Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

System 41 (2013) 365e378

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups:

Learners’ attitudes and perceptions
Ana Fernández Dobao*, Avram Blum
University of Washington, WA, USA
Received 1 June 2012; revised 31 January 2013; accepted 13 February 2013
Available online 22 March 2013

Abstract

This study explored learners’ attitudes and perceptions toward collaborative writing in pairs and small groups. Fifty-five in-
termediate level learners of Spanish as a foreign language were asked to complete a collaborative writing task as part of their
classroom activities. Half of them worked in pairs and the other half in groups of four. Afterward, they all received the same post-
task questionnaire. Learners’ reactions to the collaborative writing experience were overall very positive and only 4 out 55 said they
would have preferred to write individually. The learners who wrote in pairs tended to prefer this condition, because it offered more
opportunities for active participation. However, those who wrote in groups felt that there were more ideas and knowledge to share,
and therefore more possibilities for language development. Most of them saw a positive impact of collaboration on both the
grammatical and lexical accuracy of their texts. These learners’ perceptions concur with the findings of most previous research on
collaborative writing.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Collaborative writing; Pair and small group work; Learners’ perceptions

1. Introduction

The present study explores learners’ attitudes and perceptions toward collaborative writing in pairs and small
groups. Previous research investigating second language (L2) learners’ reactions to collaborative writing has, by and
large, reported positive attitudes toward collaboration (e.g., Elola and Oskoz, 2010; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005).
But this research has focused almost exclusively on pair work. In the current study, we analyze learners’ reactions to a
collaborative writing task completed in pairs and small groups, comparing their preferences not only between indi-
vidual and collaborative writing, but also between pair and small group writing. We examine to what extent the
learners participating in this study were able to perceive the benefits of collaborative writing, as documented in
previous research (Fernández Dobao, 2012, in press; Kim, 2008; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Storch and
Wigglesworth, 2007), and how this may have influenced their overall attitude toward both pair and small group work.

* Corresponding author. University of Washington, Division of Spanish and Portuguese Studies, Box 354360, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Tel.: þ1
206 543 2058; fax: þ1 206 685 7054.
E-mail address: anadobao@uw.edu (A. Fernández Dobao).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.002
366 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378

2. Literature review

2.1. Collaborative writing tasks

Collaborative writing tasks can be described as tasks that require learners to work in pairs or small groups and
produce one jointly written text (see Swain, 2001). Learners work together throughout the entire writing process,
sharing authorship and responsibility for the final product. The joint ownership of the final text is, according to Storch
(2011), the defining trait of collaborative writing.
In the L2 classroom, collaborative writing tasks may be conducive to learning because they “encourage students to
reflect on language form while still being oriented to meaning making” (Swain, 2000, p. 112). The joint writing
activity, the need to agree not only on what to say but also on how to say it, pushes learners to talk about language, to
discuss their language use, and to collaborate in the solution of their language-related problems. Collaborative writing
tasks thus provide an opportunity for collaborative dialog.
Collaborative dialog is dialog in which learners are engaged in joint problem-solving activity (Swain, 2000). It
constitutes a form of languaging, described by Swain (2006, p. 89) as “the process of making meaning and shaping
knowledge and experience through language”. In collaborative dialog, learners collaborate in knowledge-building
activities, such as formulating and testing hypotheses, or correcting themselves or others. They use language as a
tool to co-construct new language knowledge. By pooling their individual resources, they are able to scaffold each
other and achieve a level of performance that is beyond their individual level of competence (Donato, 1994; Ohta,
2001; Swain, 2000). From a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987), these socially situated processes
and the knowledge they generate can be internalized by the learner and transformed into individual mental func-
tioning. On this basis Swain (2000, p. 97) claims that collaborative dialog is language learning in progress, “language
use mediating language learning”.
Research on L2 interaction has operationalized the concept of collaborative dialog through language-related
episodes (LREs), defined as “any part of dialog where the students talk about the language they are producing,
question their language use, or correct themselves or others” (Swain and Lapkin, 1998, p. 326). This research has
confirmed that collaborative writing tasks, including dictogloss, jigsaw, and composition tasks, promote LREs, in
which L2 learners collaborate to build knowledge about grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics (Alegrı́a de la Colina
and Garcı́a Mayo, 2007; Garcı́a Mayo, 2002; Leeser, 2004; Storch, 1999; Swain, 1998; Swain and Lapkin, 1998,
2001). Using tailor-made posttests to trace learners’ independent use of the language discussed in these LREs, evi-
dence has been obtained that learners tend to retain the knowledge co-constructed in collaboration with their peers
(see, among others, Kim, 2008; Lapkin et al., 2002; Storch, 2008; Swain and Lapkin, 1998, 2002; Watanabe and
Swain, 2007; Williams, 2001; Zeng and Takatsuka, 2009). These findings suggest that, by promoting LREs,
collaborative writing tasks facilitate L2 learning.
Previous research comparing collaborative and individual tasks also supports the use of collaborative writing
activities in the L2 classroom. In a series of related studies conducted in an English as a second language context,
Storch and Wigglesworth compared the performance of the same writing tasks by learners working in pairs and
individually. Learners working collaboratively fulfilled the tasks more competently, producing shorter but gram-
matically more accurate texts (Storch, 1999, 2005; Storch and Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth and Storch, 2009).
Kim (2008) compared the effect of pair and individual work on L2 vocabulary learning. In her study, 32 Korean L2
learners completed a dictogloss task, half of them in pairs and the other half alone while thinking aloud. The learners in
the think-aloud condition engaged in individual languaging, that is, they used language to reflect on language and on
how to best say what they wanted to say, thus producing individual LREs. But the learners working in pairs partic-
ipated in twice as many LREs and were also able to resolve correctly a higher percentage of these LREs, as a result,
they performed better in the vocabulary posttests. In an English as a foreign language context, Shehadeh (2011) found
that practice with collaborative writing activities over a prolonged period of time may have a positive impact on
learners’ writing skills, although this effect may vary from one area to another.
Most of the above-mentioned studies considered collaborative writing tasks as tasks completed in pairs and
therefore documented the benefits of collaboration only between two learners. However, recent research comparing
individual, pair, and small group writing activities has found that learners working in small groups may actually create
more L2 learning opportunities not only than those working individually, but also than those working in pairs.
Fernández Dobao (2012, in press) found that, while completing the same writing tasks in Spanish, learners writing in
 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378 367

groups of four produced more LREs than learners writing in pairs and were also significantly more successful at
solving them. Small groups were able to find a correct solution to a higher percentage of their LREs because they
shared more linguistic resources, since up to four different learners could pool their individual knowledge to solve the
language-related problems encountered. This collaboration had a positive impact on the linguistic accuracy of the
texts produced (Fernández Dobao, 2012), as well as the acquisition of L2 vocabulary knowledge (Fernández Dobao, in
press).
In the current article we examine learners’ perceptions of these collaborative writing activities. The findings
suggest that, when completing collaborative tasks designed to encourage collaborative problem-solving activity and
co-construction of knowledge, learners may actually benefit from working in small groups instead of pairs. However,
in the L2 classroom, many teachers and learners seem to prefer pair to small group work, on the grounds that it offers
more opportunities for individual participation and practice with the language. Here we investigate whether the
learners in the current study were able to recognize the benefits of writing in groups of four and how this may have
influenced their overall attitude toward collaborative writing, both in pairs and in small groups. Before examining our
results, we first summarize previous studies that have specifically dealt with learners’ attitudes toward collaborative
writing tasks.

2.2. Learners’ attitudes toward collaborative writing tasks

Learners’ attitudes toward collaborative writing activities in second and foreign language contexts have been
investigated in a number of studies. In Storch (2005), one of the first studies to address this issue, five learners
completed a writing task individually and 18 in pairs. When interviewed about the collaborative writing experience,
most of these 18 students were very positive. They found that writing in pairs provided them with opportunities to pool
their resources, observe each other, and learn different ways of expressing the same ideas. They specifically stated that
collaboration was helpful for grammatical accuracy and L2 vocabulary learning. As described above, collaboration
did in fact result in shorter but grammatically more accurate texts. Two students, however, felt that writing was an
inherently individual task and that therefore pair work was better suited for oral activities. Of the 16 students who
expressed positive attitudes, five did so with “some reservations” (Storch, 2005, p. 166). These reservations revolved
around their lack of confidence in their own language skills and their concern with criticizing others.
In Shehadeh (2011), two classes of English as a foreign language learners completed the same writing assignments
during an entire semester, but one class worked individually while the other worked in pairs. Most of the 18 students
who worked in pairs reacted positively to the experience. Although collaborative writing was new to them, they
enjoyed it and found it beneficial. They stated that collaborative writing “enabled them to generate ideas, pool ideas
together, discuss and plan, generate their text collaboratively, provide each other with immediate feedback, and put
their text in better shape” (Shehadeh, 2011, p. 296). Furthermore, some of these students reported that the activity
enhanced not only their writing skills, as initially observed by the researcher, but also their self-confidence and
speaking abilities.
Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing have been examined in a variety of contexts and learning situations.
Elola and Oskoz (2010), for instance, investigated advanced Spanish students working collaboratively in a writing task
using web-based social toolsdwikis and chats. The learners in this study unanimously agreed that working with a
partner enhanced the overall quality of their texts. In particular, they felt that collaboration improved the content and
the structure of their writing. However, they also mentioned that, when working outside the classroom, they preferred
to write individually, in order to be able to work on their own time schedule and to develop their own personal style.
In sum, when previous research has questioned L2 learners about their experiences with actual collaborative
writing tasks, learners have generally reported positive attitudes toward collaboration (see also Ewald, 2005;
McDonough and Sunitham, 2009; Zeng and Takatsuka, 2009). Most students seemed to recognize the positive impact
of working with a peer on the content, organization, and/or linguistic accuracy of their texts, as well as the learning
benefits of the collaborative writing activities in which they participated.
While this previous research has focused almost exclusively on pair work, a number of studies have examined
learners’ perceptions of the use of both pair and small group activities in the classroom, but without focusing spe-
cifically on writing (e.g., Brown, 2009; Garrett and Shortall, 2002; McDonough, 2004; Riley, 2009). In these studies
learners’ affective reactions toward group work have been, for the most part, very positive. In general, most students
welcomed the opportunity to speak with other learners in class (Riley, 2009), and found pair and small group activities
368 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378

more fun and relaxing than teacher-fronted activities (Garrett and Shortall, 2002). However, these same learners were
not able to see the learning advantages of student-centered activities. They found peer interaction helpful for prac-
ticing oral skills, but they did not perceive pair and small group activities as useful for learning, particularly for
grammar and vocabulary learning (Garrett and Shortall, 2002; McDonough, 2004).
In the present study we look at learners’ attitudes toward pair and small group writing, as well as their
perceptions of the learning value of collaborative writing. First, we examine learners’ reactions to the collabo-
rative writing task designed for the purposes of the study. We analyze their preferences not only between in-
dividual and collaborative writing, but also between pair and small group writing. We look at how these
preferences may have been influenced by their engagement, either in pairs or in groups of four, with the task.
Secondly, we analyze learners’ perceptions of the collaborative writing activity as an occasion for L2 devel-
opment. We examine to what extent learners were aware of the learning opportunities they were creating while
writing in collaboration with their peers, and of the positive impact that this collaboration was having on the
nature of their written texts.

3. The present study

3.1. Participants

The study was conducted in a foreign language learning setting. All participants were enrolled in the same in-
termediate level course of Spanish as a foreign languagedthe second course of the second year Spanish language
program at a public university in the United States. This course aimed to develop reading, writing, listening, and
speaking skills, as well as vocabulary knowledge and grammatical accuracy. As Manchón (2009) points out, in this
kind of foreign language context writing plays an instrumental role in the language learning process. “Writing to learn
(language)” is as important a goal as “learning to write.”
One hundred and forty seven students, enrolled in eight different sections of the course, volunteered to participate
in the project. They had been placed in this intermediate level course after successful completion of the previous level
class, or based on their score on either the university placement test or the AP Spanish exam. Since most of them had
taken Spanish language classes prior to university, they had been studying Spanish for an average of three and a half
years.
All participants completed the same writing task, and the same pretest and posttest activities. In three randomly
selected classes, learners were also asked to answer a written questionnaire. A total of 55 learners completed this
questionnaire. In the current study, we analyze the data obtained from these participants. There were 36 females and
19 males. Their average age was 20 and they were all English NSs or had a native-like command of English.

3.2. Collaborative writing task

The writing task designed for the purposes of the study was based on a visual prompt. Learners were given a set of
15 pictures and asked to rearrange them in order to create a story (see Appendix A). They were instructed to set this
story in the past, using Spanish past tense verbs, and to write it down. Prior to the task they received a 15-min grammar
review lesson focused on the choice between the preterit and the imperfect, a common difficulty for English speaking
learners of Spanish. After receiving the instructions, they had approximately 30 min to complete the task.
In two classes learners worked individually. In the other classes, half of the learners worked in pairs and the other
half in groups of four. Learners working in pairs and in small groups had to collaborate throughout the entire process
and produce one jointly written text.

3.3. Questionnaire

In order to elicit learners’ views on the collaborative writing experience, a written questionnaire was designed (see
Appendix B). The first part of the questionnaire addressed learners’ overall attitudes toward pair and small group
activities. The first two questions were focused on the usefulness of working with peers in class.
The following questions focused on the collaborative writing task they had completed for the purposes of the study.
First, they were asked about their general impressions of the activity and the nature of the collaborative work done with
 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378 369

their peers. They were also asked to indicate whether they would have preferred to complete the writing task in pairs,
small groups, or individually, and to justify their answers.
In the second part of the questionnaire, learners were requested to reflect on the impact of collaboration on the
nature of their written textsdquestions 6e8. They were also questioned about the learning benefits of the collabo-
rative writing activity; that is, whether they felt that collaborating with their peers for the purposes of this task had been
helpful for their learningdsee questions 9 and 10.
All the sections of the questionnaire contained a combination of rating scale and open-ended questions. When
learners were given a rating scale question, they were always required to justify their answer. The written format
guaranteed the anonymity of the responses and was expected to encourage learners to express their views with total
freedom.

3.4. Procedure

The activities designed for the study were completed inside the class, as part of the regular coursework, during
weeks seven and eight of a 10-week course. The procedure involved three different sessions. In the first session,
learners took a vocabulary pretest. The following day they completed the writing task and one week afterward a
set of posttest activities followed by the written questionnaire. The writing task was introduced as an opportunity
to review the uses of the preterit and the imperfect, and some previous vocabulary. It was presented as a
classroom activity and therefore was not graded. The pretest and posttest activities involved a vocabulary cloze
task and an individual writing taskdfor a more detailed account of these two instruments see Fernández Dobao
(in press).
Each class was taught by a different instructor, but with the same syllabus, textbook, and materials. Pair and small
group activities were extremely frequent in all of these classes and, since the task was completed in week seven,
learners were already familiar with each other and used to working together in groups. In the six classes where learners
wrote collaboratively, they were allowed to choose their partners, but teachers made sure there was a balanced number
of pairs and groups, and also that all groups consisted of four learners.
The written questionnaire was administered one week after the collaborative writing task, immediately after the
posttest, in three of the six classes where learners had worked in pairs and small groups. It was presented in the
learners’ first language, English. Learners were instructed to answer all the questions in English and to give as much
information as possible. They were allowed to take the questionnaire home, spend as much time on it as necessary, and
bring it to class the following day.
As explained above, responses to the questionnaire were obtained from a total of 55 intermediate level learners of
Spanish as a foreign language. 27 of them had previously completed the collaborative writing task in groups of four
and 28 in pairs.

4. Results

4.1. Students’ attitudes toward collaborative writing in pairs and in small groups

In the first phase of the analysis, we examined learners’ reactions to the collaborative writing activity in which they
participated and their overall attitudes toward collaborative work, both in pairs and in small groups. For this purpose,
we analyzed learners’ responses to the first five questions in the questionnaire, comparing the answers given by those
learners who completed the writing task in groups of four and those who completed it in pairs.
Overall, the students in our study had a very positive attitude toward both pair and small group activities. When
asked whether they found working in pairs and groups in the classroom helpful for L2 learning, most of them gave a
positive answer. As seen in Table 1, which summarizes learners’ responses to the first two questions of the ques-
tionnaire, 54 of the 55 learners in our study considered pair work to be either helpful, very helpful, or extremely
helpful, and 49 of them expressed this same opinion about group work.
Only one student did not consider working in pairs helpful for L2 learning. This same student, however, found
small group work helpful. He explained that in a pair “if one of the members is not prepared then it is really difficult to
get any work done”, but this problem is less likely to occur in a group of three or four learners. Six learners did not find
small group work helpful for learning, but had a positive view of pair activities. Five of these six learners stressed the
370 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378

Table 1
Learners’ views on pair and small group work.
Learners in groups (n ¼ 27) Learners in pairs (n ¼ 28) Totals
Working in pairs in class is Not helpful 0 1 1
Helpful 9 7 16
Very helpful 15 11 26
Extremely helpful 3 9 12
Working in groups in class is Not helpful 2 4 6
Helpful 10 8 18
Very helpful 11 9 20
Extremely helpful 4 7 11

idea that “working in pairs usually means both people talk more”, whereas in groups “it is easier to sit back and listen
to the group more than contributing”.
When questioned about their actual experience with the collaborative writing task completed for the purposes
of the study, learners were also quite positive. In response to question 5, only four out of 55 said that they
would have preferred to carry out the task individually. As Table 2 shows, most learners showed a strong
preference for the condition in which they actually worked. 20 of the 27 students who completed the task in
groups stated a preference for writing in groups, while 21 of the 28 who completed it in pairs preferred writing
in pairs.
In order to understand these findings, we need to take into account that, since the writing task was completed
during the seventh week of the course, all learners knew each other well and were very used to working
together both in groups and in pairs. Furthermore, as already discussed, learners were allowed to choose their
partners. As a result, most pairs and groups were composed by friends who, according to the learners them-
selves, worked well together. Only four students felt that there was one person in their pair or group who
contributed more than the others and tried to dominate the task. All the others believed there was a balanced
distribution of the work. Some pointed out that different members had different strengths and therefore helped
with different aspects of the task, but they still felt that everybody “did their fair share” and the final text was “a
group effort”.
The learners’ positive experience with the activity seems to have influenced their positive attitude toward the
condition in which they worked. Whereas those learners who worked in pairs tended to prefer pair work, those who
had the opportunity to work in small groups saw the advantages of writing in groups and were not concerned about
the reduced opportunities for individual participation. These learners mentioned that in groups there was a greater
variety of ideas and creativity, and, more importantly, since different people could contribute, they did not have to
depend too much on just one other student. For instance, one student wrote: “working in fours was beneficial
because it brought more creative energy”. Another one said: “we were able to discuss and come up with a story
together with a mix of ideas that helped me with my Spanish”. A third one wrote: “it is more fun, there are more
viewpoints”.
Some of these students also pointed out that small groups provided motivation and a fun atmosphere, and this made
them feel comfortable. Others noticed that, collectively, they had more vocabulary and grammatical knowledge,
which allowed them to produce higher quality work. As explained by the students themselves, “everyone in the group
made lots of good contributions, this helped both the grammar and the content of the story”, “we had a much larger
vocabulary and had more ideas”, or “it also allowed us to help each other with vocabulary”. The following comment
illustrates quite clearly these different ideas:

Table 2
Learners’ preference between individual, pair, and small group writing.
Learners in groups (n ¼ 27) Learners in pairs (n ¼ 28) Totals
I would have preferred to write In groups 20 4 24
In pairs 6 21 27
Individually 1 3 4
 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378 371

I think it is a good way to learn material and you have a chance to practice speaking with others in the class. I
think sometimes in pairs, we are sometimes confused about what the professor is asking us to do, but in small
groups there are more people to help. I also feel that you obtain more from small groups because more people
are putting input in.
Similarly, the four students who worked in pairs but expressed a preference for group work believed that
writing in groups would have allowed them to draw on more people’s ideas and knowledge, which would have
contributed to improve the content and quality of their writing. One of them wrote: “more input from others
probably would have made our story more creative”. Another one stated: “it was difficult in a pair because we
both did not know what to do so we guessed. The probability of knowing what to do goes up if you have more
people/opinions”. A third one expressed this idea in the following terms:

Working with any number of people other than yourself is meant to broaden the chances of learning and
speaking well by combining knowledge. Groups do this more efficiently than pairs since there are more
chances and less awkward feelings for someone to correct another person. Pairs are only advantageous for one-
on-one conversations.
In sum, the learners who stated a preference for writing in small groups felt that in groups of four there were
more ideas to share and more opportunities to provide and receive assistance from peers. Their perceptions
reflect the findings of previous research, which has noticed the opportunities that collaborative tasks,
both in pairs and in small groups, offer for learners to pool their individual ideas and knowledge (see, among
others, Fernández Dobao, 2012; Kim, 2008; Storch, 2005; Swain and Lapkin, 1998; Wigglesworth and Storch,
2009).
The students who expressed a preference for pair work argued that in pairs both members were held
responsible and therefore forced to participate, whereas in larger groups, one or more members could easily
remain silent. For instance, one student noted that “with two people, there is more interaction, with three or four,
not everyone speaks”, while another one said that “[working in pairs] made it easier to participate”. Another
recurrent comment among these students was that in pairs “it is easier to make decisions about what should come
next” and therefore “it is more efficient”. Similarly, one of the students who worked in a group but enjoyed the
idea of working in a pair wrote: “I would have preferred two because there is less opinion to sort out and you can
synchronize brains more easily”.
At the same time, most of these learners recognized that working in pairs was preferable to working indi-
vidually because there was more knowledge and ideas to share. For instance, one said: “I am not a very creative
person, and work better with these sort of activities when I have someone else to share thoughts with”. Another
one wrote: “two minds can think of different Spanish vocabulary to make a story more interesting”. A third one
stated: “there were words that I did not know that she did and vice versa. So we helped each other out”. For
these learners writing in pairs seemed to be “a nice medium”. As explained by another student, “you get to
collaborate with someone, but you do not get left out or overwhelmed by too many people trying to work on the
same project/task”.
These students’ emphasis on the fact that pair work provided more opportunities to speak, made it
easier to contribute, and pushed everybody to participate reflect the common assumption that pair work is
more beneficial than group work because it offers more opportunities for individual use of the
target language. However, as discussed above, this was generally not a concern for those learners
who actually worked in groups and experienced the opportunity to collaborate with three other peers.
This again confirms that our learners’ views were directly influenced by their previous engagement with the
task.
Finally, as also observed in previous studies, such as Storch (2005) or Shehadeh (2011), the number of
students who expressed a preference for individual over collaborative writing was extremely limited, only four
out of 55. In previous research, the most commonly cited argument in favor of individual writing was the idea
that writing is an inherently individual task (Elola and Oskoz, 2010; Storch, 2005). Learners have also been
found to prefer individual work when they lack confidence in their own language skills or feel uncomfortable
correcting or criticizing their peers (Storch, 2005). Maybe because of the nature of the task, which was oriented
to develop learners’ writing skills, but also their vocabulary and grammar knowledge, these were not major
372 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378

concerns for our students. Instead, the four learners who stated a preference for individual writing raised issues
of a more practical nature, such as “I probably like to work alone because I work faster that way and it gets the
work done faster” or “I would have preferred to do it individually because I had a different story pictured in my
head than my partner”.

4.2. Students’ perceptions of the benefits of collaborative writing in pairs and in small groups

In this section, we analyze learners’ responses to the last part of the questionnaire, questions 6e10. In this part of
the survey, students were asked to reflect on the learning benefits of collaborative writing and the impact of working
collaboratively, either in pairs or in small groups, on the content as well as the grammatical and lexical accuracy of
their written texts.
The quantitative data presented in Table 3 shows that a considerable number of students believed that writing
in pairs and groups had had a positive influence on both the vocabulary and the grammar of their texts. In fact,
only three of these learners believed their texts would have been better in terms of vocabulary if they had
completed the task individually, and only six felt their texts would have been grammatically more accurate if they
had worked alone. In terms of content and organization, however, the benefits of collaboration were not so clear
for these students.
Less than a third of the learners, 16 out of 55, thought the content of their texts had been positively
influenced by peer collaboration. Learners working in pairs and in groups equally argued that when writing
collaboratively there were more ideas to choose from and more creativity. As explained by one of them,
“everyone contributed ideas and we were able to take the best idea each time. If I had been working alone, my
ideas would have been the only ones to choose from”. This reflects the already mentioned idea that “more brains
are better than one”.
However, some of the learners pointed out that while the collaborative writing condition allowed for more crea-
tivity, it also made the task of organizing ideas more difficult, which might have resulted in less coherent texts. The
following two quotes, the first from a student in a group and the second from a student who worked in a pair, illustrate
this idea: “the group contributed to creativity that I would not have had, but it may have been more organized had I
done it myself” and “[working alone] I would not have to compromise on plot action. This would lead to a more
creative and cohesive piece”.
Other learners could not see a positive impact of collaboration on content, because they did not find this aspect
of the task particularly challenging. They trusted their own ability to come up with a coherent story. For instance,
one student wrote: “the final outcome was something I could have come up with alone”. Another one said: “I feel
like the content would have been the same because it was easiest to put the story together”. It seems that, since the
content of the story was the aspect of the task least dependent on language skills, most of the learners, 31 out of 55,
did not feel the need for collaborative help. This was less often the case in relation to both vocabulary and
grammar.
In terms of vocabulary use, the majority of the students, 15 of the 27 who completed the task in groups and 16
of the 28 who completed it in pairs, believed their texts had been positively influenced by peer collaboration. They

Table 3
Learners’ perceptions of the impact of collaboration on the nature of the text.
Learners in groups Learners in pairs Totals
(n ¼ 27) (n ¼ 28)
If I had written the text individually, its content would have been Better 5 3 8
The same 13 18 31
Worse 9 7 16
If I had written the text individually, its vocabulary would have been Better 0 3 3
The same 12 9 21
Worse 15 16 31
If I had written the text individually, its grammar would have been Better 4 2 6
The same 8 15 23
Worse 15 11 26
 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378 373

all agreed that, since different learners knew different words, when working collaboratively there were more
resources to share, and this enhanced the lexical variety and accuracy of their final texts. As explained by the
students who worked in groups, “we had several times when one of us could not remember a word, but someone
else could”, “some people just know more words than others and if you do not know a word someone else will”, or
“there were definitely words that I would have had to look up (crashed, etc.), but with the group combined, we
know more words”. In pairs lexical resources were more limited, since only two learners could pool their indi-
vidual knowledge to search for new vocabulary. Still, most of the learners who worked in pairs agreed that “more
people ¼ more words”.
However, a substantial number of students, 21 out of 55, did not see a noticeable impact of collaboration on vo-
cabulary use. These students felt that everyone in their group or pair had the same vocabulary level and therefore they
could not help each other solve the lexical problems encountered. The following two quotes summarize their views:
“most of us have similar Spanish vocabularies” and “we all know the same vocabulary and did not know how to say the
same vocabulary. I think not much difference”.
The number of learners who saw a positive influence of collaboration on grammar was slightly lower than what
we have observed for vocabulary, 26 versus 31. Most of the learners who worked in groups, 15 out of 27, perceived
the benefits of collaboration on the grammatical accuracy of their written texts. Eleven of the 28 learners who
worked in pairs shared this view, but an even larger number of students, 15, saw no impact of pair work on
grammatical accuracy.
The students who saw an advantage in peer collaboration recognized in their comments the opportunities
that pair and small group work offered not only to discuss grammatical choices but also to correct grammar
errors. They particularly emphasized that they depended on their peers to identify certain errors and to offer
suggestions for verbal conjugations. For instance, one of the students working in a small group wrote: “I made
several grammatical errors while writing the story that other group members corrected”. Another one said: “it
is nice to have other people’s opinion on why they think it is preterit or imperfect and it can help”. A third one
explained: “I have a hard time with grammar, and this past chapter has been difficult to me. In our small
group, they were able to correct me if I was wrong”. The students working in pairs offered similar arguments:
“It was helpful to have a partner in case you forgot how to conjugate verbs in a certain tense”, “It is always
good to have someone correct you or confirm you are right” or “more people proofread better than one
person”.
Eight of the students who worked in groups felt their texts would have been similarly accurate if they had written
them individually. For the most part, these were the same students who did not see a significant impact of
collaboration on vocabulary, because they believed all the members of the group had a similar proficiency level.
They justified their views on grammar using the same arguments: “most of the people in the group had a similar
level of grammatical knowledge, so it was not helpful to have four of us to edit it”. This was also the most common
argument among the learners who worked in pairs: “I think my partner and I are on a similar level with our
grammar”, “whenever my partner or I got stuck on a grammatical issue the other person usually was not sure either
so we just made an educated guess”, or “my partner and I usually agree on grammar, and usually have the same
problems”.
But some of the learners working in pairs also mentioned that they had received little or no help from their
partner: “because I wrote it anyway. My partner did not really help me with the grammar aspect”, or “I wrote the
story and constructed the sentences for the most part”. While this was a relatively frequent comment among
learners in the pair condition, learners working in groups of four and therefore sharing responsibility with three
other students, did not have to face this situation. This may explain why the benefits of collaboration on gram-
matical accuracy were less obvious for the learners working in pairs than for those working in groups. In fact, as
already discussed, the comparative analysis of the final texts confirmed that the texts written by the groups were
significantly more accurate, in their use of both grammar and vocabulary, than those written by the pairs (see
Fernández Dobao, 2012).
Six learners believed they would have actually been more accurate, had they had the opportunity to write
their own individual texts. These students said they were aware of the grammatical errors in the text produced
by their pair or group, but they did not feel comfortable correcting them. As explained by one of them, “there
are lots of little problems in our story’s grammar, but I do not want to point them out and seem knit-picky”. It
seems that, despite the collaborative nature of the task and the shared responsibility over the final text, some of
374 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378

our learners were still reluctant to correct their peers’ errors. Since the task was not being assessed and graded
by their teacher, they preferred to ignore these errors. This has also been observed in similar previous research.
Elola and Oskoz (2010) found that most learners in their study liked collaborating with other learners who could
correct and edit their writing, but others considered inappropriate to discuss their peers’ use of grammar. They
perceived it as criticism that “might threaten the establishment of a good working relationship” (Elola and
Oskoz, 2010, p. 62). Similar mixed attitudes toward peer error correction were also found in Storch (2005)
and Shehadeh (2011).
Finally, we asked our learners whether they could see an impact of collaboration not only on task per-
formance but also on L2 development. Overall, learners’ views on learning through collaborative writing were
quite positive and there were no large differences between the learners who worked in pairs and those who
worked in groups. As seen in Table 4, a total of 39 learners found the collaborative writing task helpful for
vocabulary learning and 37 for grammar. This means that even learners who did not believe that working in
pairs or small groups had positively influenced the linguistic accuracy of their texts, could recognize the
vocabulary and grammar learning opportunities that the collaborative writing activity offered to them.
The 39 learners who found the task either helpful, very helpful, or extremely helpful for vocabulary
learning, were able to name some of the words they had learnt from their peers, such as billete, boleto,
jardinerı´a, brujo, aeropuerto, esquı´ or esquiar. These were some of the lexical items included in
the posttest vocabulary activity. But they also mentioned they had not retained other words discussed
during the task because they only had to use them once and had had no opportunity to repeat them in the
following classes.
In terms of grammar, most learners, both in the pair and in the small group condition, saw the activity as an
occasion to consolidate previous knowledge, in particular, their knowledge of the contrast between the preterit
and the imperfect: “helped me decide when to use preterit or imperfect although these are two tenses we have
used many times I still confuse them all the time”, “good review of imperfect versus preterit”, “this experience
allowed us to put our grammatical knowledge into practice more than those in the book”, etc. As described in the
methods section, learners received a grammar review lesson focused on these two verb forms before the writing
task. It was therefore easy for them to see the connection between the task and the use of the preterit and the
imperfect. However, very few learners were able to mention other grammatical gains. In general, it seemed to be
easier for them to see vocabulary improvement than to perceive grammar learning beyond the explicit focus of
the task.
It is also necessary to point out that almost a third of the learners felt the collaborative writing activity could not
help them develop their lexical or grammatical knowledge, because “again, we were similar level”. These learners
saw opportunities to improve their fluency and overall speaking skills, but did not think they could learn grammar
or vocabulary while working with other learners of the same proficiency level. As previously discussed, learners in
other studies, such as McDonough (2004) or Brown (2009), have reported similar beliefs. The analysis of inter-
action, however, showed that these learners and their peers were able to create plenty of opportunities, during the
performance of the task, to co-construct both lexical and grammatical knowledge (see Fernández Dobao, 2012, in
press). These results point to the benefits of collaborative writing tasks, even if learners do not always recognize

Table 4
Learners’ perceptions of the impact of collaboration on learning
Learners in groups Learners in pairs Totals
(n ¼ 27) (n ¼ 28)
For improving my vocabulary knowledge, Not helpful 9 7 16
this collaborative writing task was Helpful 11 18 29
Very helpful 6 3 9
Extremely helpful 1 0 1
For improving my grammar knowledge, Not helpful 11 7 18
this collaborative writing task was Helpful 11 17 28
Very helpful 5 3 8
Extremely helpful 0 1 1
 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378 375

their importance, but they also highlight the need for teachers to explain to students the motivation behind
these tasks.

5. Conclusions

The 55 Spanish foreign language learners who participated in this study had overall a very positive attitude
toward both pair and small group work. They enjoyed the collaborative writing activity in which they partic-
ipated and only four out of 55 said they would have preferred to carry it out individually. Most of them
concurred that working in pairs and groups allowed them to share their individual ideas and knowledge, which
resulted in higher creativity and a more accurate use of the language. Their reflections are therefore consistent
with the findings of most previous research on collaborative writing tasks, which has highlighted the oppor-
tunities that these tasks offer for L2 learners to pool their individual resources, collaborate in the solution of
their language-related problems, and co-construct new grammatical and lexical knowledge (e.g., Fernández
Dobao, 2012, in press; Kim, 2008; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Storch and Wigglesworth, 2007; Swain
and Lapkin, 1998).
A common belief among teachers and students alike in relation to small group activities is that, since they offer
fewer opportunities for participation than pair activities, they are also less helpful for learning. Some of the students
who wrote in pairs in our study expressed this concern. However, this was not perceived as a problem by those
students who actually had the opportunity to carry out the writing task in small groups. For the most part, these
learners felt that, since in groups of four there were more knowledge and linguistic resources to share, there were
also more opportunities for L2 development. A previous study revealed that in fact small groups produced more
lexical and grammatical LREs than pairs, were significantly more successful at solving them, and, as a result,
produced lexically and grammatically more accurate texts (see Fernández Dobao, 2012). Taken altogether, these
findings support the use of collaborative writing tasks in the foreign language classroom and contribute to our
understanding of the benefits of peer collaboration, not only between pairs, as documented in previous research
(Storch, 1999, 2005; Storch and Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth and Storch, 2009), but also between small
groups.
We have also seen that, although most of our learners enjoyed the experience of writing in pairs and groups,
almost a third of them could not see a positive impact of peer collaboration on linguistic accuracy or L2 devel-
opment. These learners saw group work as an opportunity to practice previously acquired knowledge and improve
oral fluency, but not to develop their grammatical and lexical knowledge of the foreign language. Most of them
seemed to share the idea that little or no learning can occur from working with other learners at the same profi-
ciency level, even though the analysis of their interactions revealed the contrary. This highlights the importance of
raising learners’ awareness of the potential and actual benefits of the activities they are asked to perform in the
classroom.
As documented in previous research (e.g., Storch, 2001, 2002; Watanabe and Swain, 2007), not all learners can be
expected to collaborate when asked to work together in groups or pairs. Although the learners in our study were highly
familiar with each other and used to working together in class, some pairs and groups were more collaborative and
produced more LREs than others, therefore creating more L2 learning opportunities. This may also help to explain
their different perceptions of the collaborative writing experience. It was not the aim of the present study to analyze
this individual variation, but rather to explore our learners’ overall attitudes toward collaborative writing. In the
foreign language classroom, however, the teacher needs to be aware of these differences in patterns of interactional
behavior and group dynamics, and how they influence the opportunities that peer interaction offers for L2
development.
Since this was an exploratory study, it suffers from a number of other limitations. The research design made it
possible to analyze learners’ reflections on an actual collaborative writing experience. But, since learners were
asked to perform one single task, the findings obtained cannot be generalized. Future research will need to
compare learners’ reactions to a variety of writing tasks, covering a range of topics and genres. The scope of the
present study could also be extended by comparing how the same student reacts to carrying out the same writing
task in pairs and in small groups. Finally, attention needs to be paid to the development of learners’ views and
attitudes over time, when given the opportunity to engage in collaborative writing tasks on a regular basis in their
L2 classes.
376 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378

Appendix A
Fig. 1. Collaborative writing task. González Sáinz, T., 1999. Juegos comunicativos. Español lengua extranjera. SM, Madrid, p. 87.
 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378 377

Appendix B

1. How helpful do you think it is to work in pairs in class?

, Not helpful
, Helpful
, Very helpful
, Extremely helpful
Why?
2. How helpful do you think it is to work in small groups (groups of three or four students) in class?
, Not helpful
, Helpful
, Very helpful
, Extremely helpful
Why?
3. How did you complete the writing task last week?
, In a group of four students
, In a pair
4. How would you describe the group or pair in which you worked? Did it work well? How collaborative was it?
Did you all get to contribute in a balanced way?
5. This writing task can be done in groups of four, in pairs, or individually. Which of these three options would you
have preferred? Why?
6. If you had written the text individually instead of in a group or a pair, how do you think its content would have
been?
, Better
, More or less the same
, Worse
Why?
7. If you had written the text individually instead of in a group or a pair, how do you think its vocabulary would
have been?
, Better
, More or less the same
, Worse
Why?
8. If you had written the text individually instead of in a group or a pair, how do you think its grammar would have
been?
, Better
, More or less the same
, Worse
Why?
9. How helpful do you think this collaborative writing task was for improving your vocabulary knowledge?
, Not helpful
, Helpful
, Very helpful
, Extremely helpful
Why?
10. How helpful do you think this collaborative writing task was for improving your grammar knowledge?
, Not helpful
, Helpful
, Very helpful
, Extremely helpful
Why?
378 A. Fernández Dobao, A. Blum / System 41 (2013) 365e378

References

Alegrı́a de la Colina, A., Garcı́a Mayo, M.P., 2007. Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In:
Garcı́a Mayo, M.P. (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 91e116.
Brown, A.V., 2009. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: a comparison of ideals. The Modern Language
Journal 93, 46e90.
Donato, R., 1994. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: Lantolf, J.P., Appel, G. (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second
Language Research. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 33e56.
Elola, I., Oskoz, A., 2010. Collaborative writing: fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning &
Technology 14, 51e71.
Ewald, J., 2005. Language-related episodes in an assessment context: a ‘small-group quiz’. The Canadian Modern Language Review 61,
565e586.
Fernández Dobao, A., 2012. Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second
Language Writing 21, 40e58.
Fernández Dobao, A. Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: a comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, in
press.
Garcı́a Mayo, M.P., 2002. The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics
12, 156e175.
Garrett, P., Shortall, T., 2002. Learners’ evaluations of teacher-fronted and student-centred classroom activities. Language Teaching Research 6, 25e57.
Kim, Y., 2008. The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal 92,
114e130.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., Smith, M., 2002. Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The
Modern Language Journal 86, 485e507.
Leeser, M.J., 2004. Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research 8, 55e81.
Manchón, R.M. (Ed.), 2009. Writing in Foreign Language Contexts. Learning, Teaching, and Research. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
McDonough, K., 2004. Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System 32, 207e224.
McDonough, K., Sunitham, W., 2009. Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly
43, 231e254.
Ohta, A.S., 2001. Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Riley, P., 2009. Shifts in beliefs about second language learning. RELC Journal 40, 102e124.
Shehadeh, A., 2011. Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing 20, 286e305.
Storch, N., 1999. Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System 27, 363e374.
Storch, N., 2001. How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research 5, 29e53.
Storch, N., 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52, 119e158.
Storch, N., 2005. Collaborative writing: product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing 14, 153e173.
Storch, N., 2008. Metatalk in a pair work activity: level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness 17, 95e114.
Storch, N., 2011. Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31,
275e288.
Storch, N., Wigglesworth, G., 2007. Writing tasks: comparing individual and collaborative writing. In: Garcı́a Mayo, M.P. (Ed.), Investigating
Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Multilingual Matters, London, pp. 157e177.
Swain, M., 1998. Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 64e81.
Swain, M., 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond. In: Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 97e114.
Swain, M., 2001. Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review 58, 44e63.
Swain, M., 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In: Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning:
The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. Continuum, New York, pp. 95e108.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., 1998. Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern
Language Journal 82, 320e337.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., 2001. Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task effects. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P., Swain, M. (Eds.),
Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Longman, London, pp. 99e118.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., 2002. Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational
Research 37, 285e304.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1987. The Collected Worsk of L.S. Vygotsky. In: Thinking and Speaking, vol. 1. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Watanabe, Y., Swain, M., 2007. Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative
dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research 11, 121e142.
Wigglesworth, G., Storch, N., 2009. Pair versus individual writing: effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing 26, 445e466.
Williams, J., 2001. The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System 29, 325e340.
Zeng, G., Takatsuka, S., 2009. Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context.
System 37, 434e446.