measures when analyzing students’ productions and discuss the positive effects of collaborative writing in the context of TR with YLs.
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. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815627383
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking/writing connections (pp. 243-267). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35-59. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329
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), 1050-1066. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040
Bagheri, M. S., Rahimi, F., & Riasati, M. J. (2012). Communicative interaction in language learning tasks among EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(5), 948-952. http://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.5.948-952
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.
Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A.-M. (2018). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 81, 1-13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow: Longman.
Bygate, M. (2018). Introduction. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 1-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cambridge English. (2014). Young Learners: Young learners English tests (YLE). Sample Papers: Flyers: Practice Test 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, L., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. Modern Language Journal, 100(16), 133-147. http://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12305
Copland, F., Garton, S., & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 738-762. http://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.148
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. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000612
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121-142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Enever, J. (2018). Policy and politics in global primary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354
García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241-266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
García Mayo, M. P., Imaz Agirre, A., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based interaction. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. P. García Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 11-28). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. http://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503399
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117-135. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000112
Hidalgo, M. Á. (2018). The oral production and negotiation of meaning of Spanish EFL children in task-supported interaction: The role of age and task repetition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU), Spain.
Hidalgo, M. Á., & García Mayo, M. P. (2019). The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research, 3, 948-952. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819865559
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (Vol. 32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hu, X. (2018). Effects of task type, task-type repetition, and performance criteria on L2 oral production. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 143-169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hunt, K. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 732-739.
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics 29(1), 24-49. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm017
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8-35. http://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.52
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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 81-100). EUROSLA Monographs Series 1.
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167-196. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000085
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. Á. (2017). Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(2), 183-202. http://doi.org/10.1075/itl.16024.laz
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State of the art article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285-329. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848
López-Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J, & Manchón, R. M. (2019). Language reflection fostered by individual L2 writing tasks: Developing a theoretically motivated and empirically based coding system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 503-527. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221-250. http://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400303
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 169-178. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060086
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Malvern, D. D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Manchón, R. M. (2014). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. Elia, 14, 13-41. http://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02
Michel, M. (2017) Complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50-68). London: Routledge.
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. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375364
Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 107-136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590-601. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045
Payant, C., & Reagan, D. (2018). Manipulating task implementation variables with incipient Spanish language learners: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 169-188. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816669742
Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 24, 615-630. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.09.005
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10 year-old children practicing with a communicative task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 189-207. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074604
Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching young language learners (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sample, E., & Michel, M. (2014). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31(8), 23-46. http://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i0.1185
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the effectiveness of pair work on a conversational cloze task in EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074600
Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000079
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. (2016). Collaborative writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 387-406). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51, 262-277. http://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444818000034
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157-177). London: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209
Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Teng, M. F. (2020). The effectiveness of group, pair and individual output tasks on learning phrasal verbs. The Language Learning Journal, 48, 187-200. http://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1373841
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.