Collaborative writing among young EFL learners in a school context: product and process

References

• Antón, M. and F. DiCamilla. 1998. Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 54, no. 3: 314–342. doi:10.3138/cmlr.54.3.314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azkarai, A. and M. Kopinska. 2020. Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: a study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs, and task motivation. System 94, no. 1. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102338.
   Google Scholar
• Calzada, A. and M. P. García Mayo. 2020. Child EFL grammar learning through a collaborative writing task. Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching, 19–40. doi:10.1075/lllt.55.01cal.
   Google Scholar
• Calzada, A. and M. P. García Mayo. 2021. Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: when form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness 30, no. 1: 1–16. doi:10.1080/09658416.2020.1751178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, I. and P. Deane. 2020. Evaluating writing process features in an adult EFL writing assessment context: a keystroke logging study. Language Assessment Quarterly 1, no. 26: 107–132. doi:10.1080/15434303.2020.1804913.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, L. and C. Muñoz. 2016. The foreign language classroom: current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal 100: 133–147. doi:10.1111/modl.12305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle, Y., J. Cánovas-Guirao and J. Roca de Larios. 2018. Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing 42: 25–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle, Y. and J. Roca de Larios. 2020. Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System 95: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández Dobao, A. 2012. Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, no. 1: 40–58. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1999. The influence of sources of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3: 215–247.
   Google Scholar
• García Mayo, M. P.2021. Working Collaboratively in Second/Foreign Language Learning (Vol. 30). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton .
   Google Scholar
• García Mayo, M. P. and A. Azkarai. 2016. EFL task-based interaction. Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda, eds. M. Sato and S. Ballinger, 241–266. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, M. Á. and M. P. García Mayo. 2021. The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research 3: 948–952. doi:10.1177/1362168819865559.
   Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, M. Á. and A. Lázaro-Ibarrola. 2020. Task repetition and collaborative writing by EFL children: beyond CAF measures. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 10, no. 3: 501–522. doi:10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirvela, A. and D. Belcher. 2016. Reading/writing and speaking/writing connections: the advantages of multimodal pedagogy. In Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing, eds. R. Manchón and P. K. Matsuda, 587–612. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Housen, A. and F. Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30, no. 4: 461–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. 2020. Willingness to engage: the importance of what learners bring to pair work. Language Awareness 29, no. 2: 134–154. doi:10.1080/09658416.2020.1743712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. and K. McDonough. 2011. Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research 15, no. 2: 183–199. doi:10.1177/2F1362168810388711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopinska, M. and A. Azkarai. 2020. Exploring young EFL learners’ motivation: individual versus pair work on dictogloss tasks. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 10, no. 3: 607–630. doi:10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson-Hall, J. 2010. A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS. New York:Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. 2021. Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, doi:10.1515/iral-2020-0160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. 2023. Child L2 Writers: A Room of their Own. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. and M. A. Hidalgo. 2021. Give me a second chance: task repetition and collaborative writing with child EFL learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3, no. 2: 275–299. doi:10.1075/ltyl.20009.laz.
   Google Scholar
• Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. and I. Villarreal. 2021. Are EFL writers motivated or demotivated by model texts and task repetition? Evidence from young collaborative writers. International Journal of English Studies 21, no. 2: 29–55. doi:10.6018/ijes.466401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luquin, M. and M. P. García Mayo. 2020. Collaborative writing and feedback: an exploratory study of the potential of models in primary EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching for Young Learners 2, no. 1: 73–100.
   Google Scholar
• Luquin, M. and M. P. García Mayo. 2021. Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System 98: 102465. doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3rd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Malvern, D. and B. J. Richards. 2000. Validation of a new measure of lexical diversity. In From Sound to Sentence: Studies on First Language Acquisition, eds M. Beers, B. van den Bogaerde, G. Bol, J. de Jong and C. Rooijmans, 81–96. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Malvern, D., B. Richards, N. Chipere and P. Durán. 2004. Lexical Diversity and Language Development. Quantification and Assessment. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Manchón, R. M.2011. Learning-to-write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Manchón, R. M.2020. Writing and Language Learning: Advancing Research Agendas. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, J. and L. Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30, no. 4: 555–578. doi:10.1093/applin/amp044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roothooft, H., A. Lázaro-Ibarrola and B. Bulté. 2022. Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research 0, no. 0. doi:10.1177/13621688221082041.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 1999. Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System 27, no. 3: 363–374. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00031-7.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2005. Collaborative writing: product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing 14, no. 3: 153–173. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2011. Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 275–288. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2013. Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2016. Collaborative writing. In Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing, eds. R. M. Manchón and P. Matsuda, 387–406. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2018. Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: a research agenda. Language Teaching 51, no. 2: 262–277. doi:10.1017/S0261444818000034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2019. Collaborative writing. Language Teaching 52: 40–59. doi:10.1017/S0261444818000320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2021. Collaborative writing: promoting languaging among language learners. In Working Collaboratively in Second/Foreign Language Learning, ed. M. P. García Mayo, 13–34. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. and G.Wigglesworth. 2007. Writing tasks: comparing individual and collaborative writing. In Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, ed. M. P. García Mayo, 157–177. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, eds. S. M. Gass and C. Madden, 235–253. Rowley: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Sociocultural Approaches to Second Language Research, ed. J. Lantolf, 97–115. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal 82, no. 3: 320–337. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2000. Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4, no. 3: 251–274. doi:10.1177/2F136216880000400304.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2001. Focus on Form through Collaborative Dialogue: Exploring Task Effects. Longman: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2013. A vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1: 101–129. doi:10.1075/jicb.1.1.05swa.
   Google Scholar
• Teng, M. F. 2017. The effectiveness of group, pair and individual output tasks on learning phrasal verbs. The Language Learning Journal 48, no. 2: 1–14. doi:10.1080/09571736.2017.1373841.
   Google Scholar
• Teng, M. F. 2021. Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System 97: 102426. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teng, M. F. and J. Huang. 2021. The effects of incorporating metacognitive strategies instruction into collaborative writing on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–20. doi:10.1080/02188791.2021.1982675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villarreal, I. and N. Gil-Sarratea. 2019. The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research 24, no. 6: 874–897. doi:10.1177/1362168819829017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola. 2022. Models in collaborative writing among CLIL learners of English in primary school: linguistic outcomes and motivation matters. System 110: 102922. doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wigglesworth, G. and N. Storch. 2009. Pair versus individual writing: effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing 26, no. 3: 445–466. doi:10.1177/2F0265532209104670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar