Lang. Teach. (2019), 52.

1, 40–59 
c Cambridge University Press 2018
doi:10.1017/S0261444818000320

Research Timeline

Collaborative writing

Neomy Storch The University of Melbourne, Australia

neomys@unimelb.edu.au

Introduction

Writing has generally been perceived as a solitary activity, completed by the writer working
alone. Yet, over the years we have witnessed a growing interest among researchers and
educators in COLLABORATIVE WRITING, an activity that can be simply defined as the
involvement of two or more writers in the production of a single text. This interest has been
driven by two main factors. The first factor is the nature of workplace writing. Studies (e.g. Ede
& Lunsford 1990; Mirel & Spilka 2002) have shown that in a number of workplaces, writing is
often completed in teams rather than individually. The second factor is the advent of Web 2.0
applications such as blogs, wikis, and Google Docs, which have transformed literacy practices,
making the creation and sharing of texts easier and more readily acceptable (Hyland 2016;
Vandergriff 2016). In the field of second language (L2) learning, interest in collaborative
writing was also spurred by early research conducted by Swain and her colleagues (e.g.
Swain & Lapkin 1995; Swain 1998; see also timeline for additional references) showing the
language learning opportunities of communicative tasks which involve joint written output
(e.g. Dictogloss).
Before outlining the research conducted on collaborative writing, let me begin by explaining
what I mean by collaborative writing. Although some composition scholars (e.g. Bruffee 1984)
have suggested that all writing is collaborative to some extent (e.g. when a writer composes
a text with a specific reader in mind), I view collaborative writing as an activity with very
distinct traits (see Storch 2013). I define collaborative writing as an activity that requires the
co-authors to be involved in all stages of the writing process, sharing the responsibility for
and the ownership of the entire text produced. These traits distinguish collaborative writing
from cooperative writing. In a cooperative or team writing task, there can be a division
of labour, with each team member completing one discrete section of the text or having
the responsibility for completing one sub-task (e.g. collecting information, editing the final
version). Although the distinction between collaboration and cooperation may be blurred at
times, and admittedly the two terms have been used by researchers interchangeably, I have
argued (see Storch 2013, 2017) that not all pair/small group writing tasks are necessarily
collaborative and that it is collaborative writing that maximises the opportunities for language
learning. Thus, in this timeline, I focus only on research on collaborative writing and not
cooperative writing (e.g. reports on group assignments).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING 41

In collaborative L2 writing, the need to reach agreement on what and how to express ideas
in the jointly produced text encourages learners to deliberate about language choice and
grammatical accuracy. Swain used the term ‘collaborative dialogue’ (2000) and subsequently
LANGUAGING (2006) to describe such deliberations, and the unit of analysis used to quantify
and analyse instances of languaging is the LANGUAGE RELATED EPISODE (LRE) (Swain &
Lapkin 1995; Swain 1998). These terms are used frequently in empirical studies that
investigate the nature of learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and their
potential outcomes for language learning. Researchers have also investigated a range of
factors that may impact on the quantity and quality of these languaging episodes, including
task type (e.g. jigsaw, dictogloss), the relative proficiency of the learners, task modality and
learners’ perceptions of the tasks. The assumption underlying these investigations is that the
more learners engage in languaging, the more conducive the activity is to language learning.
Given the language learning opportunities created by collaborative writing tasks,
researchers have also sought evidence for whether engagement in such tasks results in
language learning gains. Various approaches have been deployed in these investigations
of outcomes (for a detailed discussion, see Storch 2013), such as comparing individually
and collaboratively produced texts or comparing learners’ writing before and after the
implementation of collaborative writing (i.e. a pre- post-test research design).
Studies on collaborative writing have been informed primarily by sociocultural theory and
activity theory (AT), both theories having their genesis in the work of Vygotsky (1978, 1981).
Key constructs from these two theories are often used by the researchers to analyse their data
and explain their findings. These key constructs include the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD) and scaffolding, language as a mediational tool, and learners’ actions as deliberate
and goal driven. The ZPD distinguishes between a learner’s current and potential levels of
development and forms the basis for the argument that only instruction or assistance which
is dynamically attuned to a learner’s potential level of development leads to learning. This
form of assistance is termed SCAFFOLDING. In collaborative writing, learners can pool their
linguistic knowledge to co-construct the scaffold; a process that has been termed COLLECTIVE
SCAFFOLDING (Donato 1994; Storch 2002∗ ).When co-constructing the scaffold, learners use
language as a mediating tool. Language (whether it is the shared first language (L1) or L2)
enables the learners to articulate their thinking and thus mediate their cognition. Research
on collaborative writing has investigated the extent to which learners use their L1 and the
functions that the L1 serves (e.g. Antón & DiCamilla 1998∗ ; Swain & Lapkin 2000∗ ; Storch
& Wigglesworth 2003∗ ).
Researchers investigating collaborative writing tasks have also observed that simply
assigning learners to work in pairs or small groups does not necessarily mean that they
will engage in languaging and scaffold each other’s performance. As the seminal study
by Storch (2002)∗ has shown, learners may form different relationships when engaging in
collaborative tasks, some of which are not conducive to language learning. Storch’s (2002)
model of dyadic interactions distinguishes between four types of relationships according to the
level of learners’ contributions to the task and engagement with each other’s contributions.
This model has been adopted in many other studies investigating collaborative writing in

∗ Denotes the full reference is in the timeline itself.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 42 RESEARCH TIMELINE

face-to-face (e.g. Watanabe & Swain 2007∗ ) and computer mediated environments (e.g. Li &
Zhu 2013∗ ).
One reason why learners may not contribute to a collaborative writing activity is because
they may prefer to write individually. This preference has been reported by several studies
which have elicited learners’ perspectives about the collaborative writing activity, whether
completed face-to-face (e.g. Storch 2005∗ ) or using Web 2.0 tools (e.g. Kessler 2009∗ ). A
number of researchers have sought to explain learners’ behaviour during collaborative writing
more systematically, including the relationships they form, by using AT as their theoretical
framework. AT views learners as intentional agents whose actions can be explained by
reference to their goals, orientation to the activity, and emotions (e.g. Storch 2004∗ ; Li & Zhu
2017∗ ).
The aim of this article is to provide a timeline of empirical studies on collaborative L2
writing that documents what has been the focus of investigation and the shift in this focus
over the past 25 or so years (from the mid-1990s). I have selected seminal studies as well as
studies conducted by emerging researchers in a range of educational contexts, in the teaching
of English as well as other languages (e.g. French, Spanish, Korean) in second, foreign and
immersion classes and to young and adult learners at different levels of L2 proficiency, in
order to showcase the interest that this topic has stimulated across the world.
Two periods can be identified in this timeline. In the first period (approximately 15
years) most of the studies report on collaborative writing implemented in classrooms,
with students working in pairs and interacting face-to-face. These studies have tended to
focus on the nature of languaging (e.g. quantity, focus, quality and resolution of LREs)
and the factors that influence the generation of LREs. A few also investigated whether
engagement in collaborative writing resulted in language learning gains. The second period
corresponds to developments in technology and thus includes studies which report on
computer mediated (CM) collaborative writing using a range of digital tools such as wikis
and Google Docs. Alongside this focus on CM collaborative writing, we have ongoing
research on important aspects of face-to-face collaborative writing. In a sense, this second
period reflects the reality of L2 classrooms, where both forms of collaborative writing
complement L2 instruction. Studies investigating CM collaborative writing have focused
predominantly on the nature of learners’ contributions to the jointly produced text: that
is, whether learners add, delete or change the content of the evolving text, including
correcting the text for linguistic accuracy. However, there are different approaches adopted
in this analysis of learners’ contributions. Some researchers quantify the different types of
contributions (e.g. Kessler 2009∗ ), others employ a qualitative approach, describing and
exemplifying the type of contributions learners make (e.g. Li & Zhu 2013∗ ). Furthermore,
in CM interactions, learners’ attention to language can take two forms. Because all the
participants in a CM collaborative writing activity have access to the joint text (synchronously
or asynchronously), they can simply edit it without any interaction. Alternatively, they can
engage in text-based interaction, similar to the languaging episodes (i.e. LREs) in face-to-
face interactions. On the whole, contributions which edit the text for errors in language use
in CM collaborative writing are treated as equivalent to languaging episodes, regardless of
whether there is some interaction between peers about the correction made, because the
act of editing draws learners’ attention to form. Some researchers use LREs (or slightly

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING 43

different labels) when analysing learners’ language related corrections of the joint text (e.g.
Kessler 2009∗ ).
The timeline has categorised these studies according to the following themes:

A. Learner interaction during collaborative writing: the nature of languaging

1. Quantity and quality of languaging
2. Use of L1 during languaging
3. Collective scaffolding during languaging
B. Factors influencing the nature of languaging during collaborative writing
1. Task type (e.g. jigsaw, dictogloss)
2. Task modality (oral vs written)
3. Learners’ L2 proficiency
4. Mode of interaction
C. CM collaborative writing: the nature of learners’ contribution to the text
D. Relationships learners form
1. In face-to-face collaborative writing
2. In CM collaborative writing
E. The outcomes of collaborative writing
1. The impact on the quality of the text produced
2. Evidence of language learning
F. Learners’ perceptions of and reflections about collaborative writing
G. Explaining learner behaviour during collaborative writing activities using AT

References

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the ‘conversation of mankind’. College English 46.7,
635−652.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 33−56.
Ede, L. & A. Lunsford (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd edn.). New York: Routledge.
Mirel, B. & R. Spilka (eds.) (2002). Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st
century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. (2017). Implementing and assessing collaborative writing activities in EAP classes. In
J. Bitchener, N. Storch & R. Wette (eds.), Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students.
Instructional approaches. New York: Routledge, 130−144.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus
on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64−81.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In J. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 97−114.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In
H. Byrnes (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum,
95−108.
Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16, 371−391.
Vandergriff, I. (2016). Second-language discourse in the digital world: Linguistic and social practices in and beyond
the networked classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 44 RESEARCH TIMELINE

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.), The concept of activity
in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 144−188.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

NEOMY STORCH is an Associate Professor in English as a second language (ESL) and Applied Linguistics
in the School of Languages & Linguistics, University of Melbourne. Her research has focused on issues
related to L2 pedagogy, and particularly L2 writing. These issues have included collaborative writing,
feedback on writing, and assessing writing development. She has published and presented widely on
these topics, including a book on collaborative writing (2013) and a co-authored book (with John
Bitchener) on corrective feedback (2016).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Year References Annotations Theme

1994 Kowal, M. & M. Swain (1994). Using This was the first study to examine the nature of learner talk during a A.1
collaborative language production tasks to collaborative writing task. Kowal & Swain analysed the talk elicited by a B.3
promote students’ language awareness. dictogloss task implemented in a Grade 8, French immersion class. The talk
Language Awareness 3.2, 73−93. was coded for what the LREs focused on, distinguishing between episodes
focusing on grammar, meaning and orthography. The authors argue that the
attention to language generated promotes language learning. They also note
that learners’ proficiency differences may impact on the nature of the LREs, a
topic that was investigated in greater depth in subsequent studies (e.g. LEESER
2004; STORCH & ALDOSARI 2013).∗
1998 Antón, M. & F. J. DiCamilla (1998). This study, conducted with beginner L2 learners of Spanish, represents a A.1

NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING

Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative systematic investigation of the use of L1 during collaborative writing tasks. The A.2
interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian study revealed that the shared L1 (English) served important cognitive A.3
Modern Language Review 54.3, 314−342. functions, such as enabling these beginner L2 learners to deliberate about
linguistic choices and to provide scaffolded assistance. The L1 also served an
important social function, enabling the learners to negotiate and focus on the
goals of the task.
1998 Storch, N. (1998). Comparing second language Storch’s small-scale study (N = 9) was the first to investigate the impact of task A.1
learners’ attention to form across tasks. type on the nature of LREs. The study, conducted with intermediate ESL B.1
Language Awareness 7.4, 176−191. students undertaking degree courses, compared the number and focus of LREs
elicited by traditional grammar exercises (e.g. cloze) and collaborative writing
tasks (e.g. short composition), finding that whereas the grammar tasks elicited
more attention to form, the collaborative writing task elicited more attention to
lexis.
1998 Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (1998). Interaction and The significance of this case study by Swain & Lapkin is that it was the first A.1
second language learning: Two adolescent attempt to trace evidence of learning to deliberations about language (LREs) A.3
French immersion students working together. during collaborative writing tasks. Using tailor-made tests, the authors showed E.2
Modern Language Journal 82.3, 320−337. that the knowledge learners (Grade 8 French immersion) co-constructed during
the LREs was retained.

45
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

46 RESEARCH TIMELINE
Year References Annotations Theme
2000 Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (2000). Task-based Swain & Lapkin built on ANTÓN & DICAMILLA’s (1998) study to investigate A.1
second language learning: The uses of the first the amount of L1 their French immersion students used when completing two A.2
language. Language Teaching Research 4.3, different collaborative writing tasks (dictogloss and jigsaw), and the functions A.3
251–274. the L1 served. The study also examined whether the amount of L1 use affected B.1
the quality of the texts produced. The study found that the learners used their E.1
L1 sparingly, and that when used, it served important purposes. These findings
allay the concerns that some teachers may have about implementing
collaborative writing tasks, particularly in contexts where all learners have a
shared L1. The study also found a link between L1 use and the quality of the
text, but it varied with the task type.
2001 Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (2001). Focus on form Swain & Lapkin’s large-scale study (N = 65, Grade 8 French immersion) A.1
through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task compared LREs generated by two types of tasks, dictogloss (a grammar focused B.1
effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain task) and jigsaw (a meaning focused task), and whether differences in LREs E.1
(eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language related to the quality of the texts produced and learning gains (using pre- and
learning, teaching and testing. London: Longman, post- tests). The study’s main findings were that task type did not affect the
99−118. quantity or the focus of the LREs generated. The authors attributed this
unexpected finding to the mini grammar lesson and task modelling preceding
both tasks (see also KIM & MCDONOUGH 2011). Furthermore, the lack of impact
on text quality and language gains was explained in terms of the relatively short
time the learners spent on the task, highlighting the need for longitudinal
studies in order to investigate the language learning outcomes of collaborative
writing (see SHEHADEH 2011).
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Year References Annotations Theme

2002 Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in This study, conducted with intermediate/advanced ESL learners, was the first A.1
ESL pair work. Language Learning 52.1, systematic and qualitative analysis of pair interaction on a range of A.3
119−158. collaborative writing tasks. Using the criteria of equality and mutuality, Storch D.1
identified four distinct patterns of interaction and presented them in a model of E.2
dyadic interaction. This model has since been applied by researchers in diverse
research contexts (see WATANABE & SWAIN 2007; LI & ZHU 2013; STORCH &
ALDOSARI 2013). The study showed that learners who formed a collaborative
relationship (with high equality and mutuality) generated more LREs and

NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING

engaged in collective scaffolding. They also showed more evidence of language
learning, as evident in their individual performance on subsequent tasks.
2003 Storch, N. & G. Wigglesworth (2003). Is there a Building on the small body of research on the use of L1 (see ANTÓN & A.2
role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? DICAMILLA 1998; SWAIN & LAPKIN 2000), Storch & Wigglesworth F
TESOL Quarterly 32.4, 760−770. investigated the use of L1 in a collaborative writing activity with high
intermediate ESL adult learners who shared an L1. This study too found that
the learners used their shared L1 to a very limited extent. Interview data
revealed that the reluctance to use the L1 was related to the learners’ belief that
in the ESL context they were expected to use the L2.
2004 Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and Leeser considered an important aspect of pair work – the relative proficiency A.1
focus on form during collaborative dialogue. of members of the pair. The study, conducted with adult learners of Spanish B.3
Language Teaching Research 8.1, 55−81. completing a dictogloss task, found that proficiency pairing affected the
number and type of LREs as well as their successful resolution. Pairs composed
of high proficiency learners generated and correctly resolved the largest
number of LREs, mostly dealing with grammatical form. Pairs composed of
low proficiency students generated the smallest number of LREs, mainly
focusing on lexis, and a high per cent of these LREs were unresolved.

47
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

48 RESEARCH TIMELINE
Year References Annotations Theme
2004 Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to This was the first study to apply AT in order to explain why learners may form D.1
explain differences in patterns of dyadic different patterns of dyadic interaction (see STORCH 2002). Storch found that it G
interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian was learners’ goals and orientation to the task which explained the patterns
Modern Language Review 60.4, 457−480. formed.
2005 Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: In this study, the outcome of collaborative writing was investigated by E.1
Product, process, and students’ reflections. comparing the quality of texts produced collaboratively and individually. The F
Journal of Second Language Writing 14.3, 153−173. study, conducted with intermediate/advanced university ESL students, found
that collaboratively produced texts were more accurate and of better quality.
Follow-up interviews showed that most but not all the students had positive
perceptions about the activity.
2007 De La Colina, A. & P. M. Garcı́a Mayo (2007). This study extended the investigation of the impact of task type on languaging A.1
Attention to form across collaborative tasks by (e.g. STORCH 1998; SWAIN & LAPKIN 2001). What distinguished this study was A.2
low proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In that it was conducted with low proficiency learners. It found that the students A.3
M. P. Garcı́a Mayo (ed.), Investigating tasks in were able to complete the tasks (jigsaw, text reconstruction and dictogloss) by B.1
formal language learning. London: Multilingual using their L1 and collectively scaffolding their performance. However, the
Matters, 91−116. dictogloss task was the least successful in drawing learners’ attention to form.
2007 Storch, N. & G. Wigglesworth (2007). Writing In this large-scale study (N = 72), building on STORCH’s (2005) study, Storch & A.1
tasks: The effects of collaboration. In M. P. Wigglesworth compared two writing tasks (reports and essay) produced B.1
Garcı́a Mayo (ed.), 157−177. collaboratively and individually by relatively advanced ESL learners. Using an E.1
extensive range of discourse analytical measures, the study confirmed that when
learners work collaboratively they produce more accurate texts. Furthermore,
analysis of the pair talk showed that the essays elicited more LREs than the
reports but that in both tasks most of the LREs dealt with lexical choices.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Year References Annotations Theme

2007 Watanabe, Y. & M. Swain (2007). Effects of This study built on STORCH’s (2002) study, investigating the impact of A.1
proficiency differences and patterns of pair proficiency pairing on the relationships learners formed. The study adopted an B.3
interaction on second language learning: interesting methodology, using core participants who interacted on one task D.1
Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL with a higher proficiency peer and on another task with a lower proficiency E.2
learners. Language Teaching Research 11.2, peer. Watanabe & Swain found that proficiency differences did not
121–142. necessarily affect the patterns of interaction. Their study also confirmed that
the collaborative pattern was the most conducive to language learning, as
evident by the number of LREs generated by the pairs that collaborated and
their post-test results.

NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING

2008 Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of The study adds to the small but important body of research on the outcome of A.1
collaborative and individual tasks to the collaborative writing tasks. Kim compared attention to language (LREs) and E.2
acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language performance on vocabulary tests (pre- and post-tests) of intermediate learners
Journal 92.1, 114−130. of Korean (N = 32), who completed a dictogloss task. Half of the learners
completed the task in pairs, the other half individually while thinking aloud.
Although the number of LREs generated was the same for pairs and
individuals, the learners who participated in the collaborative dictogloss
performed significantly better on the vocabulary tests.
2008 Mak, B. & D. Coniam (2008). Using wikis to This is one of the earliest studies reporting on the implementation of a wiki task A.1
enhance and develop writing skills among with high school learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Hong Kong. C
secondary school students in Hong Kong. Mak & Coniam’s longitudinal case study (over two months) documents how E.1
System 36.3, 437−455. the quality of the learners’ contributions to the wiki changed over time, with
the group members progressively contributing more ideas as well as elaborating
on each other’s ideas. However, the researchers also reported little evidence of
learners correcting the successive versions of the wiki text for grammatical
accuracy, attributing this to concerns about causing offence. Analysis of the
evolving text showed evidence of improvement, both in terms of length and
coherence.

49
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

50 RESEARCH TIMELINE
Year References Annotations Theme
2008 Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in pair work In this study, Storch extends the analysis of LREs in collaborative writing tasks A.1
activity: Level of engagement and implications by drawing important distinctions between LREs showing substantial and
for language development. Language Awareness superficial level of engagement by each member of the dyad. The author
17.2, 95−114. suggests that LREs which elicit substantial engagement are more likely to lead
to language learning.
2009 Arnold, N., L. Ducate & C. Kost (2009). This large-scale study (N = 54), conducted with intermediate German L2 A.1
Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from learners, investigated the impact of teacher guidance on learners’ contributions C
culture project in German class. In L. Lomicka to a wiki. Archived wiki pages were analysed for the changes to the wiki text F
& G. Lord (eds.), The next generation: Social made, distinguishing between surface level, meaning-preserving and
networking and online collaboration in foreign language meaning-changing revisions. The study found that teacher guidance did not
learning. CALICO Monograph Series (vol. 5). affect the number of revisions students made to their wikis or the nature of the
San Marcos, TX: Texas State University, revisions. The most frequent revisions were meaning-changing (adding rather
115−144. than deleting texts). In contrast to the findings of other studies (e.g. MAK &
CONIAM 2008; KESSLER 2009), the next most frequent type of revision was
editing for language use. Interviews with the students showed that the students
were mostly positive about their wiki experience.
2009 Brooks, L. & M. Swain (2009). Languaging in In this multi-staged and innovative study, Brooks & Swain examined not A.1
collaborative writing: Creation and response to only whether learning occurred as a result of collaborative writing but also the E.1
expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (eds.), most effective source of learning. Building on the results of SWAIN & LAPKIN’s
Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA. Mahwah, earlier study (1998), this study showed that learners retain a high proportion of
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 58−89. what they deliberate about during the collaborative writing activity. Brooks &
Swain also showed that the feedback learners provide each other may be more
developmentally appropriate and thus more effective than the feedback
provided by the expert (researcher).
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Year References Annotations Theme

2009 Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention This was the first large-scale study reporting on learners’ contributions to a A.1
to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. group wiki. The 40 EFL learners (pre-service teachers) all formed one group. C
Language Learning and Technology 13.1, 79−95. Kessler found (as in the case of MAK & CONIAM 2008) that the vast majority of F
the learners’ contributions dealt with content. There was relatively little
attention to language form (coded as LREs), with many errors in grammar
being overlooked. Follow-up interviews revealed that reluctance to edit each
other’s contribution for accuracy was not related to lack of knowledge but to
the students’ perception of the wiki task as a meaning focused rather than
language focused activity.
2009 Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent In an EFL context (China), Niu’s study (N = 16, upper intermediate) A.1

NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING

production modes on EFL learners’ focus on investigated the impact of modality on languaging, by comparing the nature of B.2
form. Language Awareness 18.3/4, 384−402. languaging on a collaborative oral output task and a collaborative written
output task. Her findings showed that writing tasks produced collaboratively
were superior to the oral tasks in terms of the amount of attention to language
(LRE), the range of issues focused on and the depth of deliberations (see also
STORCH 2008). Her findings suggest that collaborative writing tasks that
combine speaking and writing may provide learners with greater opportunities
for language learning than speaking only tasks.
2010 Bradley, L., B. Lindström & H. Rystedt (2010). The study by Bradley et al. provides perhaps the clearest evidence of the A.1
Rationalities of collaboration for language effect of patterns of interaction on learners’ contribution to wikis. The study C
learning in a wiki. ReCALL 22.2, 247−265. was conducted with 54 advanced English for specific purposes (engineering) D.2
students in Sweden, working predominantly in pairs on wiki projects. Archived
wiki pages were coded for patterns of learners’ contributions, particularly in
terms of providing feedback on each other’s contributions. The study identified
three distinct patterns of interaction: minimal involvement, cooperation, and
collaboration. Groups that cooperated tended to add to and edit their own
contributions, but overall there was little evidence of focus on language. The
majority of the groups adopted a collaborative approach, where adding and
revising the evolving text intertwined.

51
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

52 RESEARCH TIMELINE
Year References Annotations Theme
2010 Elola, I. & A. Oskoz (2010). Collaborative Elola & Oskoz’s study is one of the few studies that investigated systematically A.1
writing: Fostering foreign language and writing the impact of writing using wikis on the written product. This small-scale study C
conventions development. Language Learning and (N = 8), conducted with advanced learners of Spanish, compared E.1
Technology 14.3, 51−71. argumentative essays produced in pairs (using wikis) and subsequent essays F
produced individually (also using wikis). Employing a range of measures, the
researchers found no significant differences between the essays produced
collaboratively and individually. Since both essays were produced using wikis,
the researchers were also able to discern differences in how the students
approached the tasks when composing individually and in pairs. The authors
also noted that in both writing formats, many errors were ignored. Survey
results showed that learners enjoyed working on wikis, but most preferred to do
so individually.
2010 Kessler, G. & D. Bikowski (2010). Developing This reanalysis of the data collected by KESSLER (2009) found that half of the A.1
collaborative autonomous learning abilities in group members (N = 40) contributed little to the joint wiki and that most of the C
computer mediated language learning: contributions consisted of adding or deleting information, rather than
Attention to meaning among students in wiki synthesising or rephrasing. The study also identified three distinct stages in the
space. Computer Assisted Language Learning 23.1, wiki task corresponding to the type of contributions made. The findings suggest
41−58. collaboration may take time to develop, and occurs when the learners become
more confident with co-authoring.
2010 Storch, N. & A. Aldosari (2010). Learners’ use This study extends earlier studies investigating learners’ use of L1 (e.g. SWAIN & A.1
of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL LAPKIN 2001) by considering the impact of proficiency pairing and task type on A.2
class. Language Teaching Research 14.4, 355−375. learners’ L1 use. The study also found modest use of L1 by these EFL students, B.1
even in pairs composed of relatively low proficiency learners. Language B.3
exercises (editing) elicited more L1 use than collaborative writing tasks.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Year References Annotations Theme

2011 Kim, Y. & K. McDonough (2011). Using This study investigated primarily the impact of pre-task modelling on learners’ A.1
pretask modelling to encourage collaborative languaging and the relationships they formed. The study was conducted with B.2
language learning opportunities. Language young (middle school) Korean EFL students, who completed one collaborative D.1
Teaching Research 15.2, 183−199. writing task (dictogloss) and two oral pair tasks (decision making and
information gap). It found that learners who were exposed to pre-task
modelling were more likely to collaborate, generated more LREs and resolved
a larger proportion of these correctly compared to those who were not exposed
to the modelling. The collaborative writing task (dictogloss) elicited more LREs
than the oral tasks, thus providing further evidence of the benefits of the writing

NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING

modality (see also NIU 2009).
2011 Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student Shehadeh’s study was the first longitudinal study that compared the E.2
perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. performance of low intermediate EFL learners writing collaboratively and F
Journal of Second Language Writing 20.4, 286−305. those writing individually. Using a pre- post- test design, the study found that
learners who wrote collaboratively throughout the semester showed greater
improvement in text quality and vocabulary than those working individually,
but that collaboration did not result in greater accuracy. Surveys conducted
with the learners who worked collaboratively found that most enjoyed the
activity and felt that their speaking and confidence improved.
2012 Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative This study considered whether group size may impact on the nature and A.1
writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing outcome of languaging. Fernández Dobao compared the quality of texts E.1
group, pair, and individual work. Journal of produced collaboratively in small groups and in pairs with those produced
Second Language Writing 21.1, 40−58. individually. It also compared the nature of languaging in small groups and
pairs. The study found that the small groups (intermediate Spanish L2)
produced more LREs and resolved a higher proportion of these LREs correctly
compared to pairs. Groups also produced more accurate texts than pairs and
individuals.

53
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

54 RESEARCH TIMELINE
Year References Annotations Theme
2012 Kessler, G., D. Bikowski & J. Boggs (2012). This was the first study reporting on the use of Google Docs, a synchronous A.1
Collaborative writing among second language application. Advanced English for academic purposes (EAP) learners’ postings A.3
learners in academic web-based projects. were analysed and coded as either language related contributions (LRC) or C
Language Learning and Technology 16.1, 91−109. non-language related contributions. LRC distinguished between meaning (e.g.
adding, deleting text) and form related contributions (i.e. attending to
accuracy). The analysis revealed, as in the case of previous studies using wikis
(e.g. KESSLER 2009), that although the posts showed some evidence of collective
scaffolding, most of the contributions were to meaning. Attention to form was
fairly superficial, dealing mainly with mechanics (spelling, punctuation).
2013 Li, M. & W. Zhu (2013). Patterns of Li & Zhu’s case studies (three triads), conducted with EFL learners in China, A.1
computer-mediated interaction in small writing built on previous studies reporting on patterns of interaction in wiki A.3
groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language collaborative projects (e.g. BRADLEY et al. 2010). Based on the analysis of posts C
Learning 26.1, 61−82. and informed by STORCH’s (2002) model of dyadic interaction, three patterns of D.2
triadic interaction were identified. As in the case of dyadic interaction, this F
study too found that in a triad forming a collective (i.e. forming a collaborative
relationship) there was a high level of contribution to the text, including
revisions for language, and evidence of collective scaffolding. Post-task
interviews suggested that the students’ perceptions about the benefits of
collaborative writing were related to the patterns of interaction the students
experienced.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Year References Annotations Theme

2013 Storch, N. & A. Aldosari (2013). Pairing Storch & Aldosari present additional insights into the potential impacts of A.1
learners in pair work. Activity. Language Teaching the relative proficiency of members of the pair (see LEESER 2004; WATANABE & A.3
Research 17.1, 31−48. SWAIN 2007) on learners’ interaction in collaborative writing activities. The D.1
study investigated the impact of different pairing on languaging and on the
relationships the learners formed. This longitudinal study, conducted with EFL
learners in Saudi Arabia, confirmed the findings of LEESER’s (2004) study, that
the frequency of LREs aligns with proficiency level: the highest number of
LREs were generated by pairs composed of two high proficiency learners. In

NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING

terms of patterns of interaction, the study found that pairs of similar proficiency
(whether high-high or low-low) were more likely to collaborate than mixed
proficiency pairs. Of particular pedagogical importance was the finding that
pairs composed of relatively low proficiency learners may generate fewer LREs
than mixed proficiency (i.e. high-low) pairs, but may benefit more from the
activity because they are more likely to contribute to and engage with the
activity.
2014 Oskoz, A. & I. Elola (2014). Promoting foreign Oskoz & Elola explored how online tools (chats and wikis) support A.1
language collaborative writing through the use collaborative writing. The study compared students’ collaborative writing B.4
of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In M. processes via voice-chats (synchronous, resembling face-to-face C
González-Lloret & L. Ortega (eds.), Task-based communication) and via text-based wikis. The authors found that the effect of
language teaching. Amsterdam: John the medium of communication was mostly due to the inherent affordances of
Benjamins (vol. 6), 115−148. these tools. While the synchronous nature of voice communication enabled
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.05osk. students to focus more on the global aspects of writing (e.g. content and
organisation), the editing feature of wiki encouraged students to pay more
attention to the local aspects of writing (e.g. vocabulary use, grammar).

55
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

56 RESEARCH TIMELINE
Year References Annotations Theme
2014 Strobl, C. (2014). Affordances of Web 2.0 Strobl’s study, conducted with advanced German L2 learners, is informative A.1
technologies for collaborative advanced writing for a number of reasons. It compared both the product and the processes of C
in a foreign language. CALICO Journal 31.1, individual and collaborative writing (a synthesis task). In the collaborative E.1
1–18. condition, learners used discussion forums and Google Docs for planning and F
writing, and were guided throughout by prescriptive step-by-step instructions.
The study found that although there were no statistically significant differences
in accuracy and complexity, collaboratively produced texts showed better
synthesis. There were also differences in terms of processes. Whereas individual
writers tended to adopt a linear approach to writing and revising, in the
collaborative condition, the writing and reviewing phases were intertwined,
with a sizeable proportion of discussion topics focusing on language (coded as
LRC in KESSLER et al. 2012). In follow-up surveys, the students identified both
positive and negative aspects of the collaborative activity. Yet most expressed a
preference for individual writing.
2016 Bikowski, D. & R. Vithanage (2016). Effects of This study investigated whether online collaborative writing ultimately D.2
web-based collaborative writing on individual enhances learners’ L2 writing (see also ELOLA & OSKOZ 2010). This large-scale E.2
L2 writing development. Language Learning & (N = 59) longitudinal study used Google Docs to compare the outcomes of F
Technology 20.1, 79−99. collaborative and individual writing. Analysis of pre- post-tests results revealed
that the participants in collaborative writing classes showed greater writing
gains than the individual writers. Moreover, the students who wrote
collaboratively – and their teachers – were very positive about the experience.
Although not the main focus of investigation, observation notes suggested three
distinct patterns of group interactions.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Year References Annotations Theme

2016 Fernández Dobao, A. (2016). Peer interaction Although a number of studies considered the relationships learners form in A.1
and learning. A focus on the silent learner. In S.collaborative writing activities (e.g. STORCH 2002; WATANABE & SWAIN 2007), E.2
Ballinger & M. Sato (eds.), Peer interaction and and noted that in some patterns one learner does not contribute to the activity,
second language learning. Amsterdam: John what distinguishes this study is that it focused on the silent learners in the group
Benjamins, 33−62. activity. Conducted with intermediate learners of Spanish L2 and using a pre-
post-test design, the study found that silent learners benefited from exposure to
the small group talk (LREs) that the collaborative writing task generated. The
study also found that even for the silent learners, it is the quality of the LREs

NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING

(length, depth of engagement) that impacts on language learning outcomes (see
also STORCH 2008).
2016 Li, M. & D. Kim (2016). One wiki, two groups: Li & Kim’s study investigated in greater depth the nature of equality and A.1
Dynamic interaction across ESL collaborative mutuality (see STORCH 2002) in the interaction of two groups (intermediate A.3
writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing EAP) working on two research related wiki tasks. Unlike other studies C
3.1, 25–42. investigating the nature of learners’ contributions to CM collaborative writing, D.2
this study also considered the learners’ scaffolding strategies employed to
encourage peer contributions. The study found dynamic patterns of interaction
for both groups, throughout the writing process.
2016 McDonough, K., W. J. Crawford & J. De McDonough et al.’s study, conducted with Thai EFL students, considered A.1
Vleeschauwer (2016). Thai EFL learners’ the nature and focus of learners’ interaction (language, content, text A.2
interaction during collaborative writing tasks organisation) on two types of collaborative writing tasks (summary and B.1
and its relationship to text quality. In S. problem-solution). The study found that these learners focused mainly on E.1
Ballinger & M. Sato (eds.), 185−208. language (using LREs as a unit of analysis), and more importantly, that the
amount of talk generated (predominantly in L1) was positively related to the
quality of the text produced, but only for the problem-solution task.

57
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

58 RESEARCH TIMELINE
Year References Annotations Theme
2016 Rouhshad, A. & N. Storch (2016) A focus on Rouhshad & Storch’s study compared the interactions of the same dyads A.1
mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face when completing a collaborative writing task face-to-face and when using B.4
and computer-mediated modes. In S. Ballinger Google Docs. Using LREs as units of analysis, the study found that the learners D.1
& M. Sato (eds.), 267−290. (intermediate level, ESL) deliberated more extensively about language when D.2
working face-to-face. Furthermore, in the face-to-face mode they tended to
collaborate; in the Google Docs mode the predominant pattern was
cooperative or dominant/passive. The authors call for more careful design of
CM collaborative writing tasks in order to optimise their language learning
opportunities.
2017 Li, M. & W. Zhu (2017a). Explaining dynamic Li & Zhu used a case study approach to investigate wiki writing by two small C
interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. groups of intermediate/advanced EAP learners completing two research D.2
Language Learning & Technology 21.2, 96−120. related tasks. Analysis of the learners’ contributions to the wikis showed that, in F
both case studies, patterns of interaction changed over time. Using student
interviews and reflection papers, the researchers explain these changes by
reference to three dynamic sociocultural factors: goals (see also STORCH 2004),
agency and emotions. To date, emotions have received very little attention in
research on L2 learning.
2017 Li, M. & W. Zhu (2017b). Good or bad This study creates an important link between two bodies of research on wiki C
collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links collaborative writing: patterns of interaction (e.g. see LI & ZHU 2013) and the D.2
between group interactions and writing quality of the texts produced collaboratively. Using a case study approach, Li & E.1
products. Journal of Second Language Writing 35.1, Zhu analysed the texts produced by four small groups of
38−53. intermediate/advanced EAP students using a range of discourse and global
measures awarded by two raters. The study found that the group that formed a
collective pattern produced the highest quality texts, particularly in terms of
text structure; those that exhibited dominant/defensive or cooperative patterns
produced relatively lower quality writing. The authors explain their findings by
reference to a key trait of collaboration, that of co-ownership.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Year References Annotations Theme

2017 Yim, B. & M. Warschauer (2017). Web-based Yim & Warschauer’s contribution, unlike the studies listed in this timeline, is C
collaborative writing in L2 contexts: largely to methodology. The authors propose that data mining techniques, used D.2

NEOMY STORCH: COLLABORATIVE WRITING

Methodological insights from text mining. to analyse large data sets, can also be used to enhance research on the processes E.1
Language Learning & Technology 21.1, 146−165. (nature of contribution and relationships), outcome and students’ perceptions F
of CM collaborative writing activities.
2017 Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing The study, conducted with intermediate level EFL learners in Iran, deals with A.1
student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on one of the important decisions when implementing collaborative writing D.1
collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research activities (see STORCH 2013); namely, the formation of groups. This E.1
21.4, 496−516. experimental study compared the nature of learners’ interaction and the
quality of their texts in student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs completing
a face-to-face collaborative writing task. The findings showed that although the
pairing method had no impact on patterns of interaction (STORCH 2002), the
teacher-assigned pairs generated more LREs and produced a better joint text.
∗
Authors’ names are shown in small capitals when the study referred to appears in this timeline.

59