Task Development:
Collaborative Writing
YOUJIN KIM AND DAVID LAWRENCE CHIESA
Framing the Issue
Over the past two decades, researchers in both second language acquisition (SLA)
and second language (L2) writing domains have begun to explore the interface
between the two fields. Within the field of SLA, task-based SLA research in par-
ticular has expanded its scope by increasingly implementing writing tasks. As the
benefits of learner–learner interaction in L2 learning have been evidenced in SLA
research, collaborative writing tasks have also received growing attention (Storch,
2013). To date, collaborative writing from an SLA framework has been viewed as
an activity that provides opportunities to learn the target language (writing-to-
learn) as opposed to the notion of learning-to-write.
Collaborative writing has been defined in various ways and is often distin-
guished from cooperative writing (Storch, 2013). According to Storch, while coop-
erative writing involves the division of labor between individuals during the
process of completing a writing task, collaboration requires each individual’s
coordinated contribution to completion of a task together. Storch refers to collabo-
rative writing as “an activity where there is a shared and negotiated decision mak-
ing process and a shared responsibility for the production of a single text” (2013,
p. 3). In other words, in all stages of the writing process between a dyad or among
group members, ideally there is mutual agreement and a coordinated effort in
which each participant has an equal role and responsibility.
The theoretical and pedagogical rationale for the use of collaborative L2 writing
in classroom contexts has been supported by previous language learning theories.
For instance, from a sociocultural perspective of language learning, the learners
learn language through mediation processes using language as a main tool in
social interaction contexts (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Thus verbal interaction dur-
ing collaborative writing could serve as a mediation process, which potentially
facilitates the quality of the writing outcome. From an SLA perspective, verbal
interaction itself is of interest since it provides language learning opportunities. As
The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.
Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini;
Volume Editors: Diane D. Belcher and Alan Hirvela).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0812
2 Task Development: Collaborative Writing
a result, researchers have explored how to design collaborative writing tasks that
would promote verbal interaction as well as the quality of writing outcomes.
Making the Case
Collaborative writing is different from individual writing in that it involves
learners interacting in pairs or groups. Previous research shows that collaborative
writing tasks promote a higher quality of writing in terms of task fulfillment,
grammatical accuracy, and complexity compared to individual writing (Storch,
2005). It also facilitates immediate feedback during peer interaction. Owing to the
nature of interaction, the benefits of collaborative writing can be influenced by
many task design and implementation factors (e.g., task types, task complexity,
task planning conditions) and learner factors (e.g., interlocutor and pair dynam-
ics). Different collaborative writing tasks can be implemented both in the face-to-
face (FTF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) modes.
Collaborative writing research in the fields of SLA and L2 writing explored
which aspects of task design facilitate more constructive interaction and better
writing quality as task outcome. SLA research, especially from the interactionist
perspective, has explored the former, whereas L2 writing researchers have been
mainly interested in the latter. Storch (2013) divided collaborative writing tasks
into two groups: meaning focused and language focused. According to Storch,
whereas a meaning-focused collaborative writing task requires the writers to com-
pose learner-generated texts based on written or pictorial prompts, a language-
focused collaborative writing task does not often focus on meaning generation but
draws learners’ attention to language forms while completing the task. Storch’s
dichotomy does not imply that one type of task will focus only on meaning and
the other only on form. Instead, during a meaning-focused task, learners are often
drawn incidentally to form when there is a perceived problem with comprehen-
sion, whereas a structured language-focused task encourages form over meaning.
Meaning-oriented joint-composition tasks that have been used in the FTF mode
include descriptive and argumentative compositions, data commentary reports,
and jigsaw. For instance, Anton and DiCamilla’s (1999) descriptive composition
task asked 10 students (five dyads) to compose an essay about their travel plans,
their country’s popular sports, and their eating habits in the United States. Storch
(2002) used a diagram in her writing prompt and asked pairs to write a descriptive
essay about the diagram, which reports English language learners’ English flu-
ency development in Australia. In sum, these meaning-focused collaborative writ-
ing task prompts are similar to those used in L2 writing research covering a wide
range of genres. These collaborative writing tasks provide opportunities for sec-
ond language learning (writing-to-learn L2). As learners communicate about con-
tent they are also incidentally discussing language form. More specifically, when
the students in the above studies noticed the gaps in their linguistic knowledge as
they tried to express their intended meanings, they requested the help of their
peers to complete the task. The interaction during these meaning-oriented
Task Development: Collaborative Writing 3
collaborative tasks suggests that students often accomplished together what they
could not have accomplished alone. However, since each collaborative writing
composition is often done within a lesson, the duration of the writing time is rather
short (i.e., less than 1 hour), and the types of writing task seem to be limited.
With regard to language-focused writing tasks in the FTF mode, some of the
widely used tasks include dictogloss, text-reconstruction tasks, and editing tasks.
Dictogloss requires learners to listen multiple times to a short passage while jot-
ting down familiar words and phrases. Based on these notes, they are required to
reconstruct the passage with other peers. This task has been widely used because
it facilitates learners’ attention to language form. Previous research, however, did
not focus on the quality of the outcome of the reconstructed tasks and focused
more on learners’ verbal interaction while reconstructing the text (Kim &
McDonough, 2008), as the purpose of the task was to promote attention to lan-
guage form (e.g., grammar, vocabulary). Text-reconstruction tasks often require
learners to insert the necessary function words or change word forms in order to
increase grammatical accuracy. Language-focused collaborative writing tasks are
good examples of writing to learn the language because the prompts or passages
for text-reconstruction tasks are intended to provide practice with particular gram-
matical or lexical features. Storch (2013) identifies these language-focused tasks as
the “site” for language learning. However, the collaborative nature of the lan-
guage-focused task is the same as for the meaning-focused task in that the out-
come activity is not only the jointly produced text, but also collective cognition of
the learners.
Recently, the scope of collaborative writing practices has been extended widely
in terms of task types, the duration of writing, and text lengths due to the use of
technology tools (e.g., Web 2.0 tools). Web-based social tools such as Wikis (an
asynchronous environment where learners can generate, add, change, delete, and
edit text while the system tracks the history of all user activities and created con-
tent) and Google Docs (creating and sharing documents asynchronously) allow
learners to be involved in more extensive collaboration procedures (Oskoz & Elola,
2014). Previous research using Google Docs also provided evidence for the benefits
of collaborative writing compared to individual writing in terms of score gains in
writing using analytic rubrics (Vithanage, 2013). Writing prompts used in this con-
text include research papers, which requires writing paragraphs that can contain
various genres focusing on comparison and contrast, cause and effect, as well as
persuasion. Some widely used Web 2.0 tools are Edmodo, Ning.com, Classroom
2.0, and Yugma.com.
Pedagogical Implications
It should be noted that the significant outcome of a collaborative writing task is
not just the jointly produced text, but also the shared process and responsibilities
during all stages of writing. With this backdrop in mind, three practical pedagogi-
cal principles for implementing and developing effective classroom collaborative
4 Task Development: Collaborative Writing
writing tasks are addressed: (1) Understand students’ beliefs toward collaborative
writing; (2) train them to become successful collaborative writers; and (3) develop
tasks that promote equal roles and responsibilities during interaction.
1. Understanding Students’ Beliefs Toward Collaborative Writing
Choosing tasks such as collaborative writing is not an easy decision to make,
because students may have different beliefs about writing as a solitary activity as
opposed to a collective one. A complaint often stated by students is that the roles
and responsibilities shared in writing tasks are not balanced, leaving one writer to
do most of the work in all phases of the learning process, from the prewriting to the
writing, revising, and publishing stages. Furthermore, students sometimes do not
consider their peers as useful learning resources. As a language teacher, then, it is
imperative to understand the beliefs and/or attitudes that learners have toward
collaborative writing, to better guide whether or not and how to implement it. One
way to elicit student attitudes is through a short questionnaire or informal inter-
view, and then using the results as a springboard for discussion during class.
2. Training Students to Become Successful Collaborative Writers
During pair or group interaction, students may feel shy about their language abilities
and often take on a passive role in peer interaction, whereas those who self-identify
as extroverts may feel overly confident and can take a more dominant role. Storch’s
(2002) research focused on learning in collaborative interactions, and uncovered the
nature of dyadic interactions. She found that of the four distinct patterns of
interaction—expert/novice, collaborative, dominant/dominant, and dominant/
passive—the most conducive for language learning is the collaborative pattern.
Recently SLA researchers have shown the benefits of metacognition instruction in
facilitating the occurrence of interaction-driven learning opportunities such as oral
feedback (Kim, 2013). These studies suggest that explicit training on how to perform
tasks collaboratively by showing task modeling videos or sample feedback episodes
promotes positive interaction patterns. In order to train students to become success-
ful collaborative writers, such explicit training techniques should be implemented.
3. Develop Tasks That Promote Equal Roles and Responsibilities and Thus
Promote Mediated Interaction
Tasks can differ in how they are designed and implemented, which can ultimately
change the way they are performed. The research literature suggests that there are
a variety of task types that can be used to promote meaning-oriented or language-
oriented tasks in both the FTF and CMC modes. How do teachers go about choos-
ing or developing the right task type that would promote equality and mediated
interaction, and could result in a well-organized, grammatically accurate, and
content-rich writing output? First, teachers need to think about the overall goals
and objectives of the language lesson as well as learner needs. Following an
Task Development: Collaborative Writing 5
analysis of the specific objectives, they should identify the different design and
implementation variables needed. There are certain key design variables for col-
laborative writing: (1) unfocused (meaning oriented) or focused (language ori-
ented); (2) the type and amount of “gap” they contain (e.g., the amount of
information split among learners); and (3) task complexity (e.g., prompts that
require reasoning vs. no reasoning, prompts that ask for different numbers of ele-
ments that the writers have to process simultaneously). For instance, prompts that
require reasoning processes while exchanging information between group mem-
bers would encourage learners to negotiate the contents and also to pay attention
to the language involved in negotiation processes more than those without these
features.
Additionally, providing each learner with different types of information, which
in turn requires information exchange, would facilitate more discussion on the
contents of the written output. Furthermore, in terms of task implementation, the
way to implement collaborative writing tasks in the classroom should be struc-
tured and explicit, making sure that each student has equal responsibility. For
instance, Neumann and McDonough (2015) explored students’ interactions dur-
ing collaborative prewriting discussions and how this process is related to L2 writ-
ing. They found that the structured prewriting task (as opposed to the unstructured)
was more effective at eliciting reflective content and organization episodes, ulti-
mately resulting in better L2 writing quality. Thus, providing a framework for
students to work in while conducting a collaborative writing task could ensure
comparable contributions from each student, equal ownership of the text, and be
most beneficial for the progression of the task. Promoting collaborative patterns of
writing for extensive writing using Web 2.0 tools might be more challenging for L2
teachers, because such tasks are often completed outside the classroom over a
longer period of time. However, because of the authentic nature of such writing
contexts and the opportunities for students to be exposed to a wide range of writ-
ing tasks, using technology to promote collaborative writing is highly recom-
mended. Using additional guided planning or reflection activities would facilitate
collaboration as well as promote the quality of writing outcomes.
SEE ALSO: Genre and Second Language Writing; Second Language eelt0535
Writing Materials Development; Task Development: Narrative, Expository, and eelt0547
eelt0548
Argumentative Writing
References
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction
in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–47.
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pre task modelling on attention to form and question development.
TESOL Quarterly, 47, 8–35.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative
dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12,
211–34.
6 Task Development: Collaborative Writing
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2
education: Vygotskian praxis and the theory/practice divide. New York, NY: Routledge.
Neumann, H., & McDonough, K. (2015). Exploring student interaction during collaborative
prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 27, 84–104.
Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the
use of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In M. Gonzalez-Llore & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-
mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–58.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–73.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Vithanage, R. I. (2013). Collaborative writing and individual writing: Improving writing in an L2
class (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ohio University, Athens.
