Peer-mediated vs. individual writing: measuring fluency, complexity, and accuracy in writing

References

• Aidinlou, N. A., and D. A. Kejal. 2012. “Socio-cultural Factors and Teaching a Foreign Language.” International Journal of Social Science and Education 2 (2): 139–143.
   Google Scholar
• Alegrı´a de la Colina, A., and M. Garcı´a Mayo. 2007. “Attention to Form Across Collaborative Tasks by Low-proficiency Learners in an EFL Setting.” In Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, edited by M. Garcı´a Mayo, 91–116. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, N., D. Atkinson, M. Morgan, T. Moore, and C. Snow. 1987. “What Experienced Collaborators Say about Collaborative Writing.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 1 (2): 70–90. doi:10.1177/105065198700100206.
   Google Scholar
• Aydin, Z., and S. Yildiz. 2014. “Using Wikis to Promote Collaborative EFL Writing.” Language Learning & Technology 18 (1): 160–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batstone, R. 2010. Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biari, R., and S. Jafari. 2013. “The Impact of Collaborative Writing on the Writing Fluency of Iranian EFL Learners.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4 (1): 164–175.
   Google Scholar
• Bruffee, K. A. 1984. “Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind.” College English 28 (1): 181–188.
   Google Scholar
• Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. 2001. Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning and Testing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Chalhoub-Deville, M. 2003. “Second Language Interaction: Current Perspectives and Future Trends.” Language Testing 20 (4): 369–383. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt264oa.
   Google Scholar
• Daiute, C. 1986. “Do 1 and 1 Make 2? Patterns of Influence by Collaborative Authors.” Written Communication 3 (3): 383–408. doi:10.1177/0741088386003003006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daiute, C., and B. Dalton. 1988. “Let’s Brighten It Up a Bit: Collaboration And Cognition in Writing’.” In The Social Construction of Written Communication, edited by B. A. Rafoth and D. L. Rubin, 249–269. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Dale, H. 1994. “Collaborative Writing Interactions in One Ninth-grade Classroom.” Journal of Educational Research 87 (6): 334–344. doi:10.1080/00220671.1994.9941264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deville, C., and M. Chalhoub-Deville. 2006. “Old and New Thoughts on Test Score Variability: Implications for Reliability and Validity.” In Inference and Generalizability in Applied Linguistics: Multiple Perspectives, edited by M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle, and P. Duff, 9–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Donato, R. 1988. “ Beyond Group: A Psycholinguistic Rationale for Collective Activity in Second Language Learning.” Unpublished PhD, University of Delaware.
   Google Scholar
• Elbow, P. 1973. Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. 2013. “Corrective Feedback in Teacher Guides and SLA.” IJLTR 1 (3): 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Emig, J. 1971. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Research Report, 13. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
   Google Scholar
• Fahiminia, R., S. Jahandar, and M. Khodabandehlou. 2013. “The Impact of Collaborative Learning on Iranian EFL Learner’s Belief about Vocabulary Learning.” An Online International Journal 3 (2): 150–163.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, P., and P. Skehan. 1996. “The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (3): 299–323.
   Google Scholar
• Holi Ali, H. I. 2012. “Improving Students’ Report Writing Quality in an EAP Context: Group versus Individual.” English Language Teaching 5 (3): 153–159.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F., and I. Vedder. 2008. “Cognitive Task Complexity and Written Output in Italian and French as a Foreign Language.” Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (1): 48–60. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P. 2000. “Second Language Learning as a Mediated Process.” Language Teaching: The International Abstracting Journal for Language Teachers and Applied Linguistics 33: 79–96.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., and M. E. Poehner. 2004. “Dynamic Assessment: Bringing the Past into the Future.” Journal of Applied Linguistics 1: 49–74.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., and M. E. Poehner. 2007. “Dynamic Assessment.” In Encylopedia of Language and Education: Volume 7. Language Testing and Assessment, edited by E. Shohamy and N. Hornberger (Gen. Ed.), 273–285. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, J., and J. Hansen. 2002. Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Long, M., and P. Porter. 1985. “Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition.” TESOL Quarterly 19 (2): 305–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luoma, S. 2004. Assessing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDonough, K. 2004. “Learner–learner Interaction during Pair and Small Group Activities in a Thai EFL Vontext.” System 32: 207–224.
   Google Scholar
• Pallant, J. 2007. SPSS Survival Manual. 3rd ed. Crows West, New South Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Shehadeh, A., and C. Coombe. 2010. Applications of Task-based learning in TESOL. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P. 2003. “Tasks in L2 Learning and Teaching.” Language Teaching 36: 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Sim, G. N. 1998. “Role of Peer Interaction in an ESL Writing Class.” Unpublished Ph D., University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 1998. “A Classroom-based Study: Insights from a Collaborative Text Reconstruction Task.” ELT Journal 52: 291–300. doi:10.1093/elt/52.4.291.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2001. “How Collaborative is Pair Work? ESL Tertiary Students Composing in Pairs.” Language Teaching Research 5 (1): 29–53. doi:10.1177/136216880100500103.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2002. “Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work.” Language Learning 52 (1): 119–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2005. “Collaborative Writing: Product, Process, and Students’ Reflections.” Journal for Second Language Writing 14 (3): 153–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N., and G. Wigglesworth. 2007. “Writing Tasks: The Effects of Colloboration.” In Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, edited by M. Garcı´a Mayo, 157–177. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N., and G. Wigglesworth. 2010a. “Learners’ Processing, Uptake and Retention of Corrective Feedback on Writing.” Case Studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 303–334. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N., and G. Wigglesowrth. 2010b. “Students’ Engagement with Feedback on Writing: The Role of Learner Agency.” In Sociocognitive Perspectives on language Use and Language Learning, edited by R. Batstone, 166–185. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, P., and U. Alice. 2007. “Group Assessments: Dilemmas Facing Lecturers in Multicultural Tertiary Classrooms.” Higher Education Research & Development 26: 147–161.
   Google Scholar
• Strobl, C. 2014. “Affordances of Web 2.0 Technologies for Collaborative Advanced Writing in a Foreign Language.” CALICO Journal 31 (1): 1–18. doi:10.11139/cj.31.1.1-18.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 1998. “Focus on form through Conscious Reflection.” In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Doughty and J. William, 64–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 2000. “The Output Hypothesis and beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue.” In Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, edited by J. Lantolf, 97–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 2001. “Integrating Language and Content Teaching through Collaborative Tasks.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 58: 44–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. 1998. “Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together.” Modern Language Journal 82 (3): 320–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villamil, O. S., and M. C. M. de Guerrero. 1996. “Peer Revision in the L2 Classroom: Social-cognitive Activities, Mediating Strategies, and Aspects of Social Behavior.” Journal of Second Language Writing 5 (1): 51–75.
   Google Scholar
• Villamil, O. S., and M. C. M. de Guerrero. 1998. “Assessing the Impact of Peer Revision on L2 Writing.” Applied Linguistics 19 (4): 491–514. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wigglesworth, G., and N. Storch. 2009. “Pair versus Individual Writing: Effects on Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy.” Language Testing 26 (3): 445–466. doi:10.1177/0265532209104670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. 2001. “The Effectiveness of Spontaneous Attention to Form.” System 29: 325–340.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe-Quintero, K., S. Inagaki, and H. Kim 1998. Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Honolulu, Hawai'i,University of Hawaíi at Manoa.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y.-F., and W.-T. Meng. 2013. “The Effects of Online Feedback on Students’ Text Revision.” Language Learning & Technology 17 (2): 220–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong, M. F. 2006. “ The Nature and Dynamics of Collaborative Writing in a Malaysian Tertiary ESL Setting”. Unpublished PhD, Massey University.
   Google Scholar