Collaboration During Planning and Reviewing in Writing: Effects on L2 Writing

Authors: Amal Sellami, Ahlem Ammar

Abstract:

Writing is acknowledged to be a cognitively demanding and complex task. Indeed, the writing process is composed of three iterative sub-processes, namely planning, translating (writing), and reviewing. Not only do second or foreign language learners need to write according to this process, but they also need to respect the norms and rules of language and writing in the text to-be-produced. Accordingly, researchers have suggested to approach writing as a collaborative task in order to al leviate its complexity. Consequently, collaboration has been implemented during the whole writing process or only during planning orreviewing. Researchers report that implementing collaboration during the whole process might be demanding in terms of time in comparison to individual writing tasks. Consequently, because of time constraints, teachers may avoid it. For this reason, it might be pedagogically more realistic to limit collaboration to one of the writing sub-processes(i.e., planning or reviewing). However, previous research implementing collaboration in planning or reviewing is limited and fails to explore the effects of the seconditionson the written text. Consequently, the present study examines the effects of collaboration in planning and collaboration in reviewing on the written text. To reach this objective, quantitative as well as qualitative methods are deployed to examine the written texts holistically and in terms of fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Participants of the study include 4 pairs in each group (n=8). They participated in two experimental conditions, which are: (1) collaborative planning followed by individual writing and individual reviewing and (2) individual planning followed by individual writing and collaborative reviewing. The comparative research findings indicate that while collaborative planning resulted in better overall text quality (precisely better content and organization ratings), better fluency, better complexity, and fewer lexical errors, collaborative reviewing produces better accuracy and less syntactical and mechanical errors. The discussion of the findings suggests the need to conduct more comparative research in order to further explore the effects of collaboration in planning or in reviewing. Pedagogical implications of the current study include advising teachers to choose between implementing collaboration in planning or in reviewing depending on their students’ need and what they need to improve.

Keywords: collaboration, writing, collaborative planning, collaborative reviewing