Cover not available
Part of
L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts
Edited by Mimi Li and Meixiu Zhang
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 59] 2023
► pp. 109–129

Chapter 5
Examining the role of peer collaborative feedback processing and task repetition in task-based L2 writing

 | University of California Santa Cruz
Grounded in research on task-based and collaborative L2 writing, this quasi-experimental study examined the impact of collaborative processing of instructor feedback during the revision process. Forty-six intermediate learners of German in two intact classes at a U.S. university completed two written summary tasks, producing a draft and a revision for each, following feedback from the instructor in-between. The two groups processed this feedback individually and collaboratively, in a counterbalanced design. All texts were analyzed for syntactic complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexical sophistication (i.e., lexical accuracy, choice, richness). The results indicate that processing the instructor’s feedback collaboratively with a peer primarily improved the lexical domain, whereas the revision process itself led to improvements on all linguistic features in diverse ways. The results offer implications for research, methodology and pedagogy.
Keywords: collaborative L2 writing, task-based L2 writing, collaborative feedback processing, revisions
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Review of relevant research
    • Collaborative and task-based L2 writing
    • Making the case for peer collaboration in processing instructor feedback
    • Task complexity and L2 writing
  • The present study
    • Participants and instructional setting
    • Operationalizing key concepts
    • Procedures
    • Data analyses
    • Statistical analyses
  • Results
    • Research question 1: Collaboratively and individually processed feedback
    • Research question 2: Task-repetition and collaborative versus individual feedback processing
  • Discussion
    • Research question 1: Collaboratively and individually processed feedback
    • Research question 2: Task-repetition and collaborative versus individual feedback processing
  • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.59.05abr
References (53)
References
Abrams, Z. I. (2019). Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 22–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abrams, Z. I., & 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Usó-Juan & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp.159–186). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 37–76). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carver, J., & Kim, Y. (2020). French learners’ past-tense development through collaborative writing tasks: The role of procedural and content repetition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 76(2), 114–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–36). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J., (2014). Teaching L2 composition. Purpose, process, and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancock, G. R. (2003). Fortune cookies, measurement error, and experimental design. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 2(2), 293–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R (2nd ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2014). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing. Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. ELIA, 14, 13–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & de Haan, P. (2008). Writing in foreign language contexts: An introduction (Editorial). Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning, 57(4), 549–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. A. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behaviour Research Methods, 42, 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & García Fuentes, C. (2015). The effect of writing task and task conditions on Colombian EFL learners’ language use. TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 67–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neumann, H., & McDonough, K. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 84–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishino, T., & Atkinson, D. (2015). Second language writing as sociocognitive alignment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 37–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 to and from writing (pp. 107–136). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 279–309). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 726–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1), 208–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Marin, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouhi, A., & Azizian, E. (2013). Peer review: Is giving corrective feedback better than receiving it in L2 writing? Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1349–1354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, L. (1998). Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students’ compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 319–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 199–220). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 to and from writing (pp. 217–236). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Brimmel, P. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 300–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking and writing. University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar