Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use

System 76 (2018) 1e12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use Meixiu Zhang English Department, Northern Arizona University, 705 S. Beaver Street, PO Box: 6032, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 17 July 2017 Received in revised form 25 March 2018 Accepted 16 April 2018

Previous research has demonstrated that collaborative writing (CW) tasks are useful instructional activities as they increase the learning opportunities in language classrooms (Li & Zhu, 2017). However, when implementing CW tasks, language teachers in contexts where learners share an L1 are faced with a questiondshould learners interact with peers in the L1 or the L2? Existing research has focused on analyzing the functions of L1 interaction in CW, but no research has examined the effects of L1 use on the coconstructed texts. The present study addressed this question by investigating the effects of L1 and L2 use on the complexity, accuracy, fluency, and text quality of learners’ coconstructed texts. Thirty-five pairs of intermediate EFL learners were placed in two groups to write argumentative essays in English. First, group 1 (n ¼ 18 pairs) interacted in the L1 and group 2 (n ¼ 17 pairs) interacted in the L2. Next, the groups switched the language for interaction and wrote a second essay. The co-constructed essays were rated for complexity, accuracy, fluency, and text quality. The results indicate that collaboration in the L1 leads to higher syntactic complexity but no differences in accuracy, fluency, and text quality. Theoretical and pedagogical implications were discussed. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Collaborative writing L1 interaction Complexity Accuracy Fluency

1. Introduction Influenced by communicative approaches to language teaching, collaborative writing (CW) tasks are often adopted in second language (L2) classrooms to promote interactive classroom environments (Storch, 2013). In the past three decades, a substantial body of research has suggested that CW tasks are useful instructional activities as they increase the learning opportunities in language classrooms (Donato, 1989; Kim, 2008; Li & Zhu, 2017). It has been noted that CW affords learners with abundant opportunities to verbalize their deliberation over language use and pool resources to solve linguistic problems. However, language teachers, especially those in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts where learners share a first language (L1), are faced with a question when implementing CW in teachingdshould students interact in the L1 or the L2 when writing collaboratively? The potential benefits or pitfalls of L1 use has been a controversial topic (Wagner & Toth, 2013). On the one hand, some language teachers are hesitant to permit L1 use due to the belief that L1 use may limit learners’ L2 input and exposure to L2 output (Swain & Lapkin, 2013; Tognini & Oliver, 2012). On the other hand, some research, primarily from a sociocultural perspective, has maintained that the L1 serves as an important mediating tool for learners to complete cognitively demanding n & Dicamilla, 1999; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). With particular attention being devoted to the functions of L2 tasks (Anto

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009 0346-251X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

 n, 2012; Scott & de la Fuente, 2008; the L1 in CW through analyzing learners’ peer interaction in such tasks (DiCamilla & Anto Swain & Lapkin, 2000), such research regarding the nature of learners’ L1 interaction during CW has not yet extended to the question of whether L1 or L2 use may influence various aspects of learners’ written products generated in CW tasks. The current study aims to address this issue by examining the effects of L1 and L2 use on the complexity, accuracy, fluency, and text quality of learners’ collaboratively written texts. A clearer understanding of the role of L1 or L2 use may help teachers make informed decisions when employing CW tasks in teaching and shed light on the role of the L1 in language classrooms. 2. Literature review 2.1. The role of collaborative writing in L2 classrooms Originally informed by the sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), CW is defined as an activity in which two or more learners interact with each other throughout the writing process to jointly produce a single text. It requires mutual engagement between learners, sustained peer interaction and cooperation, shared decision-making processes, and shared responsibility for the completion of the task (McDonough, Crawford, & De Vleeschauwer, 2016; Storch, 2005). Previous research suggests that CW benefits language learning in multiple ways. First, the collaboration process encourages learners to verbalize their deliberations on language use and negotiate for meaning and form with peers (Li & Kim, 2016). To reach agreement on language use, learners need to evaluate their linguistic choices and provide justifications for linguistic expressions, which can be valuable language learning opportunities. Also, compared with individual writing tasks that require learners to rely solely on one’s own linguistic knowledge, working in a pair or a group allows learners to pool linguistic resources, a form of collective scaffolding that allows learners to manage learning tasks that are cognitively more demanding (Scott & de la Fuente, 2008). In addition, compared with individual writing, CW better promotes grammatical accuracy in learners’ written production (Storch, 1999; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). Kim (2008) also found that when engaging in CW tasks, learners were able to solve more lexis-related problems, implying that group work plays a facilitative role in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Furthermore, another strand of studies found that, when implemented in computer mediated settings, CW facilitated content development (Arnold, Ducate, & Kost, 2012; Kost, 2011), focused learners’ attention to rhetorical structure and organization (Elola & Oskoz, 2010), and helped develop audience awareness (Li & Storch, 2017). In sum, CW is a valuable instructional activity in L2 classrooms that creates abundant language learning opportunities and promotes better learning outcomes. 2.2. L1 use in collaborative writing Despite the facilitative role of CW in L2 learning, the incorporation of CW into teaching has been largely restricted in EFL contexts where learners often share an L1 (Storch & Aldosari, 2010). A major reason for the restriction involves some teachers’ concern that learners may resort to the L1 when interacting with peers in such tasks. What underlies this concern is these teachers’ belief that L1 use may decrease the learning opportunities or affect the learning outcomes in CW. Influenced by Krashen’s (1982) theories (e.g. monitor theory, comprehensible input hypothesis) and communicative approaches in language teaching, both English as a Second Language (ESL) and EFL teachers generally consider the maximal use of the target language in class as the key to successful L2 learning (Atkinson, 1987; Swain & Lapkin, 2013). In an early study investigating L1 and L2 use in the L2 classroom, Duff and Polio (1990) found that language teachers generally believed that it was essential to use the L2 exclusively, under the assumption that L1 use deprived students of L2 input. Similarly, in a survey of 163 L2 teachers, Levine (2003) found that a vast majority of language instructors considered it more rewarding to communicate in the L2 than in the L1. However, a wide array of studies that examined L1 use in CW from a sociocultural perspective have found that the L1 serves important functions in CW tasks. Sociocultural theory argues that any high-order cognitive processing has its basis in social interaction during which language serves not only as ‘a unit of social interaction’ but also as a primary mediational tool (Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner, 2015, p.210). Informed by this theoretical perspective, L2 researchers view the L1 as “an important and often indispensable semiotic device that mediates the learning process, even though what is being learned is  n, 2012, p.161). It is a semiotic tool for both self-regulation (i.e. the process of internalizing external an L2” (DiCamilla & Anto forms of mediation while completing a task) and other-regulation (i.e. mediation by others such as eliciting peer feedback or guidance) (Lantolf et al., 2015).  n and Dicamilla (1999). In this small-scale study, five One of the earliest attempts to investigate L1 use in CW was Anto pairs of low-proficiency Spanish learners were required to complete three informative writing tasks in a foreign language setting. The analysis of their interaction identified five functions of L1 use: mediating the construction of collective scaffolding, promoting the use of private speech, retrieving complex linguistic forms, evaluating and making meaning of the L2 text, and maintaining intersubjectivity on the task. The researchers concluded that by performing these functions in a shared native language, L1 use provided learners with the opportunity for language development in the L2. In addition to studies that focus solely on analyzing learners’ L1 peer interaction, Swain and Lapkin (2000) addressed the relationship between the L1 pair talk and the quality of learners’ co-constructed texts in addition to examining L1 interaction. The study looked into the L1 interactions made by two advanced-level French immersion classes in two CW tasks (dictogloss and jigsaw). The co-constructed texts were assessed for text quality using a five-point analytic scale. The results suggested

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

3

that task type did not influence the amount of L1 use elicited or the functional distribution of the L1 use between groups. In fact, both classes used the L1 most frequently for task management purposes. Additionally, learners had the propensity to use the L1 to retrieve lexical items and grammatical explanations in the L2. Regarding text quality, a significant negative correlation was found between the amount of L1 use and the text quality in the jigsaw task, but not in the dictogloss task. The researchers argued that the reason might be that lower-achieving students had to fall back on the L1 more than higherachieving students in the jigsaw task. Storch and Wigglesworth (2003) looked at the functions of L1 use generated in different CW task types. In their study, twelve intermediate ESL adult pairs participated in two CW tasks: a grammar-focused task (text reconstruction) and a meaning-focused task (joint composition using a graphic prompt). Although they were encouraged to use the L1 to interact in such tasks, the participants code-switched between the L1 and the L2 as needed, which resulted in large variability among pairs regarding the amount of L1 use. The results demonstrated that task type impacted the functions that L1 use served, a finding that contradicts Swain and Lapkin (2000). In the meaning-focused task, the L1 was mainly used to facilitate task management and task clarification. Specifically, it allowed learners to discuss task requirements, interpret the writing prompt, and divide workload. By contrast, the grammar-focused task resulted in learners using the L1 primarily to explain grammatical structures and lexical meanings, offer justification for linguistic choices, and argue with peers when disagreements arose. Results from follow-up interviews suggested that, although they acknowledged the benefits of L1 use, most participants shared reluctance to use the L1 to interact mainly due to the belief that the L2 should be spoken in language classrooms. Moreover, learners saw a higher value of L1 use in the meaning-focused task than in the grammar-focused task. The researchers concluded that some use of the L1 is beneficial as it enables learners to complete tasks at a higher cognitive level. Building upon this study, Storch and Aldosari (2010) further examined the effects of learner proficiency pairing and task type on L1 use in CW in an EFL setting. Intermediate EFL learners were divided into two proficiency groups (i.e. high and low) based on their relative proficiency as perceived by the instructor. Three types of proficiency pairing were examined in three different tasks (i.e. jigsaw, text-editing, composition), including high-high proficiency pairing, high-low proficiency pairing, and low-low proficiency pairing. The results suggested that irrespective of the proficiency pairing and task type, a large portion of L1 interaction was devoted to task management and deliberation on L2 vocabulary.  n (2012) compared L1 use by learners of beginning and advanced levels in a collaborative composition DiCamilla and Anto task in a foreign language classroom and found that learners of lower proficiency produced strikingly more L1 episodes than those of higher proficiency. In addition to its effect on the quantity of L1 episodes elicited, learners’ proficiency level also impacted the functions that the L1 served. Specifically, using the L1 as the primary mediating tool, learners of lower proficiency extensively used the L1 to cope with lexical and grammatical problems and manage interpersonal relationship. In contrast, those of higher proficiency used the L1 sparsely and mainly for social communication purposes. Overall, situated in the sociocultural framework, previous studies have found that although the functions of L1 use may be influenced by factors like learners’ proficiency level, task type, and learner attitude towards L1 use, the L1 is a valuable resource in CW tasks. It may not only promote interactions that help focus learners’ attention to grammar and lexis, but also provide them with means to scaffold each other and help them manage the tasks more efficiently. It should also be pointed that the majority of previous studies, with the exception of Swain and Lapkin (2000), have focused solely on analyzing the functions of L1 peer interaction and its relationship with different variables in CW, leaving the written production underexplored. Studies to date, based on analyses of learners’ L1 peer interaction, have suggested that interacting in the L1 allows learners to retrieve and discuss lexical and grammatical forms, as well as manage CW tasks easily. Thus, it is highly possible that L1 use may have the potential to influence the different aspects of learners’ jointly written texts. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, no research has been carried out to examine this issue. In addition, existing research on L1 use in CW has generally allowed learners to code-switch between the L1 and L2 freely instead of controlling the language used for interaction to examine the effects of L1 and L2 use in CW. Such a study design renders it difficult to tease apart the effects of L1 use and those of other potential confounding variables. Thus, the present study aims to employ a study design that requires learners to interact in the L1 or the L2 exclusively to examine the relationship between L1/L2 use and EFL learners’ coconstructed texts. Specifically, the study aims to answer two questions: (a) Does using the L1 or the L2 to interact influence the complexity, accuracy, fluency, and text quality in EFL learners’ coconstructed essays in CW tasks? (b) If so, what factors may contribute to the variation in EFL learners’ co-constructed essays produced in the L1 and L2 interaction conditions?

3. Method 3.1. Participants The participants in this study included 35 pairs of adult learners in a public university in China (47 males and 23 females). With an average age of 19.4, the participants had learned English for an average of 10.5 years (SD ¼ 0.98) at the time of participating in this study. They were considered intermediate learners by the university based on their performance in a

4

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

placement exam. All of them shared the same L1 (i.e. Chinese) and were enrolled in two sections of a writing course taught by the same instructor. The course was a blended learning course that required 90 min’ in-class meeting time and at least 90 min’ commitment for online learning weekly. At the beginning of the semester, the participants were told that multiple CW tasks would be incorporated into the course. They were instructed to self-select a partner for these CW tasks. Thirty-five pairs were formed: 18 pairs in Section A (22 males and 14 females) and 17 pairs in Section B (25 males and 9 females). To encourage them to form a good relationship with their partners, the participants were allowed to change partners during the practice CW activities in the first half of the semester and two pairs did. By the time of data collection, which took place in the second half of the semester, all pairs had identified a partner that they liked working with.

3.2. Instruments Four instruments were developed for this study: a biographical survey, two argumentative writing prompts, and a text quality rubric. The biographical survey gathered information regarding the participants’ age, gender, years of English learning, and past experience in CW. The two argumentative writing prompts (see Appendix A) used two topics that were relevant to the participants (i.e. the use of cellphones in classrooms and financial support from parents after graduation) and required each pair to explain their stance on the topics. Argumentative essay writing was employed because it was one of the teaching goals in this course. Also, unlike other writing tasks (e.g. dictogloss, jigsaw, text reconstruction) that were widely investigated in previous research (e.g. Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Thoms, Liao, & Szustak, 2005), argumentative essay writing is underrepresented in the CW literature. Also, as an authentic writing task that plays a crucial role in academic settings, argumentative essay writing has high ecological validity. Both writing prompts were provided in Chinese to prevent them from copying L2 lexis and syntactic structures from the prompts. A text quality rubric that contained three five-point components (i.e. content, language use, and organization) was developed (see Appendix B). The descriptors for content and language use were drafted after reading the collected texts iteratively. The descriptors for organization were adapted from the TOEFL iBT independent writing rubric. The rubric was finalized after being piloted using similar data and multiple rounds of revisions. Half points were allowed for all three subconstructs. Each subconstruct was worth a maximum of five points, for a total of fifteen points.

3.3. Procedures To ensure that all pairs had experience in CW tasks, the participants completed five practice CW tasks in class prior to the data collection. Students were allowed to interact in either language in the first practice task. To familiarize students with both task conditions, students were required to interact in the L1 in the second and fourth practice tasks, whereas in the third and fifth practice tasks they were instructed to communicate in the L2. In each practice task, all participants were instructed to share the responsibility and decision-making processes with pair members. They were aware that the two members in a pair would receive the same scores for their co-constructed essays. Consent to participate was obtained from all participants prior to collecting any data. The data were collected at week 15 and 16 of the fall semester in 2015 in a computer lab. The biographical survey was conducted electronically. In the first CW task, the participants were asked to write an argumentative essay on whether college students should be allowed to bring cellphones to class. The 18 pairs from Section A were instructed to interact in Chinese while the 17 pairs from Section B were asked to interact in English throughout the writing process. It should be noted that in order to emulate implementing CW tasks in a real classroom and avoid imposing extra challenges in communication, learners were allowed to use the L2 to rehearse lexis and sentences that they were considering incorporating into the writing in the L1 interaction condition. Pair members either took turns typing or assigned one pair member to type the essay on one computer. An audiorecorder was distributed to each pair to record the pair talk. While they were allowed to determine how to approach different stages of the writing task (i.e. pre-writing planning, composing, and revising), the pairs were not allowed to use dictionaries or other resources to ensure that these factors did not influence their writing. Participants were given one hour to complete the task and spent an average of 58 minutes (SD ¼ 7.11). The second CW task was administered in the subsequent week in the same fashion. The topic was whether college graduates should accept financial help from parents. For this task, the two sections switched the language used for interaction during the collaboration process. That is, Section A interacted in English while Section B interacted in Chinese. The average task completion time was 54.66 minutes (SD ¼ 7.74). In both tasks, the researcher circulated around the classroom to observe the pairs’ performance and took notes as needed. Based on the observational notes, task requirements were largely fulfilled. An examination of the transcripts indicated that the average amount of codeswitching (operationalized as the number of codeswitched words divided by the total word count of the transcript) in the L1 interaction condition was 0.35% (SD ¼ 0.15%) and mostly involved backchanneling, whereas in the L2 interaction condition it was 14.06% (SD ¼ 11.70%) and mostly concerned task management. Although pairs codeswitched more in the L2 use condition, all pairs used the required language as the primary medium of interaction.

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

5

3.4. Analysis The data used for analysis consisted of 70 collaborative essays collected from the two tasks: 35 essays produced in the L1 interaction condition and 35 essays in the L2 interaction condition. As shown in Table 1, the average length for texts produced in L2 interaction (M ¼ 278.20; SD ¼ 65.13) was slightly longer than those produced in the L1 interaction (M ¼ 265.09; ndez Dobao, 2012; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009), the co-constructed SD ¼ 66.16). Following previous research (e.g. Ferna essays were analyzed for lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, accuracy, fluency, and text quality. Lexical complexity was operationalized as type token ratio. Informed by researchers’ suggestion of treating complexity as a multifaceted construct (Norris & Ortega, 2009) and prior CW research on task condition (e.g. Fern andez Dobao, 2012), syntactic complexity was measured in three ways: mean length of clause, mean length of T-unit, and clauses per T-unit. As stated in Norris and Ortega (2009), the three measures respectively represent clause related complexity, overall complexity, and complexity by subordination. T-units and clauses (both dependent and independent) were identified using definitions in Storch (2005) which analyzed data similar to that in this study (see Appendix C). It should be noted that because a difference in syntactic complexity was detected across task conditions, post hoc analyses were conducted to uncover what specific linguistic devices may have contributed to the difference, which was reported in Section 4. Regarding accuracy, three measures that were shown to yield high inter-rater reliability in previous studies were employed: the ratio of error-free clauses to total clauses, the ratio of error-free T-units to total T-units, and number of errors per hundred words (Chandler, 2003; Evans, Hartshorn, & Strong-Krause, 2011; Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, & Wolfersberger, 2010). The three measures respectively reflect accuracy at the clausal level, the T-unit level, and the overall level. Errors in essays were identified based on guidelines revised from Storch (2005) (see Appendix C). Following previous research (e.g. Arslanyilmaz & Pedersen, 2010), a subset of the data (20%) was coded by a second coder for errors. To calculate inter-rater agreement, the number of errors that were correctly identified by both coders was divided by the actual number of errors in the essays agreed upon by both coders, yielding an agreement of 88.3%. Disagreements were resolved through discussions. Concerning linguistic fluency, two measures employed in previous research (e.g. Chandler, 2003; Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; ndez Dobao, 2012) were chosen: the total number of words produced and the number of words produced per minute Ferna (for a discussion on assessing fluency as a temporal phenomenon, see Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001). The co-constructed texts were also rated for text quality by the author and a trained second coder independently, yielding a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.88 for content, 0.78 for language use, and 0.82 for organization. After resolving disagreements through discussions, the mean of the two raters’ scores was used as the final score for text quality.

4. Results The goals of this study are to (a) investigate whether co-constructed texts produced in the L1 interaction condition varied from those produced in the L2 interaction condition in terms of complexity, accuracy, fluency, and text quality; and (b) examine what factors may contribute to any variation in learners’ co-constructed texts produced in the two task conditions. This section first presents the results regarding complexity, accuracy, fluency, as well as text quality and then presents the results of a relevant post hoc analysis. Table 2 presents the statistics for the lexical complexity measure, three syntactic complexity measures, three accuracy measures, two fluency measures, and text quality. Before proceeding to statistical analysis, the data were checked for normality. Since the data were found to be normally distributed, parametric paired-sampled t-tests were performed on the thirteen measures in SPSS to examine whether significant differences in complexity, accuracy, fluency, and text quality existed between the texts produced in the two task conditions. A Bonferroni-adjusted alpha criterion of p < .004 (0.05/13 ¼ 0.004) was employed. As shown in Table 2, the results indicated that the only measure that yielded a statistically significant difference was the mean length of clause. Specifically, the mean length of clause in the L1 interaction condition (M ¼ 6.95, SD ¼ 0.84) was significantly longer than that in the L2 interaction condition (M ¼ 6.48, SD ¼ 0.65); t (34) ¼ 3.34, p ¼ .002. That is, the participants produced texts of significantly higher clause related complexity when interacting in the L1 than interacting in the L2. The effect size for this analysis was moderate (d ¼ 0.56). No difference was found in the overall complexity (i.e. mean length of T-unit) and the complexity by subordination (i.e. clauses per T-unit). Additionally, no statistical differences were found for the lexical complexity measure, any fluency measures, or any aspect of text quality. However, regarding accuracy, the ratio of error-free clauses to total clauses yielded a trend approaching significant difference between the L1 interaction condition (M ¼ 0.82, SD ¼ 0.10) and the L2 interaction condition (M ¼ 0.77, SD ¼ 0.08); t (34) ¼ 2.57, p ¼ .015, with a medium effect size (d ¼ 0.44). Because a significant difference in the mean length of clause was found across the two task conditions, post hoc analyses were performed to uncover what linguistic features might have contributed to the difference. The post hoc analyses were

Table 1 Co-constructed essays collected from the CW tasks. Task condition

# of texts

M

SD

# of words

L1 interaction L2 interaction

35 35

265.09 278.20

66.16 65.13

9291 9746

6

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

Table 2 Statistics for complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Measures

L1 Use

Lexical complexity Type token ratio Syntactic complexity Mean length of clause Mean length of T-unit Clauses per T-unit Accuracy Error-free T-units/total Error-free clauses/total Errors per 100 words Fluency Total number of words Words per minute Text Quality Composite score Content Language use Organization

L2 Use

Sig.

M

SD

M

SD

p

28.91

2.13

28.13

1.89

.066

6.95 15.73 2.30

.84 2.84 .53

6.48 15.38 2.39

.65 2.39 .39

.002* .430 .255

.56 .82 3.94

.17 .10 1.96

.55 .77 4.16

.14 .08 1.71

.749 .015 .541

265.09 4.83

66.16 1.18

278.20 5.02

65.13 .96

.160 .341

11.36 3.92 3.56 3.88

1.62 .73 .67 .62

11.28 3.77 3.63 3.88

1.79 .84 .63 .66

.778 .297 .487 1.000

Note: *indicates statistical significant difference based on Bonferroni-adjusted alpha criterion of p < .004.

informed by Scott (2004) who noted that there are five linguistic devices that can allow learners to condense rich information into one single clause and thus produce longer clauses. These features include prepositional phrases, attributive adjectives, phrasal coordination, nominalizations, and pre-modifying nouns. Clauses (a) to (f) below demonstrate how the incorporation of these devices may contribute to the density of information and the length of a clause. As shown in the clauses, a simple clause like clause (a) can be extended into a considerably more informative clause like clause (f) after deploying all these linguistic devices. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

a a a a a a

cellphone cellphone cellphone cellphone cellphone cellphone

is is is is is is

a tool. a tool for students. (prepositional phrase) an important tool for students. (attributive adjective) an important tool for both students and teachers. (phrasal coordination) a tool of great importance for both students and teachers. (nominalization) a tool of great importance for both college students and language teachers. (pre-modifying noun)

To investigate whether the longer clauses in the L1 interaction condition could be attributed to higher frequencies of these five linguistic features, the raw frequencies of these features in each text were obtained. To eliminate the influences of varying text length, the frequencies were normed by 1000 words. Because most of the data were not normally distributed, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests for matched pairs were conducted to examine whether significant differences existed in the normed frequencies of these features across the two conditions. A Bonferroni-adjusted alpha criterion of p < .01 (0.05/5 ¼ 0.01) was employed. Table 3 presents the statistics for these linguistic devices. The results indicated that the frequencies of phrasal coordination and pre-modifying nouns were very similar in the two task conditions. Attributive adjectives were more frequent in the L1 condition, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, when interacting in the L1, pairs produced statistically significantly more prepositional phrases (L1 interaction, M ¼ 116.39, SD ¼ 15.85; L2 interaction, M ¼ 103.31, SD ¼ 20.63; t (34) ¼ 3.51, p ¼ . 001) and nominalizations (L1 interaction, M ¼ 31.41, SD ¼ 12.08; L2 interaction, M ¼ 21.04, SD ¼ 10.47; t (34) ¼ 3.80, p ¼ . 001). The effect sizes were moderate for prepositional phrases (d ¼ 0.59) and nominalizations (d ¼ 0.64). In other words, the higher frequencies of prepositional phrases and nominalizations probably allowed the learners to produce longer clauses when communicating in the L1. Table 3 Statistics for linguistic devices contributing to clause length (normed to 1000 words). Linguistic features

L1 Interaction

L2 Interaction

M

SD

M

SD

Prepositional phrases Attributive adjectives Phrasal coordination Nominalizations Pre-modifying nouns

116.39 40.03 9.41 31.41 22.94

15.85 23.37 5.67 12.08 9.27

103.31 34.37 7.42 21.04 21.31

20.63 17.92 4.69 10.47 15.82

Note: *indicates statistical significant difference based on Bonferroni-adjusted alpha criterion of p < .01.

p

.001* .312 .101 .001* .196

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

7

The two excerpts below illustrate how these features are used in each task condition. Excerpt 1 produced by a pair who interacted in the L1 contains much more prepositional phrases that serve as post-nominal modifiers (e.g. in economics) or adverbials (e.g. from the university). It also consists of more nominalizations (e.g. laziness). These features allow learners to compress abundant information into the clauses, which contribute to the mean length of clauses in the text. In contrast, prepositional phrases are much less frequent in Excerpt 2. Most clauses have only the basic components required for a clause (e.g. subject, verb), leading to shorter clauses in the text. The following section will further interpret this pattern and discuss potential factors that may account for the pattern. Excerpt 1. by Pair 26 in the L1 interaction condition (prepositional phrases are underlined; nominalizations are in bold) Recently, more and more college students accept their parents’ help in economics when they graduate from the university. This phenomenon triggers broad discussion in the society. And we believe that as a college students, it is very shameful for us to accept the help form our old parents. Many students are too lazy to accept a job that does not meet their needs or their sights are too high. As a result, they can not support themselves. It is their laziness and high sights that cause this situation, no one can help them except themselves. Actually, their parents’ help can be a kind of poison which will kill their children. Excerpt 2.

by Pair 7 in the L2 interaction condition (prepositional phrases are underlined; nominalizations are in bold)

Graduations are adult, they are no longer children. Parents do not have duty to give an adult money. Adults should depend on themselves. Parents have their own life. They have worked hard about twenty years to bring us up. It is time to enjoy their life. They can use their money more freely. They need not care about their children is cost. As for the graduations, they should find a work to support themselves after nearly twenty years’ education. They have the ability to earn money. Maybe the salary would be low at first, maybe the life would be hard. Maybe they had to find a part-time job to increase their income. However, it is the social they have to experience. 5. Discussion Setting out to examine the effects of L1 and L2 interaction on the complexity, accuracy, fluency, and text quality of learners’ co-constructed texts in CW tasks, this study found that although interacting in the L1 during collaboration did not influence the lexical complexity, fluency, and text quality of learners’ jointly written essays, it allowed learners to produce significantly longer clauses and moderately more error-free clauses. Findings in this study challenge certain language teachers’ belief that L1 use affects the L2 learning outcome in CW. Instead, the results of this study suggest that L1 use is not debilitating and may have the potential to improve the complexity of learners’ co-constructed texts. The remaining part of this section presents a discussion of the differences and possible factors for the variation across task conditions. 5.1. Effects on syntactic complexity The finding that L1 interaction resulted in longer clauses in learners’ co-constructed texts suggests that their texts are more complex at the clausal level. The mean length of clause has been found to be an effective measure for complexity in a wide range of writing research (Beers & Nagy, 2009; Isikawa, 2007; Lu, 2011; Norris & Ortega, 2009). For instance, Lu (2011) employed 14 syntactic measures to investigate college-level L2 writing by learners of various proficiency levels. It was found that as learners’ proficiency level increased, the mean length of clauses in their writing increased, suggesting that longer clauses are indicative of higher complexity. The post hoc analyses found higher frequencies of nominalization and prepositional phrases in the L1 use condition, which might have contributed to the longer clauses. These features have been noted to be associated with academic writing in previous research (Biber, Gray, & Poonpon, 2011; Biber et al., 1999; Staples, Egbert, Biber, & Gray, 2016). For instance, Biber et al. (2011) employed a bottom-up method to detect linguistic features characterizing academic prose. They found that prepositional phrases, functioning as either post-nominal modifiers or adverbials, were much more frequent in academic writing than in conversation. Furthermore, the importance of nominalization in academic writing has also been noted by Halliday (2004), Halliday and Martin (1993), and Willis (1990). Additionally, Biber and Gray (2013) stated that “one of the most distinctive linguistic characteristics of modern academic writing is its reliance on nominalized structures” (p.99). Therefore, the finding that learners produced longer clauses, as well as more nominalizations and prepositional phrases, in the texts seems to imply that the language use in their essays contain more features associated with academic registers, thus probably being more academic-like. In other words, interacting in the L1 seems to allow learners to employ linguistic devices for information packaging, which is a crucial technique for academic writing. The finding that a significant difference was only detected in clause related complexity, but not in the overall complexity (i.e. length of T-unit) and complexity by subordination (i.e. clauses per T-unit) might relate to the differing focuses of these measures. Both length of T-unit and clauses per T-unit rely on clausal embeddings that allow writers to elaborate information (Biber et al. 2011; Yoon, 2017). However, features such as nominalizations and prepositional phrases that were found to be

8

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

more frequent in the L1 use condition are phrasal embeddings for compressing information. Also, unlike clausal embeddings, these phrasal embeddings are less likely to greatly contribute to T-unit based measures. Therefore, this finding might suggest that L1 interaction seems to allow learners to employ more features for information compression instead of information elaboration. To uncover the exact reasons for this pattern, future research should examine how learners retrieve linguistic devices for clausal and phrasal embeddings in the dyadic interactions during CW tasks. The finding regarding complexity in this study is interesting when taking prior CW research on task condition into consideration. For instance, Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) examined the L2 texts produced by individually and collaboratively. They found that although collaboration resulted in higher linguistic accuracy, it did not lead to any difference in ndez Dobao (2012) explored the L2 essays produced by individual writers, pairs, and syntactic complexity. Similarly, Ferna groups of four. Despite differences in accuracy and fluency across the task conditions, no difference was detected in syntactic complexity. In other words, although task conditions such as group size do not influence complexity in learners’ essays, the language used for interaction is a task condition that may influence how learners retrieve complex structures during the collaboration process. It should also be pointed out that a large amount of prior CW research on task condition has focused on analyzing how various task conditions may influence learners’ peer interaction (e.g. Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Watanabe & Swain, 2007, 2008) without investigating their co-constructed texts. Future research should incorporate evidence from both learners’ peer interaction and their L2 written output to provide a fuller picture of the role of task conditions in CW. 5.2. Effects on linguistic accuracy, fluency, and text quality Regarding accuracy, a trend approaching statistical significant difference was detected for one measure: the ratio of errorfree clauses to total clauses. However, no difference was found for the other two accuracy measures (i.e. errors per hundred words, error-free T-units). This finding suggests that interacting in the L1 does not affect the linguistic accuracy in learners’ jointly written texts and might even have the potential to lead to higher accuracy. However, given that the difference is not statistically significant, future research is needed to further confirm the potential positive effects of L1 use on linguistic accuracy. The finding that no differences were detected in fluency and text quality further supports that L1 use in CW is not detrimental. Regarding text quality in particular, the finding in this study contradicts Swain and Lapkin (2000) who found a negative correlation between the amount of L1 use and text quality of learners’ co-constructed texts. The contradictory findings may relate to four factors: (a) the tasks used were different (i.e. a jigsaw vs. argumentative essay writing); (b) the participants were from different settings (i.e. French immersion class vs. EFL); (c) text quality was assessed differently, as Swain and Lapkin (2000) only examined the quality of content and language use; and (d) the language used for interaction was not controlled in Swain and Lapkin (2000), whereas in the current study the pairs were required to use the L1 or the L2 exclusively. It also suggests that the effects of L1 use in CW are subject to a wide range of variables such as task type, task setting, and task requirements. Another noteworthy pattern regards the fact that the language used for interaction does not influence the global aspects (i.e. content and organization) of learners’ collaborative essays. The lack of variation in content quality might relate to the task type (i.e. argumentative essay writing) employed in this study. Since content elicitation is central to meaning-focused writing tasks such as argumentative essay writing, it is likely that pairs devote much attention to content regardless of the language used for interaction, which might have resulted in the lack of difference in content quality across task conditions. Additionally, the lack of difference in the quality of organization might relate to the fact that all participants had received the same lecture on how to organize information in argumentative essays by the same instructor. Their prior knowledge may have contributed to the similarity in the quality of organization across the L1 and L2 use conditions. 5.3. Potential reasons for the variation Because all participants completed the same tasks in both conditions, potential factors (e.g. proficiency level, task types) that may lead to variation in syntactic complexity were not relevant to this dataset. Therefore, the difference in syntactic complexity can be attributed to the different languages used for interaction during the CW tasks. L1 use may have served as a mediating tool that helped learners retrieve linguistic features of higher complexity during the collaboration process. This function of the L1 has been noted in previous research that examines L1 interaction in CW from a sociocultural perspective  n & Dicamilla, 1999; DiCamilla & Anto n, 2012; García Mayo & Angeles (e.g. Anto Hidalgo, 2017; Scott & de la Fuente, 2008; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). In particular, these studies demonstrate that L1 use serves a metalinguistic function which focuses learners’ attention on language use and allows them to retrieve complex linguistic forms relatively easily. Excerpt 3 is a language related episode (LRE) that demonstrates a pair’s deliberations on language use when interacting in the L1. In this example, Hai first proposes a word (use) in turn 1. Likely inspired by the word that Hai proposes, Min proposes an alternative phrase (take use of) and attempts to distinguish the nuanced meanings of this phrase in turn 2 (i.e. using or exploiting). In turn 3, Hai confirms the meaning of this alternative phrase and points out that the meaning still fits the context. While Min is about to employ this phrase (turn 4), Hai retrieves another more advanced phrase (take the advantages of) to express the same meaning in turn 5. In this LRE, the L1 serves a crucial metalinguistic function through mediating the process of accessing linguistic meaning and form. In particular, the two pair members employ the L1 to deeply explore the nuanced linguistic meanings (turns 2 and 3), deliberate over whether a linguistic form is appropriate in a context (second half of turn

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

9

3), and retrieve more advanced linguistic forms (turns 2 and 5). The L1 allows them to scaffold each other and eventually retrieve the more academic-like expression take advantage of to replace the verb use. This example demonstrates that the L1 may serve to facilitate the retrieval of complex linguistic forms, which might have resulted in the more academic-like language in learners’ co-constructed texts in the L1 use condition. However, more research should be conducted using various methodologies (e.g. think aloud protocols, retrospective interviews) to confirm the potential relationship between L1 use and the production of linguistic features of higher complexity. Excerpt 3.

Pair Talk in the L1 Use Condition (Pair #6)

1. Hai: 用use就行了。 (yong use jiu xing le.) [using use is good enough.] 2. Min: Take use of, 这个是使用的意思呢 ? 还是, 还是利用的意思? (Take use of, zhe ge shi shi yong de yi si ne? hai shi, hai shi li yong de yi si?) [Take use of, does it have the meaning of using? Or, or the meaning of exploiting?] 3. Hai: 利用。可以呀, 利用可以。这个语境也没错。 (li yong. ke yi ya, li yong ke yi. zhe ge yu jing ye mei cuo.) [Exploiting. It works, exploiting works. It works in this context.] 4. Min: Take use of the …. 5. Hai: 等等, 有个别的 …. 用take the advantages of, 比较高级。 (deng deng, you ge bie de …. yong take the advantages of, bi jiao gao ji ya.) [Wait wait, there is another one …. use take the advantages of, more advanced.] In addition, interacting in the L1 may have afforded learners with more semiotic resources, which might partially lead to the higher syntactic complexity in the co-constructed texts. In the L1 use condition, although they were required to interact in the L1, pairs were allowed to use the L2 to rehearse L2 vocabulary and sentences that they were intending to employ in their writing. As shown in Excerpt 3, during the writing process they were able to draw upon both the L1 and the L2 as semiotic resources to construct meaning, which more likely mirrors the collaborating process in real EFL classrooms. In contrast, the range of semiotic resources was more limited in the L2 use condition, as pairs were only allowed to employ the L2 for meaning making. To further confirm the effects of these potential factors on the syntactic complexity, future research has been planned to analyze the pair talks.

6. Conclusion Overall, this study is one the first studies to examine the effects of L1 use on learners’ jointly written texts in CW tasks. The findings suggest that L1 interaction may enable learners to produce texts of higher complexity through employing various linguistic devices to compress more information into clauses. It may also have the potential to lead to higher linguistic accuracy in the co-constructed essays. However, L1 use does not influence the fluency or text quality of learners’ jointly written texts in CW tasks. This study has extended previous research on L1 use in CW by examining links between L1/L2 use and various aspects of learners’ co-constructed texts. On a theoretical level, the results of this study may support a sociocultural perspective of L1 use in L2 learning. That is, L1 use might serve as an important mediating tool that may help learners retrieve complex linguistic forms. Pedagogically, this study provides empirical evidence from learners’ written output to support the idea that L1 use is not debilitating in CW tasks and might even facilitate the production of syntactically complex texts. Thus, in EFL contexts where L1 use is often unavoidable in CW tasks, it might not be necessary or advisable for language instructors to require all learners to interact in the L2 during such tasks. As suggested by McDonough et al. (2016), when the pedagogical goal of a CW task is geared towards the elicitation of linguistic forms in learner texts instead of maximizing L2 oral production, instructors should probably allow learners to determine which language to interact in during the task. To conclude, more research is needed to confirm the potential facilitative effects of L1 use in CW. In particular, as only one task type was examined in a lab setting in this study, it is unknown whether the positive effects of L1 use on learners’ written output may remain in other CW tasks across different settings (e.g. digital settings). Although the findings of this study are of great value for teachers who implement CW tasks in face-to-face settings, future research should consider investigating the role of L1 use across different types of CW tasks in digital environments. Also, the current study only includes participants of one proficiency level in EFL settings, rendering the findings applicable only to learners of a similar proficiency level in the same setting. Additional research that examines other proficiency levels and other settings is needed to further confirm the potential beneficial effects of L1 use on learners’ collaborative texts. Moreover, to have a better understanding of what specific factors may have contributed to the variation in learners’ jointly-written texts, it is crucial to analyze the interaction patterns of the pair talk in the L1 and L2 interaction conditions. Future studies have been planned to explore this question. Lastly, future research would also benefit from employing a wider range of methodologies like think-aloud protocols and retrospective interviews when investigating the role of L1 use in CW.

10

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the editors, the two anonymous reviewers, and William Crawford for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Any remaining errors are my own. Appendix A. Argumentative writing prompts (translated from Chinese) 1. Nowadays, more and more college students start to use cellphones in class. Some people argue that college students should not be allowed to bring cellphones to class. However, others think it is acceptable for them to use cellphones in class. What is your opinion on this issue? Work with your partner to write an essay on this issue. In your essay, be sure to take a position on this issue and use supporting details and examples to support your claim. 2. Due to the soaring house prices and the increasingly competitive job markets in recent years, many college graduates accept financial support from their parents. Some people think that college graduates should not rely on their parents financially. However, others believe it is acceptable for them to do so. What is your opinion on this issue? Work with your partner to write an essay on this issue. In your essay, be sure to take a position on this issue and use supporting details and examples to support your claim.

Appendix B. Rubric for text quality

Content

Language Use

Organization

5 ⁃ Authors’ stance on the topic is clear and consistent. ⁃ It demonstrates syntactic variety, appropriate ⁃ Ideas throughout the essay are logically connected to each other using appropriate ⁃ Arguments are well developed using relevant and word choice, and idiomaticity. appropriate examples, facts, evidence, or details. ⁃ It may have minor lexical or grammatical errors transition words or transitional sentences. ⁃ It demonstrates progression of ideas and that do not interfere with meaning coherence. 4 ⁃ Author’s stance on the topic is generally clear and ⁃ It demonstrates syntactic variety and range of ⁃ Most ideas are logically connected to each other using appropriate transition words vocabulary. consistent. ⁃ Arguments are mostly well developed using rele- ⁃ It probably has occasional noticeable minor er- or transitional sentences. vant and appropriate examples, facts, evidence, or rors in structure, word form or use of idiomatic ⁃ It may contain occasional redundancy, digression, or unclear connections. language that do not interfere with meaning. details, although some ideas may not be fully explained or supported. 3 ⁃ Author’s stance on the topic can at least be inferred ⁃ It may display accurate but limited range of ⁃ At least half of the ideas are logically connected to each other using mostly syntactic structures and vocabulary. and is mostly consistent. ⁃ Some arguments may have limited relevant and ⁃ It may have occasional noticeable errors in appropriate transition words or transitional sentences. sentence formation and word choice that may appropriate examples, facts, evidence, or details. result in lack of clarity and occasionally obscure ⁃ Connection of ideas may be occasionally obscured. meaning. 2 ⁃ Author’s stance on the topic may be somewhat ⁃ It may display limited range of syntactic struc- ⁃ It may have inadequate organization or connection of ideas which obscure the tures and vocabulary. unclear and mostly inconsistent. ⁃ Most arguments are not developed using relevant ⁃ It may have an accumulation of inappropriate connection of ideas frequently choice of words or word forms and errors in and appropriate examples, facts, evidence, or sentence structure and/or usage that obscure details. meaning frequently. ⁃ It may have serious and frequent errors in sen- ⁃ It may have serious disorganization that 1 ⁃ Author’s stance on the topic may be unknown. ⁃ Arguments are not developed using relevant and tence structure or usage that severely interferes makes it difficult to understand the progression of ideas. with meaning. appropriate examples, facts, evidence, or details.

Appendix C. Guidelines for coding Guidelines for coding clauses and T-unit

Definition

Example

T-unit

An independent clause and all its attached or embedded dependent clauses.

When we graduate, we should be able to support us no matter what we do.

Independent clause dependent clause

A grammatical structure that contains a subject and a verb phrase which is marked for tense or modality; it can stand by itself. A clause that has a finite or nonfinite verb and at least one additional clause of the following: subject, object, complement, adverbial; it cannot stand by itself.

Because of divorce, they lost a big part of love. When people don’t have anything to do, it is easier for them to smoke.

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

11

Guidelines for coding errors in writing (Revised from Storch, 2005, p.172) 1. Tense/aspect/mood or verb formation errors are counted as one error; e.g., There are three causes: having stress, having free time, and been influence by friends. (Coded as an error in verb use). 2. Tense/aspect are coded according to preceding discourse rather than looking at a sentence in isolation. 3. Number of errors. Coded according to minimal number of corrections required to make the clause error free, e.g., he get out and smoke and relax from his stress. (The sentence was corrected as “he gets out to smoke and relax from his stress”, thus, two errors were counted). 4. Article errors. An omitted article is coded as an error. 5. The wrong part of speech is coded as one error. e.g. Love it nor not, these are terrible choose. 6. An omitted plural maker is coded as an error. 7. Count errors in word choice only when the chosen word/expression distorts meaning or is considered incontrovertibly wrong. e.g. Because of these choices, many people are hurt. They can’t feel beatific as usual. 8. An erroneous expression containing more than one word is still counted as one error; e.g., a lost brain person will do something harmful to others. (‘a lost brain person’ is counted as one error in expression). 9. Do not count errors in capitalization or spelling. References n, M., & Dicamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), Anto 233e247. Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431e448. Arslanyilmaz, A., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Improving language production using subtitled similar task videos. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 377e395. Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41(4), 241e247. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185e200. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. Wallis (Eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 99e132). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5e35. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York, NY: Longman. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267e296. Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80e98. n, M. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International DiCamilla, F. J., & Anto Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 160e188. Donato, R. (1989). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Newark: University of Delaware. Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154e166. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering L2 development and mastery of writing conventions. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51e71. Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445e463. Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229e239. ndez Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Ferna Writing, 21, 40e58.  García Mayo, M. P., & Angeles Hidalgo, M. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132e145. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London: Continuum. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press. Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [þ/ Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136e156). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114e130. Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative wiki projects. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 606e620. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. van Patten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 207e226). New York: Routledge. Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343e364. Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25e42. Li, M., & Storch, N. (2017). Second language writing in the age of CMC: Affordances, multimodality, and collaboration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 1e5. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38e53. Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36e62. McDonough, K., Crawford, W., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In M. Sato, & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555e578. Scott, C. M. (2004). Syntactic contributions to literacy learning. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 340e362). New York: The Guilford Press.

12

M. Zhang / System 76 (2018) 1e12

Scott, V. M., & de la Fuente, M. J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100e113. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149e183. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363e374. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153e173. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355e375. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31e48. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37, 760e769. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251e274. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language Education, 1(1), 101e129. Thoms, J., Liao, J., & Szustak, A. (2005). The use of L1 in an L2 on-line chat activity. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 62, 161e182. Tognini, R., & Oliver, R. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In E. Alcon, & M. P. Safont (Eds. ), Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 53e78). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, E., & Toth, P. (2013). Building explicit L2 Spanish knowledge through guided induction in small-group and whole-class interaction. In K. McDonough, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 89e108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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(2), 121e142. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17(2), 115e130. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445e466. Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: Harper Collins. Yoon, H. J. (2017). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130e141.