Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2

Ali Shehadeh *
Department of Linguistics, UAE University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Al Ain PO BOX 17771, United Arab Emirates

Abstract
This study investigated the effectiveness and students’ perceptions of collaborative writing (CW) in second language (L2). The
study involved 38 first year students in two intact classes at a large university in the UAE (United Arab Emirates). One class
consisted of 18 students and was considered the experimental group, and the second consisted of 20 students and was considered the
control group. In the control group, writing tasks were carried out by students individually; in the experimental group, these tasks
were carried out in pairs. The study lasted 16 weeks and involved a pre- and post-test. Writing quality was determined by a holistic
rating procedure that included content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. Results of the study showed that CW
had an overall significant effect on students’ L2 writing; however, this effect varied from one writing skill area to another.
Specifically, the effect was significant for content, organization, and vocabulary, but not for grammar or mechanics. In addition,
most students in the CW condition found the experience enjoyable and felt that it contributed to their L2 learning. Results of the
study are discussed in light of the social constructivist perspective of learning. A number of theoretical and pedagogical implications
of the study, and limitations and directions for further research, are presented.
# 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Second language writing; Collaborative writing; Learners’ perceptions; Writing pedagogy; Social constructivist learning; EFL

Collaborative work in the L2 classroom

In the last 15–20 years, collaborative pair and group work has become common in many classroom contexts around
the world. Indeed, the current view of language learning and teaching emphasizes instruction in which collaborative
pair and group work is central to the language classroom (see, for example, Batstone, 2010; Bygate, Skehan, & Swain,
2001; Ellis, 2003; Garcı́a Mayo, 2007; Lantolf, 2000; Shehadeh & Coombe, 2010; Van den Branden, Bygate, &
Norris, 2009). This view is supported by both theoretical and pedagogical considerations.
From a theoretical perspective, the use of pair and group work in the L21 classroom is supported by the social
constructivist perspective of learning. The social constructivist perspective of learning, originally based on the work of
Vygotsky (1978), posits that human development is inherently a socially situated activity. In first language (L1)
contexts, the child’s (novice) cognitive and linguistic development arises in social interaction with more able members
of society (experts), who provide the novice with the appropriate level of assistance. Such assistance, now referred to
as scaffolding, enables children to stretch their cognitive and linguistic development beyond their current level towards
their potential level of development. Research has shown that such scaffolding can also occur in an L2 context among

* Tel.: +971 507600292; fax: +971 37540169.

E-mail address: ali.shehadeh@uaeu.ac.ae.
1
L2 is used in this article to refer to both second and foreign languages.

1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 287

peers when working in pairs and groups (e.g., Alegrı́a de la Colina & Garcı́a Mayo, 2007; Donato, 1994; Kim, 2008;
Kuiken & Vedder, 2002a; Nassaji & Tian, 2010; Storch, 2002; Swain, 1998; Swain, 2000; Swain, 2006; Swain, 2010;
Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Swain, Lapkin, Knouzi, Suzuki, & Brooks,
2009). In particular, these researchers have shown that dictogloss tasks (tasks in which students reconstruct in pairs or
groups a text read by the teacher as closely as possible to the original text) were successfully accomplished by learners
as a collaborative or joint activity, and that such jointly performed tasks enabled learners to solve linguistic problems
that lied beyond their individual abilities. Further, these researchers have found on delayed posttests that there was a
strong tendency for students to stick with the knowledge that they had constructed collaboratively, right or wrong (e.g.,
Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1998).
Consequently, it has been argued that students’ collaborative dialogues mediate the construction of linguistic
knowledge and that this process of joint accomplishment of a task contributes to L2 learning (Swain, 1998, 2000,
2010; Swain et al., 2009). Swain and her colleagues based these conclusions on similar research findings from a
number of studies which analyzed students’ pair/group talk (called language-related episodes, metalinguistic talk,
metatalk, and more recently languaging) during various tasks in such collaborative dialogues (see Swain, 2010; Swain
et al., 2009).
On the pedagogical side, several researchers have emphasized the multiple benefits of collaborative pair and group
work in L2 learning. For instance, McDonough (2004, p. 208), citing evidence from pedagogically-oriented research,
states that:
Pair and small group activities provide learners with more time to speak the target language than teacher-fronted
activities, promote learner autonomy and self-directed learning, and give instructors opportunities to work with
individual learners. In addition, learners may feel less anxious and more confident when interacting with peers
during pair or small group activities than during whole-class discussions.
As such, due to both theoretical and pedagogical considerations, it has been concluded that learners should be
encouraged to participate in activities that foster collaboration in the L2 classroom.

Collaborative work in L2 writing

Compared to research that examined the benefits of collaborative work for the spoken discourse, research
investigating the benefits of collaborative work for the written discourse in L2, especially collaborative writing (CW),
is scant (Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007). For instance, Storch (2005, p. 153) states that ‘‘although pair
and group work are commonly used in language classrooms, very few studies have investigated the nature of such
collaboration when students produce a jointly written text.’’ Storch points out that most past studies on collaborative
work in the L2 classroom ‘‘have examined learners’ attitudes to group/pair work in general, rather than to the activity
of collaborative writing’’ (p. 155). More important for the purpose of this study, Storch also stresses the novelty
represented by the pedagogical strategy of having students composing in pairs (p. 168).
Most existing research on pair and group work in L2 writing has investigated and documented the benefits of group
feedback (e.g., Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Rollinson, 2004; Zhu, 2001), or issues
relating to group dynamics, various types of group formations, and how groups function in peer review tasks (e.g.,
Levine, Oded, Connor, & Asons, 2002; Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992; Mendonca &
Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1992; Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996), rather than
collaborative writing. The studies that have investigated CW in L2 were carried out by Kuiken and Vedder (2002b),
Storch (2005), and Storch and Wigglesworth (2007, 2010a,b). These studies are reviewed below.
In a cross-sectional study that focused on collaborative dialogues, dictogloss, and text reconstruction tasks,
Kuiken and Vedder (2002b) investigated the role of group interaction in L2 writing. They tested the hypothesis that
‘‘text quality in L2 is positively affected by collaborative dialogue: when learners are given the opportunity to
reconstruct together a text, which has been read to them by the teacher, their joint product will be better than an
individual reconstruction’’ (p. 169). The investigators collected data from 40 intermediate proficiency level learners
of Dutch, English, and Italian as a second language. They focused on the syntactic and lexical quality of the text
produced and how it is affected by the degree to which learners interact with each other and the kind of metcognitive,
linguistic, and interaction strategies they used. The investigators found that there was a strong relationship between
interaction among writers on metalinguistic awareness and text quality in L2. That is, learners’ reflection on and
288 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

discussion of language forms, content, and the writing process itself resulted in noticing and, as a consequence, better
knowledge of certain grammatical and lexical forms. Kuiken and Vedder argued that these findings show that
collaborative language production can prompt learners to deepen their awareness of linguistic rules and trigger
cognitive processes that might both generate new linguistic knowledge and consolidate existing knowledge. They
also argued that metatalk can help learners understand the relation between form and meaning, and positively affect
acquisition of L2 knowledge.
Storch (2005) investigated the process and product of CW and students’ views on it. She collected data from 23
adult ESL students completing degree courses at a large Australian university. Students were given a choice to write in
pairs or individually. Eighteen students chose to work in pairs and five chose to work individually. The study compared
texts produced by pairs with those produced by individual learners. The study also elicited learners’ reflections and
views on the experience of CW. Storch found that pairs produced shorter but better texts in terms of task fulfillment,
grammatical accuracy, and complexity, suggesting that pairs seem to fulfill the task more competently. She also found
that most students were positive about the experience, although some did express reservations about CW. Storch
concluded that collaboration afforded students the opportunity to pool ideas and provide each other with immediate
feedback.
In a similar study, Storch and Wigglesworth (2007) compared the writings of individuals and pairs working on the
same writing tasks. They also studied how pairs approached the task of writing and how they interacted as they were
completing the activity. The investigators collected data from 72 postgraduate students at a large Australian university.
The participants’ proficiency level in English was advanced. Twenty-four of the participants completed two writing
tasks individually, and 48 (24 pairs) completed the two tasks in pairs. Like Storch (2005), the investigators found that
pairs tended to produce texts with greater accuracy than individual writers. They found that collaboration afforded
students the opportunity to engage with and about language, and to work at a higher level of activity than the case
where they were working alone. Storch and Wigglesworth concluded that:
collaboration afforded the students the opportunity to interact on different aspects of writing. In particular, it
encouraged students to collaborate when generating ideas and afforded students the opportunity to give and
receive immediate feedback on language, an opportunity missing when students write individually (p. 172).
More recently, Storch and Wigglesworth (2010a,b) conducted a four-week period study. The study consisted of
three sessions. In session 1 (Day 1), 48 advanced proficiency level learners worked in pairs (24 pairs) to compose a
text based on a graphic prompt. In session 2 (Day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received from their
teacher and jointly rewrote their text. In session 3 (Day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using
the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after the feedback (Day 5) were analyzed for evidence
of uptake of the feedback provided by the teacher (reformulations or direct feedback vs. editing symbols or indirect
feedback), and texts produced by students individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The investigators found
that ‘‘uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the
learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals’’ (Storch & Wigglesworth,
2010a, p. 303).
It is important, first of all, to acknowledge the multiple contributions these studies have made to our knowledge
about CW in L2, including:

 understanding the relationship between interaction among writers on metalinguistic awareness and text quality;
 effects of learners’ reflection on and discussion of language forms and content, and the actual writing process itself
on noticing and knowledge of grammatical and lexical forms;
 nature of learners’ pair/group talk in collaborative tasks;
 length of texts produced;
 issues/variables in mediating task fulfillment; and,
 uptake of teacher’s feedback and retention.

Nevertheless, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions on the real effects of CW on students’ writing in L2
based solely on these studies. Firstly, Kuiken and Vedder’s (2002b) study, and indeed the other studies that have
focused on the dictogloss and text reconstruction tasks (see Section Introduction), were cross-sectional in nature. In
addition, such studies may be thought to constrain students in their writing by the text that has been read to them by the
 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 289

teacher, rather than give them the freedom to generate their own ideas, plan, and organize their writing. Secondly,
Storch (2005) and Storch and Wigglesworth (2007) collected data from one writing session only, and analyzed and
compared students’ writings based on that particular session. It is quite possible, for instance, that the differences
found in the students’ writing between the two conditions were due to the specific topic covered on the day, to the
context of the session, or due to any other incidental or intervening factors rather than just to differences in format.
Further, both studies compared individually and jointly produced texts, which is in itself important for getting insights
into the process of CW; however, the more important issue for L2 writing instruction and pedagogy would be the
eventual effect of CW on students’ L2 writing quality, which has not been explored by either study. Secondly, it is not
possible to gauge students’ views and reflections – or indeed for students to be able to formulate any proper views – on
the usefulness of CW based on the experience of one session only, as was the case in Storch’s (2005) study. Thirdly, the
main purpose of Storch and Wigglesworth’s (2010a,b) recent project was to explore how uptake and retention are
affected by the way in which learners process the feedback provided by the teacher, learners’ attitudes towards the
feedback, and their beliefs about language conventions and use, rather than the effects of CW on students’ writing.
Another important basis for the current study is the potential of writing for language learning in general, and in
foreign language (FL) contexts in particular (see, e.g., Manchón, 2009a; Manchón, 2009b; Ortega, 2004; Ortega, 2009;
Polio & Williams, 2009). These scholars have spoken of the need to extend L2 writing research beyond the traditional
second language (SL) settings to include FL contexts. For instance, Manchón (2009b), in her introductory,
conceptualization chapter to a volume entitled Writing in foreign language contexts (Manchón, 2009a), solely devoted
to theory, research and pedagogy on L2 writing in FL contexts, states that ‘‘. . .mainstream pedagogical discussions
have rarely debated whether or not instructional recommendations for SL contexts apply to FL settings’’ (p. 2). She
also points out that ‘‘the SL bias of scholarly work in the field [. . .] means that the bounds of claims of official
discourse have not been sufficiently tested across diverse contexts (much less across widely varying EFL contexts)’’
(pp. 16–17). Similarly, Ortega (2009), reiterating her earlier claim (Ortega, 2004), states:
‘‘. . .in many reports, knowledge about English as a second language (ESL) writing gets naturalized
inadvertently as being about L2 writing more generally, with the implication that it is universally valid and easily
generalizable across writing contexts, including FL and English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Thus, we
cannot but recognize a decided ESL bias in much L2 writing scholarship’’ (Ortega, 2009, pp. 232–233).
As can be seen from the relevant literature reviewed above, however, most existing research on CW in L2 to date
has focused on SL rather than FL contexts (see Kuiken & Vedder, 2002b, Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007,
2010a,b). The ultimate aim of the current research is therefore to extend research from SL to FL contexts and
investigate the potential of collaborative writing in these contexts. Attempting to fill in these gaps in existing research
and to advance research on CW, this study sought to investigate the effectiveness of CW on students’ L2 writing
quality after a prolonged engagement in such activity. The study considered the three components of language
accuracy (grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) as well as the components of content and organization. The study
also elicited students’ views and reflections on the experience of CW activity after this prolonged engagement in the
activity.
The interest in such research stems from both theoretical and pedagogical considerations. From a theoretical
perspective, one would like to know if collaborative work can also be extended to written discourse in the L2
classroom, in particular CW, not just the traditionally predominant spoken discourse (see introduction). One would
also like to know whether CW can provide opportunities for meaningful communication that contributes to learning in
the L2 writing classroom. From a pedagogical perspective, the findings of such research might provide us with
empirical-based evidence on the effectiveness of CW, in particular in FL contexts. Similarly, the findings might enable
us to make informed pedagogical adjustments by establishing a proper context for effective collaborative pair/group
work in L2 writing.
Based on the potential effectiveness of collaborative work in L2 learning (see introduction), the gaps identified in
existing research on CW in L2 mentioned earlier, and the multiple theoretical and pedagogical considerations stated
above, the following two research questions were formulated for the purpose of this study:

(1) Does collaborative writing have any effect on the quality of students’ writing in L2 after a prolonged engagement
in such activity?
(2) How do L2 students perceive collaborative writing after a prolonged engagement in such activity?
290 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

Method

Participants and instructional context

Thirty-eight female EFL learners participated in this study. They were first year students in their first semester at a
large public university in the United Arabic Emirates (UAE). They ranged in age from 18 to 20 years old. All
participants shared the same L1 background, Arabic. They had been admitted to the university based on their national
university entrance examination scores. Their scores on the Common English Proficiency Assessment (CEBA) test,
the university’s adopted entrance exam, ranged from 150 to 164 (roughly equals 3.5–4.0 on the IELTS). The university
considered them to be low-intermediate learners. Prior to university, these students had studied EFL in their middle
and high school for 6 years. They were accustomed to predominantly teacher-centered instruction, rote learning,
memorization, and solitary work in their previous learning experiences.
At the time of the study, the 38 students were taking four basic courses: English language (13 hours/week), Math (4 hours/
week), IT (4 hours/week), and Arabic language (4 hours/week). Except for the Arabic course, instruction was in English for
the Math and IT courses, as well as the English course. The English course consisted of 9 hours/week of Integrated Skills
(reading, listening, speaking, and vocabulary) and 4 hours/week of Writing Skills. The syllabus for the Level One Writing
course, the focus of this study, included exploring, developing, organizing, ordering and connecting ideas, vocabulary
building, editing skills, and reinforcement and consolidation of writing skills through video activities that were intended to
immerse students in authentic language. The syllabus required that students write a paragraph on an assigned topic, mainly
descriptive or narrative in nature, and hand their paragraphs to their instructor for feedback, or exchange them with their peers
for peer editing and feedback in order to promote collaboration and give students valuable editing practice. Throughout the
course, there were 12 such writing tasks. All writing tasks were at the paragraph level and varied in content (see Table 1). The
writing assessment included two quizzes, a midterm exam, a course work grade, and a final exam.
It must be mentioned that these low intermediate, first-year students were specifically selected for the purpose of
this study for two main reasons. First, in the last 5–6 years, the university has been moving towards learner-centered
instruction that encourages pair work, group work, collaborative learning, students’ self-reflection and self-evaluation,
and abundant student–student interaction as standard instructional strategies. Second, also in the last 5–6 years, and in
light of the university’s recent policy to make English the medium of instruction for all subjects (except Arabic
language and UAE Society courses, there has been a particular effort made to emphasize the skill of writing (a) by
enhancing students’ writing skills in English in the classroom (e.g., adding more writing contact hours, adding more
writing assignments, and encouraging extensive writing and free writing), (b) by establishing a writing center, and (c)
by encouraging the formation of writing groups. This is particularly important knowing that (a) the writing skills of
these first-year students in English were rather basic (see pretest below) because their previous experiences in English
writing beyond the sentence level were extremely limited, and (b) the new university policy of making English the
medium of instruction requires that students increase their writing proficiency enough to get into their majors.
Based on these considerations, the research sought to shed light on how effective CW would be for these students
(a) who were not accustomed to CW, (b) whose writing skills in English were rather basic, and (c) who would need to
increase their writing proficiency enough to get into their majors. One wonders therefore whether in these
circumstances one could expect these students to engage in pushed output and challenging writing (e.g., Batstone,
2002; Kuiken & Vedder, 2002b; Leeser, 2008; Lo & Hyland, 2007; Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2007; Nassaji & Tian,
2010; Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Swain, 1998, 2000, 2006; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Swain et al.,
2009). It was also an aim of the research to find our how these students felt about such activity.
The study was carried out in two parallel intact classes. The first class consisted of 20 students and was considered
the control group, and the second consisted of 18 students (9 pairs) and was considered the experimental group.
Assignment of the classes as control or experimental was completely random. The instructional curriculum was the
same for both classes. Both classes were taught by the same instructor (not the researcher) who followed the syllabus,
lesson plans, and material provided by the course textbook.

Data collection and analysis

Data for the study were collected by means of a pre- and posttest design, and a student survey that followed the
posttest. The students’ writing on the pre- and posttests constituted the quantitative data for the present study, whereas
 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 291

Table 1
Writing prompts.
Date Prompt Comments
Week one (pretest) Write one paragraph to describe your house. Say where it is, what it looks like, and Description
what your favorite room is
Week two Paragraph one: Information Transfer One: A Form (describe an application form). Description:
APPLICATION FORM FOR THE SAFARI CLUB. Study the completed form and information
write a paragraph about Omar Ali transfer
Week three Paragraph two: Write a paragraph using a set of pictures. Using the pictures on Description
your handout, describe the writing center of the University. Where is it on campus?
What does it look like? How can you get to it? What do people do there? etc.
Week four Paragraph three: Describe your hometown. Description should include location, Description
local environment and climate, what people do there, and interesting places
Week five Paragraph four: Describe the classroom. Look around your classroom, make Description
notes, and then describe it in a paragraph. Where is it? What does it look like?
What do people do there?
Week six Paragraph five: Describe Burj Al Arab (7-star hotel), a famous landmark in the Description
UAE. Explain where Burj Al Arab is, describe what it looks like, and say what
things people can do there
Week seven Paragraph six: Describe your first day at university Past narrative
Week eight Paragraph seven: Describe something unusual that happened in a shopping mall. It Past narrative
can be something that happened to you, to someone in your family, to a friend, or it
can be something that someone told you about. Your description must show that
this was an unusual event, i.e., something strange, interesting, funny, scary –
something you will not forget! Give information about the unusual event – what
people saw, what people did, and what people said
Week nine Paragraph eight: Describe something that happened in the past. e.g., a trip I took, a Past narrative
movie I watched, etc.
Week ten Independent study week – no classes
Week eleven Mid-term exams
Week twelve Paragraph nine: Information Transfer Two: Timetable. Look at the timetable and Description:
write a paragraph about Mina’s Monday routine information
transfer (timetable)
Week thirteen Paragraph ten: Information Transfer Three: Timeline. Write a paragraph about Past narrative:
Queen Rania of Jordan using the timeline and notes information
transfer (timeline)
Week fourteen Paragraph eleven: Information Transfer Four: Timeline. Write a paragraph about Past narrative:
the life of Henry Ford –the car maker using the timeline and notes information
transfer (timeline)
Week fifteen Paragraph twelve: Write a paragraph about how you spent the weekend. Past narrative
Week sixteen (Posttest) Write a paragraph describing the university campus. You can write about the Description with
buildings and what you do on campus. Do you like the campus? Why? Why not? pro’s and con’s

the survey provided qualitative data on the students’ views and perceptions of CW. Procedures for data collection and
analysis are explained below.

Students’ writings

The widely used writing scale that was originally developed by Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey
(1981) and adapted by Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992) was used to rate students’ writings and determine the
difference in performance between the two groups on the pre- and posttests. The scale defines the following five
component areas on a 0–100 point scale:

 Content: knowledge of subject; development of thesis; coverage of topic; relevance of details; substance; quantity
of details.
 Organization: fluency of expression; clarity in the statement of ideas; support; organization of ideas; sequencing
and development of ideas.
292 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

 Grammar: use of sentence structures and constructions; accuracy and correctness in the use of agreement, number,
tense, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions, negation.
 Vocabulary: range; accuracy of word/idiom choice; mastery of word forms; appropriateness of register;
effectiveness in the transmission of meaning.
 Mechanics of writing: conventions of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc.

Each component of the scale comprises the following four bands: excellent to very good, good to average, fair to
poor, and very poor (see Appendix A for a complete description of the five components and their respective bands or
rating criteria).

Student surveys

The 18 students who participated in the CW activity were surveyed immediately after the posttest for their views
and perceptions of the activity and experience. The aim of the survey was to gauge students’ views on the various
aspects of the experience and usefulness of the CW activity, which might help us make informed pedagogical
adjustments and decisions on CW in the classroom in the future. In particular, the researcher sought to find out:

 how these students found the CW activity,

 what aspect of the activity they liked most,
 what was the most difficult part of the activity,
 what were their views and perceptions of CW before the experience, if any, and whether these had changed after the
experience,
 whether they felt that it was better to change partners or work with one or two partners only throughout the semester,
 whether the activity had had any positive or negative effects on their self-confidence in their writing ability,
 whether it had had any effects (positive or negative) on their other language skills (reading, speaking, listening), and
 whether they would like to do more such CW tasks in the future.

The survey questions were open-ended and broad enough in order to allow students to express their views freely,
although they were all constrained to focus on CW, an aspect of it, or its effect (see Appendix B for the complete
survey). Students were encouraged to write as much as they could. The survey was administered in the students’
classroom by their regular teacher. The investigator was also present in order to deal with any of the students’
questions, queries, or requests for clarification. Students took between 14 and 23 minutes to answer the survey.

Pretest

Prior to any instruction (week 1), the two groups (classes) were asked to write a paragraph relevant to their context:
Write one paragraph (100 words) to describe your house. Say where it is, what it looks like, and what your favorite
room is. Students were given 30 minutes to write their paragraphs. The paragraphs were collected from the two groups,
randomized, and evaluated blindly by two trained raters (see below) using the writing scale shown in Appendix A. The
two raters (none of whom was the instructor or the investigator) were experienced native speakers of English who have
taught EFL/ESL and language skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening, and vocabulary) at the college level for over
20 years each. Both raters were familiar with the local context, having worked in the region for more than 10 years
each.
The investigator met with the classroom instructor and the two raters, explained the purpose of the study and the
rating scales, and dealt with any questions or requests for clarification on the process. As a piloting experiment, the two
raters independently rated two sample paragraphs from the students’ writings on the pretest using the writing scale.
Differences between the two raters were very small (less than half a band score). All differences were discussed and
resolved and a high level of agreement was reached. Subsequently, based on half of the data (19 randomly selected
texts), inter-rater reliability was established at .79 for the pretest. The data were analyzed using a t-test with the level of
significance set at .05.
As expected, there were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to the total score or the five
component scores (see Table 2). Table 2 shows the closeness of the totals and subscores between the two groups.
 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 293

Table 2
Mean total and component scores on the pretest.
Max. score Control Experimental
M SD M SD t
Total score 100 49.70 9.22 50.67 6.50 .370, ns
Content 30 14.20 3.25 14.55 2.73 .363, ns
Organization 20 11.20 1.93 11.78 2.13 .876, ns
Grammar 25 10.95 2.41 10.61 1.61 .502, ns
Vocabulary 20 10.70 1.89 9.94 1.06 .484, ns
Mechanics 5 2.65 .67 2.78 .55 .638, ns

As can be seen in Table 2, the mean of the total score was 49.70 for the control group and 50.67 for the experimental
group (t = .370); the mean score for the content component was 14.20 for the control group and 14.55 for the
experimental group (t = .363); the mean score for the organization component was 11.20 for the control group and
11.78 for the experimental group (t = .876); the mean score for the grammar component was 10.95 for the control
group and 10.61 for the experimental group (t = .502); the mean score for the vocabulary component was 10.70 for the
control group and 9.94 for the experimental group (t = .484); and the mean score for the mechanics component was
2.65 for the control group and 2.78 for the experimental group (t = .638).
It is also clear from Table 2 that the writing skills of these students (both groups) in English were rather basic.
Specifically, according to the writing scale shown in Appendix A, the texts of these students showed:

 limited knowledge and minimal thematic development (content),

 loose connection and sequencing of ideas (organization),
 significant problems in the use of complex constructions, frequent errors in agreement, number, tense, negation,
word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions, and frequent sentence fragments (grammar),
 limited range of vocabulary, frequent word errors, inappropriate choice and usage of words, and frequent translation-
based errors (vocabulary), and
 frequent spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing errors (mechanics).

Sample texts 1 (control) and 2 (experimental) in Appendix C are examples of students’ writing on the pretest.

Treatment and procedure

As stated above, the instructional syllabus was the same for both groups. Both groups (classes) were taught by the
same instructor (the regular classroom teacher) who followed the syllabus, lesson plans, and material provided by the
course textbook. Thus, all variables were held constant including the participants’ first language (Arabic), gender, age,
language profiles, syllabus, and instructional method. Further, the format and type of the writing tasks were also the
same in both conditions. Following the syllabus, all writing tasks were at the paragraph level and consisted of mainly
descriptive or narrative writing.
Some specific adjustments however were made for the purpose of this study in order to maintain consistency, or
control for any extraneous factors. First, similar topics were assigned to both groups. Second, in both conditions
students handed their paragraphs to the instructor for feedback, rather than rotate between their peers and the instructor
(as was required by the course plan) to ensure that all students in both conditions received uniform or homogeneous
feedback. Third, in order to maintain within-group uniformity for the sake of the research, all writing tasks were timed
in both conditions. However, the time was adjusted to suit the collaborative writing condition. Thus, students in the
control condition were given 30 minutes to compose their texts, and 40 minutes in the experimental condition. The
longer time given to pairs in the experimental condition was based on previous studies that have shown that pairs take a
longer time to complete the writing tasks than individuals (e.g., Storch, 1999, 2005).
The main variation between the two conditions was that whereas all stages in the writing process (generating ideas,
planning, generating the text, drafting, revising, and publishing) were carried out by students individually in the
control condition, these were carried out by students in pairs in the experimental condition. This included generating/
294 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

brainstorming and pooling ideas together; discussing ideas for relevance, substance, etc.; planning; generating the text;
drafting; and revising their text towards a final text. Students were encouraged to contribute actively to the task
throughout the whole process because the final text would be their joint responsibility. All students were given a
written set of instructions as well as an oral explanation of the procedure.
Students in both conditions handed their texts to their instructor who returned the texts to them in the following
writing session, providing both oral and written feedback. The teacher’s feedback focused on content, organization,
grammar, vocabulary, format, spelling, and punctuation. In the control condition, this was done on a one-to-one basis
between the instructor and each student individually; in the experimental condition, this was done on a one-to-two
basis between the instructor and each pair individually. Students in both conditions revised their texts incorporating the
instructor’s oral and written feedback and showed their revised texts to the instructor for verification and confirmation
of revisions. The instructor in turn gave her final feedback on the revised texts and the revisions made, and returned the
texts to students.
It is worth noting that it was decided that a combination of both written and oral feedback would be used in both
conditions because recent studies have shown that explicit written feedback together with conference (oral) feedback
significantly affects the level of accuracy in the students’ writing (e.g., Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005).
Specifically, Bitchener et al. (2005) found that students who received direct written feedback and student-teacher
conferencing after each piece written significantly outperformed those students who received direct written feedback
only.
Students in the experimental condition were encouraged to change partners every two-three weeks. Some students
worked with only three partners, others with up to five different partners throughout the semester. The decision to
change partners was motivated by a number of considerations. First, it was believed that this would make the CW
activity more challenging and interesting to learners. Second, it was also believed that this would minimize the
possibility of one student in each pair always doing all or most of the work, with the other partner simply contributing
to the task with minimal effort or input. Third, if one pair of students failed to get along well with each other for any
reason (e.g., differences in personality or learning style), this would make the activity less interesting and enjoyable,
which in turn might make the students less engaged or reluctant to contribute actively to the task. Changing partners
every two-three tasks would be one way to combat or minimize this possibility. It was also believed that changing
partners every week would make the activity look more mechanical or routine, focusing more on the act of changing
partners than on the CW task itself. In brief, the rationale behind changing partners every two-three weeks was to
ensure that the CW activity was flexible enough to allow students to choose and change their partners, but at the same
time keep students focused on the CW task itself.
Students performed 12 writing tasks throughout the semester in each condition. The study was carried out in the
spring semester of 2009 over a16-week semester. Weeks 1 and 16 were used for the pre- and posttests, respectively, and
14 weeks (weeks 2 through 15) were used for treatment. In the Level One writing course, focus of the current study,
students learn to (a) write paragraph-length descriptions of people and places, (b) transfer information from a form, a
timetable, and a timeline into a descriptive paragraph, and (c) write a narrative paragraph in the past tense (see Table 1
for the writing prompts in all different stages).
It is worth recalling that slightly different prompts were chosen for the pretest and posttest tasks (see also Table 1).
Specifically, the pretest task was on a familiar topic and descriptive in nature. The posttest task, though on a familiar
topic, was slightly different and more challenging than the pretest task because it required describing the university
campus and the pro’s and con’s of campus life. The intention behind this difference was to make the posttest task more
challenging, rather than be considered by students as routine assignments, which might make it difficult to attribute
many of the differences in the results on the posttest between the experimental condition and the control condition to
effects of collaborative writing.
In week 16, after all instruction had been completed, the two groups were asked to write a paragraph (as a posttest)
that was also approximately 100 words in length: Write a paragraph describing the university campus. You can write
about the buildings and what you do on campus. Do you like the campus? Why? Why not? Like the pretest, students
were also given 30 minutes to write their paragraphs. No other instructions or guidelines were given to students. The
paragraph assignments were collected from the two groups, randomized, and evaluated blindly by the same two raters
who used the same scale as the pretest (Appendix A). Interrater reliability for the posttest was established at .84. The
data were analyzed also using t-test with the level of significance set at .05. Differences in performance between the
two groups on the posttest are displayed in Table 3.
 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 295

Table 3
Mean total and component scores on the posttest.
Max. score Control Experimental
M SD M SD t
Total score 100 63.45 10.47 74.56 10.40 3.27**
Content 30 18.30 3.91 22.00 4.46 2.73*
Organization 20 14.20 2.46 16.72 1.77 3.58**
Grammar 25 14.85 2.99 16.67 3.25 1.79, ns
Vocabulary 20 12.75 1.86 15.67 1.78 4.92**
Mechanics 5 3.35 0.74 3.50 0.62 .67, ns
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Results and discussion

Results of the study are presented and interpreted with respect to the two research questions that guided this
investigation.

Effects of collaborative writing

With respect to the first question, effects of CW on the quality of students’ writing, results of the statistical analysis
(see Table 3) show that CW has had an overall significant effect on improving students’ writing in L2; nevertheless,
this effect varied from one area to another. Specifically, the effect was significant in the areas of content, organization,
and vocabulary, but not mechanics or grammar. Sample texts 3 (control) and 4 (experimental) in Appendix C are
examples of students’ writing on the posttest. [For the sake of consistency, the sample texts selected for the posttest
(i.e., paragraphs 3 and 4) are by the same students shown on the pretest (i.e., paragraphs 1 and 2), respectively.]
With respect to mechanics, a possible explanation for the lack of significance is that the mechanics of writing (e.g.,
conventions of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc.) are more straightforward because
they represent a relatively limited range of rules and conventions which can be more easily dealt with and mastered by
all students in both conditions.
However, with respect to grammar, the lack of significance was surprising because it was expected that CW, in view
of the social constructivist perspective of learning (see introduction), would lead to more improved accuracy in the
students’ writing. Indeed, other studies (Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007) did find significant differences in
favor of collaborative writing for grammatical accuracy. This result is also surprising because in the survey, several
students reported that they did focus on language accuracy during these CW tasks. In response to Question 2, in
particular, (What was the most interesting part of the activity, or the part you liked most? Why?), a number of students
wrote that spotting and discussing each other’s mistakes was interesting and fun. For instance, Eiman2 wrote: ‘I and
my partner counted our mistakes and talked about them and corrected them. . . we enjoyed this.’ Another one, Salama,
wrote: ‘We helped each other to select the correct vocabulary and correct grammar.’ So why, then, was there not a
significant difference between the two conditions with respect to grammatical accuracy in spite of the fact that student
responses on the survey clearly show that the CW activity gave them the opportunity to focus on language accuracy
and language form?
One possible explanation might be that the effect of CW varies with the specific language area examined (content,
organization, grammar, vocabulary, or mechanics) in relation to the proficiency level of the learners. That is, it is
possible that these learners, unlike those of Kuiken and Vedder (2002b), Storch (2005), and Storch and Wigglesworth
(2007), were unable to assist each other with the needed grammatical accuracy due to their low proficiency in English.
Indeed, students’ responses on the survey too provide support for this line of analysis. In their response to Question 3
(What was the most difficult part of the activity? Why?), a number of students wrote that formulating correct English

2
All names are pseudonyms.
296 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

sentences was a real challenge for them. For instance, Alia stated: ‘The most difficult part was really when you want to
write and you don’t know how to say it in English . . .. Sometimes I and my partner know this in Arabic but we don’t
know how to say it in English. It’s not correct grammar, not right grammar.’ Another one, Asma, wrote: ‘I have lots of
ideas and my partner too. The problem is how to put all these ideas together and write clearly and don’t make
mistakes.’ If this was the case, then it is not surprising that the CW activity did not contribute significantly to improving
these students’ grammatical accuracy in L2 writing due to their low proficiency level in English. In fact, this result
confirms earlier remarks by Storch (1998) and Williams (2001) that low-proficiency students may not benefit from
collaborative tasks with respect to their language accuracy.
This result might also be in part due to the measures used in the current study. Storch (2005) and Storch and
Wigglesworth (2007) used error-free clauses as measures of grammatical accuracy, that is, calculating the proportion
of error-free clauses in relation to the total number of all clauses used in the text. The current study, on the other hand,
used global scales, that is, criteria based on the rater’s judgment of the student’s performance on a particular
component or area of the text like content, organization, grammar, etc. (see Appendix A). Whether the measures used
in the present study and/or the proficiency level of the students played any (significant) role in this finding, it remains a
speculation that awaits further exploration. Overall, however, one can argue that the most significant effect of CW is
that when students work together, even when they are still at a low proficiency level, their content, organization, and
vocabulary (quite substantive areas) will improve, as has been shown by this study.

Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing

As stated earlier, in order to answer our second research question, the 18 students who participated in the CW
condition were surveyed immediately after the posttest for their views and perceptions of the CW experience.
Students’ responses to the eight questions that comprised the survey are summarized in this section, highlighting the
main findings.
Students’ responses to the survey clearly show that most students were quite supportive of the activity and found it
useful in multiple ways. First, students initially felt that CW was new to them because they were not accustomed to it in
their previous education and learning experiences. These students were accustomed to solitary writing and contexts in
which the teacher was the sole source of knowledge. For instance, Zahra wrote: ‘In our schools our teachers didn’t
teach us anything like that. We found writing together strange.’ Another one, Reem, wrote: ‘This is the first time to
learn like this.’ However, most students stated that gradually they started to see the benefits of the CW activity, started
to enjoy it, and became more actively involved in it. For example, Zahra, cited above, wrote: ‘After that I started to
enjoy writing together and waited for the class to write with my friends.’ Another one, Wadha, wrote: ‘very nice . . ..
You learn a lot of English from your partner.’
Similarly, most students felt that the experience enhanced not only their self-confidence and their writing ability,
but their other skills as well, in particular their speaking skills. For instance, Sarah stated: ‘Of course I am more
confident now when I write.’ Another one, Asma, stated: ‘I learned that all students make mistakes in English, I’m not
afraid of mistakes now.’ A third one, Reem, wrote: ‘We started to talk and didn’t think of mistakes. We laughed when
we made mistakes. . . .I can talk better now.’
Further, most students felt that the CW activity enabled them to generate ideas, pool ideas together, discuss and
plan, generate their text collaboratively, provide each other with immediate feedback, and put their text in better shape.
For instance, Asma wrote: ‘I learned how to work with other students and learn from them. They have different ideas,
different opinions, new words, etc.’ Another one, Zahra, stated: ‘It was good because when I was talking with other
students, we started to have better and clear ideas, better paragraphs, and better compositions.’ A third one, Hala,
wrote: ‘We helped each other find new ideas, and work on organization, grammar, words, spelling and all that. Also we
gave each other feedback on everything.’
Asked whether they would like to work with more than one partner throughout the semester or prefer to change
partners, most students (12) felt that it was good to change partners every two-three sessions because this created a
good social atmosphere in the classroom conducive to learning. For instance, Sheikha wrote: ‘I like to work with new
students and learn from them.’ Another one, Hala, wrote: ‘This is better because you don’t feel bored.’ However, a few
students (6) preferred to work with only one or two partners throughout the semester. Alia stated: ‘One or two partners
is better because you know them.’ Another one, Fatima, wrote: ‘Some students are different from you and you don’t
know how they think. . . .so it’s better to work and write with 1 or 2 students only.’
 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 297

Finally, in response to Question 8 (Would you like to do similar collaborative writing activities/tasks in the future?),
only two students stated that they would like to be given a choice to write collaboratively or individually. Fatima stated:
‘I think it’s better to give students a choice to write alone or together.’ The other one, Salama, wrote: ‘Maybe if you
have a good partner.’
These results confirm Storch’s (2005) earlier finding that most students who participated in her study (16 of 18)
were generally positive of the CW experience. Virtually all students in the CW condition in the present study were also
positive about the activity, enjoyed the experience, and stated that it was a source of learning for them, although two
students stated that they would prefer to be given a choice to work collaboratively or individually (see Results above).
Findings of the study, both the statistical and the survey dimensions, might be accounted for in terms of the social
constructivist view of learning introduced earlier (see introduction). According to the social constructivist perspective
of learning, external activities in which the learner participates are the main source of mental/cognitive activities.
When individuals interact, their cognitive processes awaken. These processes, which occur on the inter-psychological
(or social) plane, include both cognitive development and language development. Language development moves from
the inter-mental plane to the intra-mental plane on the assumption that what originates in the social (inter-
psychological) sphere will eventually be represented intra-psychologically, that is, within the individual. In other
words, external activities are transformed into mental ones through the processes of approximation and internalization.
With respect to L2 learning, this means that learners first collaboratively construct knowledge as a joint activity, and
then transform it into a mental one through the processes of approximation and internalization. It has been argued that
this co-construction of knowledge engages learners in cognitive processes that can be a source of L2 learning (see
Swain, 2000, 2006; Swain, 2010; Swain et al., 2009). Along these lines, it is possible to claim that the CW tasks in
which learners constructed texts as a joint activity in this study gave them an opportunity for meaningful
communication and engaged them in cognitive processes that might be implicated in L2 learning (see also Kuiken &
Vedder, 2002b, for a similar view). In other words, not only did these CW tasks enable learners to produce superior
texts on the posttest to those produced by learners who wrote independently on most aspects of writing, but also such
tasks might have been a source of L2 learning. This claim however awaits further research findings.

Implications of the study

A number of theoretical and pedagogical implications may be derived based on the findings of this study. The main
theoretical implication/contribution of the study is that it adds to previous attempts to extend the social constructivist
perspective of learning (see Introduction) from the traditionally predominant spoken discourse to the written
discourse, in particular to CW (e.g., Kuiken & Vedder, 2002b; Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesowrth, 2007, 2010a,b).
Indeed, as this study has shown, CW tasks in which learners jointly construct written texts can provide them with
opportunities for meaningful and purposeful communication, and engage them in cognitive processes that might be a
source of L2 learning.
Another important theoretical implication of the study is the finding that the benefits of collaborative writing extend
beyond language accuracy (primarily grammatical and lexical accuracy) to include content and organization. With
respect to the statistical data, findings of the study clearly show that students’ content and organization significantly
improved as a result of the CW activity (see Table 3). With respect to the survey data, student responses also speak of
the benefits of CW for their content and organization. As illustrated in the results section, several students felt that the
CW activity had enabled them to generate ideas, exchange and pool ideas, discuss, plan, and generate their text, and
put it in better shape.
From a pedagogical perspective, findings of the study provide further empirical evidence of the usefulness of CW in
the L2 writing classroom. Specifically, CW can be used as a pedagogical tool to encourage student collaboration and
create a positive social atmosphere in the classroom. Writing does not need to be a solitary act. Another potential
pedagogical implication of this study is the relevance of CW to the learning and teaching of writing in FL contexts. As
mentioned earlier (see ‘collaborative work in L2 writing’ section above), most existing research on CW in L2 to date
has focused on SL rather than FL contexts. Findings of the present study clearly show that CW can also be an important
pedagogical tool in the learning and teaching of writing in FL contexts because it enabled students to produce written
scripts that were superior to those who wrote independently on most aspects of writing, and because students enjoyed
the activity and felt that it contributed to their L2 learning.
298 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

Limitations of the study and directions for further research

This study is not without its limitations. First, if there were data of pair talk in the study, it would be possible for
us to form a clearer picture of learners’ talk during these CW tasks. However, analyzing pair talk, albeit important,
was beyond the scope of this study because the main purpose of the current investigation was to explore whether
CW can lead to improvements in L2 writing after a prolonged engagement in such activity. Nevertheless, collecting
data on pair talk to examine the main focus of learners’ talk in such CW tasks, how pairs function in CW tasks, and
retention over a prolonged period are areas worthy of further investigation that merit separate and independent
inquiries.
Second, although surveys are a common tool used by previous studies to elicit students’ views and perceptions of
collaborative pair and group work (see, for example, Hyde, 1993; Mishra & Oliver, 1998; Roskams, 1999), it must be
acknowledged that interviews might be a more appropriate tool (see Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007)
because interviews enable the investigator to elicit more information and more personal views from the participants,
and ask more follow-up questions or clarifications.
Third, in retrospect, these students might have been able to give more detailed and potentially interesting responses
if they had written in their first language, Arabic. Answering the survey in English seems like a particularly unhappy
choice since the students had a low-intermediate proficiency level, which was shown in their short responses to the
survey questions. However, the decision made to have the students write the survey answers in English was mainly
motivated by the university’s recent policy to make English the medium of instruction, communication, tutoring, peer-
tutoring, and any other extracurricular activities (see ‘instructional context’ section above). Nonetheless, and in light of
the observations made in this study, it is appropriate that future studies make the decision to have the students write the
survey answers or conduct their interviews in L1 or L2 based on their level of proficiency and on what best serves the
purposes of the study.
Another issue worth noting is that there was a slight difference between the pre task assignment (merely
descriptive) and the post task assignment (descriptive with pro’s and con’s) (but see treatment and procedure for
rationale). It cannot be entirely excluded that this difference might have influenced the results. Finally, it is worth
recalling as well that the time was adjusted to suit the CW condition. Pairs were given 40 minutes to compose their
texts versus 30 minutes in the control group condition (see also treatment and procedure for rationale). Again, it cannot
be entirely excluded that the 10 minutes extra composing time given to the CW condition students might have
influenced the results.
A final issue worth considering in future studies is the concern foreign language teachers have about students
working together in pairs or small groups, namely, students might use their shared first language (L1) instead of the
target language (L2). The available evidence shows that this does not seem to constitute a real concern. In a recent
study that investigated this particular issue, Storch and Aldosari (2010) investigated the effect of learner proficiency
pairing (H-H, H-L, and L-L) and task type on the amount of L1 (Arabic) used by learners of English as a foreign
language (EFL). The researchers found that ‘‘there was a modest use of L1 in pair work activity and that task type had a
greater impact on the amount of L1 used than proficiency pairing. L1 was mainly used for the purpose of task
management and to facilitate deliberations over vocabulary’’ (p. 355). Informal observations by the classroom
instructor in the current study confirm these findings by Storch and Aldosari. Nevertheless, it is worth investigating if,
when, and to what degree L1 is used in CW in FL contexts; and whether and to what degree the use of L1 has any effect
on task fulfillment and L2 learning. This and other issues raised in this section remain potential areas for more research
into CW in L2.
In spite of these limitations and issues, the most important finding of this study was that the written scripts of
students who engaged in collaboration throughout the semester were superior to those produced by students who wrote
independently on most aspects of writing. The other finding was that the students found the experience of collaborative
writing enjoyable and felt that it contributed to their L2 learning.
Similarly, this study was an attempt to help build a broader base about L2 writing from SL to FL contexts, echoing
Ortega’s (2009) recommendation that ‘‘(w)e can only hope that knowledge about L2 writing will eventually be built on
a broader base that includes insights from a wide range of school, university, workplace and virtual settings in varied
FL contexts’’ (p. 233). Ortega contends that research into L2 writing must be extended to include findings in EFL
contexts: ‘‘The inclusion of EFL findings and insights in the official history of the discipline of L2 writing is therefore
of the essence’’ (p. 251). The current study was one step in this direction.
 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 299

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all the students who participated in this study, the classroom teacher for assisting with the data
collection, and the two raters for rating students’ writings. I would also like to thank Paul Kei Matsuda, Andrew Cohen,
John Flowerdew, two anonymous Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW) reviewers and the editors of JSLW for
reading earlier drafts of this article and providing valuable and insightful comments and feedback. This study was
supported by a UAE University grant (Grant # 02-12-1-11/09).

Appendix A. Paragraph Rating Scale: FL Composition Profile

Score criteria
Content
27–30 Excellent to very good: knowledgeable; substantive, thorough development of thesis; relevant to topic assigned
22–26 Good to average: some knowledge of subject; adequate range; limited thematic development; mostly relevant
to topic, but lacks detail
17–21 Fair to poor: limited knowledge of subject; minimal substance; poor thematic development
13–16 Very poor: shows little or no knowledge of subject; inadequate quantity; not relevant, or not enough to rate
Organization
18–20 Excellent to very good: fluent expression; clear statement of ideas; solid support; clear organization; logical
and cohesive sequencing
14–17 Good to average: adequate fluency; main ideas clear but loosely organized; supporting material limited;
sequencing logical but incomplete
10–13 Fair to poor: low fluency; ideas not well connected; logical sequencing and development lacking
7–9 Very poor: ideas not communicated; organization lacking, or not enough to rate
Grammar
22–25 Excellent to very good: accurate use of relatively complex structures; few errors in agreement, number, tense,
word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions
18–21 Good to average: simple constructions used effectively; some problems in use of complex constructions; errors
in agreement, number, tense, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions
11–17 Fair to poor: significant defects in use of complex constructions; frequent errors in agreement, number, tense,
negation, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions; fragments and deletions; lack of accuracy interferes
with meaning
5–10 Very poor: no mastery of simple sentence construction; text dominated by errors; does not communicate,
or not enough to rate
Vocabulary
18–20 Excellent to very good: complex range; accurate word/idiom choice; mastery of word forms; appropriate register
14–17 Good to average: adequate range; errors of word/idiom choice; effective transmission of meaning
10–13 Fair to poor: limited range; frequent word/idiom errors; inappropriate choice, usage; meaning not effectively
communicated
7–9 Very poor: translation-based errors; little knowledge of target language vocabulary, or not enough to rate
Mechanics
5 Excellent to very good: masters conventions of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc
4 Good to average: occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc.,
which do not interfere with meaning
3 Fair to poor: frequent spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing errors; meaning disrupted by
formal problems
2 Very poor: no mastery of conventions due to frequency of mechanical errors, or not enough to rate
Source: Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 1(3), 275–276. Reproduced with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies; Valdes, Guadalupe, Title: Composicion: Proceso Y S-Ntesis,
2/e (c) 1989, ISBN: 007557358x.
Appendix B. Survey of Students’ Views and Perceptions of Collaborative Writing

Dear Students,
Thank you for participating in this study.
In order to better understand the usefulness of collaborative writing, we would like you to answer the following
questions based on your views, perceptions, and experience of the collaborative writing activity used in this course. In
order to make this technique more useful in the future, you are strongly encouraged to provide your views frankly, and
to write as much as you can. You can also use additional sheets of paper for your answers. Your answers will be used
300 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

solely for research purposes and will not affect your grades in any way. Your answers will also remain anonymous to
everyone, including the researcher and your instructors:
What’s your view on the collaborative writing activity? How did you find the experience?
What was the most interesting part of the activity, or the part you liked most? Why?
What was the most difficult part of the activity? Why?
What was your view and perception of collaborative writing before the experience? Did these change after the
experience?
You worked with more than one partner throughout the semester? Did you find changing partners useful? Or is it
better to work with one partner only throughout the semester? Why?
Did the activity have any effect (positive or negative) on your confidence in your writing ability? Please specify.
Did the activity have any effect (positive or negative) on your other language skills (e.g., speaking, reading,
listening)? Please specify.
Would you like to do similar collaborative writing activities/tasks in the future?

Appendix C

Pretest sample text 1: Control Group (Wafa)

 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 301

Pretest sample text 2: Experimental Group (Hala)

302 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

Posttest sample text 3: Control Group (Wafa)

 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 303

Posttest sample text 4: Experimental Group (Hala)

304 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305

References

Alegrı́a de la Colina, A., & Garcı́a Mayo, M. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M.
Garcı́a Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Batstone, R. (2002). Contexts of engagement: A discourse perspective on ‘intake’ and ‘pushed output’. System, 30(1), 1–14.
Batstone, R. (Ed.). (2010). Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning and testing. Harlow, England: Pearson
Education.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 3, 257–276.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language
research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garcı́a Mayo, M. (Ed.). (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 1, 255–276.
Hyde, M. (1993). Pair work—a blessing or a curse? An analysis of pair work from pedagogical, cultural, social and psychological perspectives.
System, 2(3), 343–348.
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1),
114–130.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002a). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational
Research, 37(3–4), 343–358.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002b). Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group interaction on text quality. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), New
directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 169–188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leeser, M. J. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 65(2), 195–220.
Levine, A., Oded, B., Connor, U., & Asons, I. (2002). Variation in EFL-ESL peer response. TESL-EJ 6(3).
Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16(4), 219–237.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605–655.
Manchón, R. (Ed.). (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R. (2009b). Introduction: Broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship: The contribution of research on foreign language writing.
In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 1–22). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.),
Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–121). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235–254.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
Mendonca, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.
Mishra, S., & Oliver, R. (1998). Secondary school ESL learners’ perceptions of pair work in Australian classrooms. TESOL in Context, 8(2), 19–23.
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching
Research, 14, 397–419.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171–193.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135–141.
Ortega, L. (2004). L2 writing research in EFL contexts: Some challenges and opportunities for EFL researchers. Applied Linguistics Association of
Korea Newsletter. Retrieved from www.alak.org.kr.
Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language
contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 209–231). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Polio, C., & Williams, J. (2009). Teaching and testing writing. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 486–517).
MA, USA: Blackwell.
Rollinson, P. (2004). Experiences and perceptions in an ESL academic writing peer response group. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad
Complutense, 12, 79–108.
Roskams, T. (1999). Chinese EFL students’ attitude to peer feedback and peer assessment in an extended pairwork setting. RELC Journal, 30(1), 79–
123.
Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. (Eds.). (2010). Applications of task-based learning in TESOL. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Storch, N. (1998). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative, text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291–300.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.
 A. Shehadeh / Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011) 286–305 305

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355–375.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: The effects of Colloboration. In M. Garcı́a Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language
learning (pp. 157–177). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Case studies. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
Storch, N., & Wigglesowrth, G. (2010b). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency. In R. Batstone (Ed.),
Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory
and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging agency and Colloboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The
contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.
Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/
learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The
Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). London: Longman.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational
Research, 37, 285–304.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in
French. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29.
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.
Villamil, O., & de Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities mediating strategies, and aspects of social
behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51–75.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251–276.

Ali Shehadeh is Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the UAE University, UAE. His research papers have appeared in Language
Learning, TESOL Quarterly, System, Journal of Applied Linguistics, and ELT Journal. Currently, he is the co-editor of Brief Reports and Summaries
of TESOL Quarterly and co-editor of Asian Journal of English Language Teaching.