The Effect of Collaborative Writing on Iranian EFL Learners' Task Achievement in Writing and Their Perception

Hossein khodabakhshzadeh, Farideh Samadi


Collaborative writing has gained interest in the last decade; however, as stated by Shin, Lidster and Sabraw (2016) more research is required to delve into various aspects of this multifarious class activity. This true experimental research examined the effect of writing collaboratively on task achievement of Iranian EFL learners in writing. Oxford Placement Test was given to 60 language learners in the city of Kashmar, Iran,  as the test of homogeneity. Considering +/-1 standard deviation of the mean score, 40 learners were chosen to pursue the purpose of the study. These learners formed an experimental group and a control group with 20 participants in each. Collaborative writing was implemented in the experimental group and individual writing was used in the comparison group. The participants in the experimental group were later interviewed and their perception toward collaborative writing was investigated. The findings of the study through t-test revealed that the experimental group participants outperformed the ones in the control group in terms of task achievement. In addition, the results of the semi-structured interview through thematic analysis revealed that most participants found collaborative writing effective in terms of motivation, peer feedback, comprehensive view over the topic, changing ineffective writing habits, and vocabulary learning; though peer authority and teacher authority were considered as inhibiting factors. Pedagogical implications are discussed.


Collaborative writing, task achievement, learners' perception

Full Text:



Canale, M., and Swain, M., (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics , 1, 1-47

Choi, Y. H. (2016). Writing strategies in the process of L2 computer-mode academic writing with the use of multiple resources. English Teaching, 71, 3-28.

Connor, U., & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263-278.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108.

Cusack, B., & McCarter, S. (2007). Improve your IELTS: Listening and speaking skills. London: Macmillan Education.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of second language writing, 1(3), 255-276.

Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL journal, 8(2), 7-12.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Routledge: USA.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching 3rd edition. Oxford university press.

Lozanov, G. (2004). Suggestology. Routledge: USA.

Lee, R. M., & Kwan, C. Y. (1997). The use of problem-based learning in medical education. 醫學教育, 1(2), 11-20.

Mozaffari, S. H. (2016). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 1362168816641703.

Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.

Riazi, A. M. (2016). Comparing writing performance in TOEFL-iBT and academic assignments: An exploration of textual features. Assessing Writing, 28, 15-27.

Gopee, N., & Deane, M. (2013). Strategies for successful academic writing—Institutional and non-institutional support for students. Nurse education today, 33(12), 1624-1631.

Gordon, L. (2008). Writing and good language learners. na.

Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). English Composition Program. Testing ESL Composition: a Practical Approach.

Rahimi, A., & Qannadzadeh, J. A. (2010). Quantitative usage of logical connectors in Iranians’ EFL Essay writing and logical and linguistic intelligences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 2012-2019.

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 3.

Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305.

Shin, S. Y., Lidster, R., Sabraw, S., & Yeager, R. (2016). The effects of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 366-386.

Stevenson, M. (2016). A critical interpretative synthesis: The integration of Automated Writing Evaluation into classroom writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 42, 1-16.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of second language writing, 14(3), 153-173.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and attention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 303-334.

Strevens, M. (2009). Bigger than chaos: Understanding complexity through probability. Harvard University Press.

Verhelst, N., Van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B. (2009).Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society Harvard University Press, Cambridge.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.