L1 vs L2 synchronous text-based interaction in computer-mediated L2 writing

Journal Pre-proof L1 vs L2 synchronous text-based interaction in computer-mediated L2 writing Inigo Yanguas

PII:

S0346-251X(19)30224-6

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102169

Reference:

SYS 102169

To appear in:

System

Received Date: 20 March 2019 Revised Date:

23 October 2019

Accepted Date: 30 October 2019

Please cite this article as: Yanguas, I., L1 vs L2 synchronous text-based interaction in computermediated L2 writing, System (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102169. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

L1 vs L2 synchronous text-based interaction in computer-mediated L2 writing Inigo Yanguas University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [email protected] Phone #: 619 415 1346 Declarations of interest: none

L1 vs L2 synchronous text-based interaction in computer-mediated L2 writing Abstract This study investigates the quality of the L2 written outcome and the interactions produced in synchronous text-based L1 and L2 collaboration. On the one hand, it explores fluency, accuracy, and complexity measures in order to compare participants’ L2 performance in a task-based writing assignment using Google Docs. On the other hand, it examines the areas of negotiation in their L1 and L2 synchronous interactions in order to assess possible differences. Eighty-five intermediate students of Spanish were randomly assigned to four different dyadic writing groups: a control group, a collaborative L1 text-based chat group, a collaborative L2 text-based chat group, and a group of dyads who collaborated on Google Docs but were not permitted to chat. ANOVA analyses of the L2 writing measures under scrutiny showed that the dyads that collaborated in their L1 had a significant advantage in the accuracy measure utilized. Additionally, analyses of the interactions produced by the dyads in both chat groups showed that the L1 chat group conversed more but focused less on the L2. These results are discussed in relation to the relevant previous literature and should continue the discussion on translanguaging and how L1 can be of use in L2 writing.

Keywords: L2 writing; collaboration; computer-mediated communication; Skype; L2 chat; L1 chat; Google Docs.

1. Introduction Traditionally, collaboration in second language (L2) writing has mostly taken place during the brainstorming and peer-reviewing stages (e.g., Ferris, 2003; Nelson & Carson, 1998). However, several researchers have suggested that collaboration should take place during the writing process due to its potential positive effects (Ellis, 2003; Storch, 2005). In fact, Storch (2013) argued that the entire writing process should be investigated (i.e., collaborative planning and the generation of ideas, and joint writing, revision and editing). In addition, it has been argued that collaboration allows learners to focus on a variety of writing skills (Lund, 2008), which could potentially foster learning and enrich the writing experience. Undoubtedly, the development of efficient collaborative online tools and applications in the area of computerassisted language learning (CALL) has made it easier to explore the whole writing process. In fact, the potential of CALL to assist in the implementation of collaborative L2 writing has been promoted for more than a decade, but little research has explored its potential benefits for individual writing (Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016). As Zheng and Warschauer (2017) have argued, “it is important to explore the potential affordances of new technologies for facilitating L2 writing in an age where being literate means knowing how to communicate using digital technologies” (p. 66). To date, most of the collaborative L2 writing research in the CALL field (see Li, 2018) has focused on asynchronous collaboration, particularly, in the use of wikis (e.g., Ducate, Lomicka & Moreno, 2011; Elola & Oskoz, 2011). Few studies have explored synchronous text-based collaboration and interaction in classroom-based L2 writing, and even fewer have compared interaction in the L1 and the L2 when “understanding of translanguaging in writing suggests that an author can integrate multiple languages for a range of communicative affordances” (Smith, Pacheco, & Rossato de Almeida, 2017: p. 8). In this context,

translanguaging should be viewed as an integrated system of languages and a type of multicompetence that works symbiotically within students’ language repertoires (Canagarajah, 2011). The current study, therefore, aims to contribute to ongoing research by investigating L2 writing in a synchronous text-based computer-mediated (CM) context under an interactionist perspective. According to Mackey, Abbuhl, and Gass (2012), the core components of the interactionist approach are interactionally modified input, having the learner’s attention drawn to the formal features of the L2, and opportunities to produce output and feedback. This study investigates some of these aspects in a CM context. Specifically, the present study has a two-fold goal: first, to explore the quality of the L2 written outcome in terms of fluency, accuracy, and complexity measures in four CM writing groups (collaborative L1 chat, collaborative L2 chat, collaborative without chat, and individual writing); and second, to examine and compare the areas on which learners focus in both text-based CM interaction groups (L1 chat and L2 chat) during the writing task. 2. Review of the literature 2.1 L2 collaborative writing The use of collaborative writing tasks has not been common in the L2 classroom (Storch, 2011). Traditionally, researchers have focused on collaboration in the pre- and post-writing phases (Pae, 2011). However, oral interactive pair and group activities have been increasingly implemented since the advent of Long’s interaction hypothesis (1996) and subsequent cognitiveinteractionist theories of L2 learning, which are the general foundations for the current study. Producing meaningful output when interacting for meaning with a fellow learner or a native speaker has long been recognized as critical for L2 development (Abrams, 2016). Some studies

(Weissberg, 2000) have tested these assumptions in the L2 writing context, since it has been argued that learners in this written environment are willing to take more risks and thus are potentially able to develop their L2 interlanguage further according to interactive views of acquisition (Williams, 2012). In a very small-scale study with only five subjects, Weissberg (2000) compared a variety of oral and written tasks to determine whether speech or writing functioned as the main source of grammatical development. Results of his analyses showed that writing appeared to be the favored channel for the appearance of new morphosyntactic forms, and was also the medium in which learners achieved higher grammatical accuracy. Regarding previous studies that, like ours, compared the written texts produced by different collaborative groups to texts produced individually, most have shown that the former are generally more accurate than the latter. In one of the first studies in this area of research, Storch (1999) compared ESL learners’ performance in three different types of grammar-focused tasks. Results of her analyses revealed that collaboration had a positive effect on grammatical accuracy, but varied with the grammatical items. In another traditional paper-and-pen study, Storch (2005) compared the texts produced by individual writers and dyads of students and investigated the nature of the writing processes in the pair discussion. Results of her study showed that texts produced by the dyads were better in terms of task fulfillment, grammatical accuracy, and complexity. Within a sociocultural framework, Storch and Wigglesworth (2007) compared the written texts produced by both individuals and pairs of students. Specifically, they explored fluency, complexity, and accuracy measures. While they found no significant differences between the groups in fluency and complexity, the results showed significant differences on both measures of accuracy used in the study. They concluded that while collaboration might not result in longer or

more complex texts, it appears to lead to the production of more accurate texts. In another study, Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) further investigated collaborative writing and compared the performance of two groups of L2 learners: a group of students working individually, and another group working in pairs on a collaborative essay. Along the lines of the previous study, the results revealed that collaboration had an effect on accuracy but not on fluency and complexity measures. In a more recent study, Fernández Dobao (2012) compared the writings of three groups of learners: a group of students working in groups of four, a group of students working in pairs, and a group of students working individually. Results showed that students working individually produced the least accurate texts. Finally, Basterrechea and García-Mayo (2013) compared Basque-Spanish bilingual students of English working individually and in pairs in a text reconstruction task (i.e., a dictogloss task). Once again, results showed that students working collaboratively outperformed those working individually in the production of third-person English singular forms. 2.2 L1 in L2 writing research Past research on the use of L1 by L2 writers during the composing process has shown that the L1 is indeed used, although to what degree, in what manner, and for what purposes is still being debated (for a detailed review see van Weijen et al., 2009). For example, Antón and DiCamilla (1998) qualitatively explored the oral interactions of Spanish L2 learners in collaborative writing tasks. In particular, they examined the social and cognitive functions performed by the L1. They found that the L1 is most often used when learners confront a difficult cognitive task. Regarding the few studies that have investigated direct links between L1 use during L2 writing and L2 performance outcomes, some earlier studies (see for example, Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992) showed advantages for those L2 learners that first wrote in their L1

and then translated into their L2. However, Cohen and Brooks-Carson (2001) found that two thirds of their 39 intermediate learners of L2 French performed better when writing directly in the L2 than writing in the L1 and then translating to the L2. In turn, Woodall (2002) investigated L1 use in L2 writing by analyzing the texts written by 28 adult participants (9 L2 Japanese, 11 L2 English, and 8 L2 Spanish). Quantitative analyses of the data showed that more advanced L2 learners used their L1 more than less proficient students, and that the L1 was used for longer periods of time as the difficulty of the task increased. Finally, Knutson (2006) qualitatively explored the writing of six college students of L2 French using think-aloud protocols. This study showed that the L1 was used for a variety of purposes both at the micro and macro contextual levels (i.e., finding a particular vocabulary item or planning the structure of the message). Since these results indeed show that the L1 plays an important role in the composition process depending on the learner, their proficiency, the task, and the educational context, our current study investigated a collaboration group that interacted in their L1 so that it could be compared to a traditional L2 collaborative group. To our knowledge, no other L2 collaborative writing study has attempted to investigate and compare L1 vs. L2 collaboration in either a CALL setting or a paper-and-pen context. However, some recent studies have explored the composition process across languages. For example (see also Canagarajah, 2011; 2013), Smith, Pacheco, and Rossato de Almeida (2017) examined the composing process using text, visuals, sound, and animation in a digital environment of eight students who managed resources in English, Spanish, Bahdini, and Vietnamese. Results from their qualitative analyses showed that students followed unique compositional paths and used their heritage languages with different goals during the writing process.

In the following section, we will address CALL studies that examine collaborative writing mediated by technology, which is one of the three main strands of L2 collaborative writing research distinguished by Storch (2016). In particular, we shall focus on research that explores synchronous L2 writing collaboration using Google Docs in the classroom. 2.3 Collaborative writing in CALL contexts In the past ten years, myriad research studies have been published investigating different aspects of collaborative writing using wikis (e.g. Alghasab & Handley, 2017; Oskoz & Elola, 2011; Hsu & Lo, 2018; Li & Zhu, 2017). Regarding text-based synchronous communication when writing in the L2, a few earlier studies investigated its potential (e.g. Elola & Oskoz, 2010b; Oskoz & Elola, 2012; Sauro & Smith, 2010). Elola and Oskoz (2010a) utilized wikis to investigate and compare L2 learners’ approaches to writing using wikis both individually and collaboratively. In addition, they explored participants’ synchronous interactions and their attitudes toward the task. With respect to the written product, they found no significant differences in fluency, accuracy, and complexity measures between students working individually and collaboratively on the argumentative tasks used in this study. However, they observed substantial qualitative differences in the way learners working individually or in pairs approached the text. Under a socioconstructivist perspective, Elola and Oskoz, (2010b) investigated the use of discussion boards, wikis, and chats in two Spanish as L2 courses. Results from this study showed that these tools not only fostered collaboration but also generated content and linguistic development. In turn, Oskoz and Elola (2012) explored the synchronous and asynchronous interactions of college-level Spanish L2 learners who participated in discussion boards, wikis, and chats (both text-based and voice chats) as they wrote two expository essays. Results of this study showed that learners “oriented and reoriented their jointly formed actions in

relation to the object and desired outcomes” (p.147). Along the same lines, Oskoz and Elola (2014) also investigated both chat and wiki interactions when writing L2 argumentative and expository texts collaboratively. Analyses of the interactions showed that learners focused on content and structure in chats while they used wikis to discuss more focalized aspects of their writing. Finally, Sauro and Smith (2010) examined the relationship between task planning time and linguistic complexity and lexical diversity of L2 output in a text-based chat environment. Results of this study seem to suggest that learners take advantage of the amount of time allowed by chat interaction to carefully plan their L2 production, which results in more complex language. More recently, other researchers (Abrams, 2016; Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016; Rouhshad & Storch, 2016; Strobl, 2015) have investigated different aspects of synchronous collaborative L2 writing from various perspectives. For example, Abrams (2016) explored the writing process and the type of language that learners focused on during computer-mediated writing. As one of the groups in our study, learners collaborated (both synchronously and asynchronously) but did not interact. In Abrams’ study, L2 learners of German interacted in groups in the pre-writing phase and then were placed in different groups for the writing phases, which would take place in class (synchronously) and outside of class (asynchronously). However, the results of this study confirmed Storch’s (2002) patterns of participation: low, sequentially additive, and collaborative participation with a primary focus on content. In another synchronous collaborative study, Bikowski and Vithanage (2016) investigated the effects of repeated in-class online collaborative writing on individual writing scores. An experimental group worked collaboratively in groups of three and four on four different writing tasks using Google Docs, while a control group worked individually on those same tasks also using Google Docs. Results showed that collaborative web-

based participants experienced higher gains than individual web-based writing participants, although the authors make no difference between the different forms of collaboration. From a socio-constructivist perspective, Rouhshad and Storch (2016) explored the impact of mode of interaction on patterns of interaction and focus on form during L2 collaborative writing. They compared CM text-based and face-to-face (FTF) interaction using Google Docs. Their results showed that mode of interaction does indeed affect patterns of communication. Using Storch’s (2002) patterns of participation, they concluded that in FTF the pairs of learners usually formed a collaborative relationship, whereas in CM text-based synchronous interaction collaboration was rare, and students displayed patterns of either cooperative or dominant/passive roles. Finally, Strobl (2015) explored the effect of two instructional support methods (scripting and observational learning) on collaborative synthesis writing. In this three-week intervention study, groups of Dutch native speakers of L2 German had to write three different syntheses in German. Results of the study showed that both instructional methods were useful for online collaborative synthesis in writing in this educational setting. As can be seen in the above review of the literature, CALL studies investigating synchronous text-based interaction in L2 collaborative writing are quite varied in their research design and theoretical background, complicating our ability to draw any general conclusions regarding how synchronous interaction and collaboration affect the writing process. In addition, no study thus far has included the L1 in the research design. With our study, therefore, we seek to add to this strand of research by investigating L2 learners’ CM writing performance and synchronous text-based interaction through Skype chat both in the L1 and L2. In particular, we seek to answer to the following two research questions:

RQ1: Are there any significant differences in the writing performance of four different writing groups on measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity? RQ2: Are there any differences between the L1 and L2 chat groups in terms of a) number of turns and b) areas of focus in the interaction transcripts? 3. Method 3.1 Participants Participants in this study (N=85) were students enrolled in six intact fourth semester Spanish classes (Fall 2015 to Fall 2016) at a small private Liberal Arts college in the western US. Nine students were not included in the final sample because they declared both Spanish and English as their native language and/or had recording issues. A background questionnaire (see Appendix A) was administered at the beginning of the study in order to gather basic personal information about the participants and their level of comfort using Skype and Google Docs (see Table 1 and Table 2). Table 1. Participants’ Background Information Senior Junior Sophomore Freshman Age Female Male Spanish in High School (Avg. # classes) Spanish in College (Avg. # classes)

10.1% 10.1% 34.8% 44.9% 19.1 70% 30% 6.1 1.7

Table 2. Participants’ use of Skype and Google Documents Use of Skype Not comfortable/very uncomfortable Comfortable Very comfortable Use of Google Docs Not comfortable

1.4% 36.4% 62.2% 1.4%

Comfortable Very comfortable

23.2% 75.4%

3.2 Materials The comic strip used (see Appendix B) in this collaborative writing task was taken from Rollet and Tremblay (1975) and has been used successfully in past CMC research (Yanguas & Bergin, 2018; Yilmaz & Granena, 2010; Yilmaz, 2011). Besides the successful use of this comic strip in past research, it was chosen for this study because it has been argued in the literature that creative tasks can promote effective interaction (Lee, 2010). Google Docs was chosen as the writing tool for this study for ease of access and familiarity with the program, given that students’ email accounts at this institution were powered by Gmail and this same online tool is used in other classes. As seen in Table 2, an overwhelming majority of students claimed to be either comfortable or very comfortable with the program. 3.3 Procedure This study was part of the class curriculum, which had a strong writing component with formal study of structures and different writing texts. Two weeks before the actual study began, participants were trained in the use of Google Docs and Skype chat. They carried out a short writing activity in which they followed the same procedure used in this study. The writing task used in the study was piloted during the previous semester in order to give the researcher an idea of how the activity worked with students at this level of proficiency, and approximately how long they would take to accomplish the task. For the actual study, participants met during their regular class time and were randomly paired and assigned to one of four groups: English chat (EC), Spanish chat (SC), no chat (NC), individual writing (IW).

1) EC: Collaborative (English chat) Writing (N=22) 2) SC: Collaborative (Spanish chat) Writing (N=20) 3) NC: Collaborative (no chat) Writing (N=20) 4) IW: Individual Writing (N=14)

Classes lasted one hour and forty minutes and met twice per week. After being randomly assigned to their interaction groups and partners, the procedure was explained to the participants and they were given the instructions. Learners were reminded to interact with their partners only on Skype, not via the Google Doc where they were directed to write their story. It was also emphasized that participants in the NC group should not interact; they were only permitted to collaborate on the creation of the text on Google Docs and remain “chat silent”. Care was taken to ensure that partners were sitting far apart from each other and facing the wall. They were given three minutes to look at the comic strip individually and take any necessary notes. After that time, they were instructed to begin the task; no time or word-count limits were set for this activity. 3.4 Coding and Analyses In order to answer the first research question, quantitative analyses of the written texts were carried out. Texts were analyzed to determine the number of words (NW), the number of TUnits (NTU), the number of words per T-Unit (NWTU), the percentage of error-free T-Units (EFTU), and the lexical variety coefficient (LV). These linguistic measures have been previously used in the L2 writing literature (e.g., Elola & Oskoz, 2010a; Schwartz, 2005) and will serve us in comparing the four different writing groups in terms of their writing performance. While there

are several definitions of the term T-Unit in the L2 writing literature, we operationalized it as a minimal, independent, terminable clause, which has all modifying phrases attached to it (LarsenFreeman, 1991). Regarding errors, we followed the approach used in Storch (2005) where errors included syntactic errors (e.g., errors in word order, missing elements) and morphology (e.g., verb tense, subject-verb agreement, errors in use of articles and prepositions, errors in word forms). Errors in word choice were included if meaning was compromised. All errors in spelling and punctuation were ignored. The Uber Index was used to calculate LV. The use of this formula has been proposed (Jarvis, 2002) to off-set the type-token ratio issue, since this ratio appears to significantly decrease as the speech sample increases. The following formula was used (Kormos & Dörnyei, 2004): Uber Index = (log tokens) 2 / (log tokens – log types). The inter-rater reliability score for all measures was at or above .94. After two raters independently rated and coded compositions for fluency (NW and NTU), accuracy (EFTU), and complexity (NWTU and LV) measures and agreement was reached, a series of five one-way ANOVAs were performed on the scores of every writing measure assessed in this study (NW, WTU, NTU, EFTU, LV) for the four different writing groups (EC, SC, NC, and IW). The scores for each one of these measures were entered as dependent variables on the ANOVAs conducted, while Group (EC, SC, NC, IW) was entered as the independent variable. With regards to the second research question, all conversations were transcribed and analyzed for total number of turns for both learners in the dyad and number of turns per minute for each learner. Words used in an attempt to communicate and negotiate meaning in the L2 as well as correct and incorrect vocabulary were included in the count. No fillers (such as “um”, “uh”, “yes”, “so”) were counted. We counted a turn each time there was an exchange of words

from one learner to the other, as long as there was a completed utterance or statement of any length by a learner (Smith, 2003). Like Smith (2003), we chose this method given the difficulty of distinguishing when a learner intended a new line to be a new turn or when the new line simply revealed an individualized typing style. Total agreement between raters was reached regarding the focus of the synchronous written interactions analyzed. The following areas of interaction were discovered: Structure of the composition, task planning, content of the composition, interpretation of comic strips, grammar, spelling and accentuation, and vocabulary. 4. Results 4.1 Research question 1 The results of the ANOVA analyses conducted, presented in Table 4 (see means and standard deviations in Table 3), show a significant difference for EFTU (F(3, 44) = 3.404, p = .026). Partial Eta squared (η2= .199) is reported as an estimation of effect size for ANOVAs: according to Green and Salkind (2005), values greater than or equal to .14 indicate large effect sizes. Post hoc Tukey tests indicated that this was due to a significant difference between groups EC and IW (p=.029) and a trend toward significance between groups EC and SC (p=.054). The means for the writing groups displayed in Table 3 help to further interpret these results: the mean for EFTU was substantially higher for the EC group (71.57%) than for the SC (58.21%) and IW (58.03%) groups. The mean for the NC group reached almost 62%.

Table 3: Means and standard deviations

EC

Group

NW

WTU

NTU

EFTU

LV

Mean

298.54

12.79

23.00

71.57

18.30

N

11

11

11

11

11

Std. Deviation

100.93

2.32

4.83

6.17

1.88

SC

Mean

340.50

14.30

23.80

58.21

17.46

N

10

10

10

10

10

Std. Deviation

103.30

1.45

6.62

11.96

1.71

Mean

357.80

15.08

23.60

61.97

19.30

N

10

10

10

10

10

Std. Deviation

67.96

1.78

3.97

9.21

1.46

Mean

366.64

14.04

25.42

58.03

18.54

N

14

14

14

14

14

Std. Deviation

86.14

1.97

5.68

15.33

3.17

NC

IW

Table 4. One-Way ANOVA Analyses

NW

WTU

NTU

EFTU

LV

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Eta Sq.

Between Groups

31789.736

3

10596.57

1.293

.290

.086

Within Groups

335974.042

41

8194.48

Total Between Groups

367763.778

44

28.614

3

9.53

2.560

.068

.158

Within Groups

152.786

41

3.72

Total Between Groups

181.400

44

41.371

3

13.79

.475

.702

.034

Within Groups

1191.429

41

29.05

Total Between Groups

1232.800

44

1368.281

3

456.09

3.404

.026

.199

Within Groups

54941.045

41

134.00

Total Between Groups

6862.326

44

17.276

3

5.75

1.113

.355

.075

Within Groups

212.151

41

5.17

Total

229.427

44

As can be seen from the tables, the results of the ANOVA analyses conducted do not show significant differences among the groups for the fluency and complexity measures utilized (NW, WTU, NTU, LV). It appears that the mean differences shown in Table 3 for those measures are not large enough to yield significant statistical differences among the groups.

4.2 Research question 2

Regarding research question 2, the chat transcripts for groups EC and SC were coded and analyzed by two independent raters in order to calculate the number of turns and discover the negotiation focus areas. After the coding was discussed and agreement reached, seven different focus areas were identified in the transcripts of the conversations, as shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Areas of focus in chat transcripts Eng. Chat (EC) Sp. Chat (SC)

Turns Avrg.

Structure

Planning

Content

Comic strips

Grammar

Spelling/Acc.

Vocabulary

76.3 56.5

9% 7%

9% 6%

35% 32%

16% 14%

11% 13%

9% 10%

11% 18%

Table 5 also shows the average number of total turns taken by participants in groups EC and SC. Interestingly, learners in EC took a higher number of total turns on average in their conversations (EC: 76.3; SC: 56.5). In addition, to account for time differences, the number of turns per minute was calculated as shown in Table 6. As can be seen, participants in the EC group had a considerably higher rate of turns per minute than their counterparts in group SC.

Table 6. Number of turns per minute Turns Mean

SD

Low

High

EC

4.22

1.27

2.15

8.21

SC

2.69

1.75

.90

7.30

In terms of the areas of focus in their interactions, Table 5 displays remarkable differences between the groups in the areas of vocabulary (EC: 11%; SC: 18%) and in the combination of the planning and structure areas (EC: 18%; SC: 13%). In addition, we find further notable differences in the combination of the areas directly related to the L2 used in the composition (grammar, spelling and accentuation, and vocabulary). Participants in the EC group

focused on these areas 31% of the total time, whereas for participants in the SC group this percentage was 41%. Examples of interactions pertaining to each of the seven areas of focus are reproduced verbatim below. In the area of grammar, a distinction was made between explicit and implicit grammar discussions. In addition, in the area of vocabulary, two types of vocabulary items appeared in the analyses: on the one hand, words that belonged to the story and, on the other hand, words that were part of the interaction between participants but not necessarily part of the story. These last items only appeared in the conversations that took place between participants in the SC group, and might be a determining factor that could explain the difference between EC and SC groups in this area.

1. Structure (SC) Student A: Debe ser cada párrafo una escena o puedo combinarlos [Should we do a paragraph for each picture or can we combine them?] Student B: No, combinarlos. Toma la cuenta como un composición normal. [Combine them, as we do in a normal composition] 2. Planning (EC) Student A: Do you want to write about the even scenes and I’ll write about the odd ones? Student B: Yeah that’s fine

3. Content (EC) Student A: Okay, so what story line are we thinking Student B: So first the little boy is on his way to go fishing Student B: And his name is Student A: Luis Student B: Luis

Student A: He gets some fish, grills them, sells them, gets money

4. Comic strips (EC) Student A: Okay in the first and third picture there’s like a little clock in the corner Student A: Does that have any relevance? Student B: Maybe showing time is passing during the day 5.1. Grammar (implicit) (SC) Student A: Es llevó o llevaba? [Is it “llevó” (preterit tense) or “llevaba” (imperfect tense)?] Student A: No sé para seguro [I’m not sure] Student B: Pienso que es llevaba [I think it is “llevaba”]

5. 2. Grammar (explicit) (EC) Student A: The verbs are in the past tense in the beginning of the story? Student B: Actually, I think they might be imperfect Student A: I’ll change those 6. Spelling/Accentuation (SC) Student A: Rio tiene un accento? [Does “rio” have an accent?”] Student B: Creo que si [I think so] 7.1. Vocabulary (related to the story) (EC) Student A: It’s peces, pescado is fish that’s been cooked Student B: Right but he cooks them in the third panel Student B: So they turn into pescados?

Student A: Res, but not until after they’ve been cooked 7. 2. Vocabulary (not related to the story) (SC) Student A: Pienso podemos ser terminado con la historia [I think we have finished the story] Student B: Historia significa story verdad? [“historia” means story, right?] Student A: Si

5. Discussion Regarding our first research question in which we sought to investigate potential differences in the writing performance of the groups under scrutiny, we only found significant differences in the percentage of error-free T-units among the groups, not in the fluency or complexity measures explored. The group that was able to chat in their L1 had a significantly higher percentage of error-free T-units, as shown by the one-way ANOVA conducted. Lack of significant differences in complexity measures and fluency measures had also been shown in previous collaborative L2 writing research in which interaction took place orally (Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). Regarding accuracy, these results seem to partially confirm previous findings that suggest that collaboratively produced texts are more accurate than those produced individually; this advantage may also apply in the context of oral collaboration (Basterrechea & García-Mayo, 2013; Fernández Dobao, 2012; Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007). Regarding synchronous text-based interaction in collaborative L2 writing, Elola and Oskoz (2010a) did not find statistically significant differences in fluency, accuracy, or complexity measures between individual and collaborative writing. As in oral contexts of interactive collaboration, in our study, those learners that were able to collaborate in their L1 produced significantly more accurate texts. Interestingly, however,

learners that collaborated in the L2 or collaborated without interaction did not perform as well; our results do not show any significant differences between collaboration in the L2, collaboration with no interaction, and individual writing. As far as we know, there is no previous research that compares text-based collaboration in the L1 and the L2. It seems, nevertheless, that both the medium through which collaboration takes place as well as the language in which it occurs are indeed very relevant aspects in the investigation of collaboration in L2 writing tasks. Results of Oskoz and Elola’s (2014) study, in which they compared L2 learners’ collaborative writing in synchronous (text-based chat or voice chat) and asynchronous communication (wiki), showed that the medium of communication does make a difference. The results of this study also indicated that all learners using chats paid more attention to the macro context (i.e., overall structure), while students in the wiki spent more time on the micro context (i.e., grammar, editing). However, this study did not clearly differentiate between voice and text-based chat, and therefore its results should be carefully considered in this regard. Furthermore, Rouhshad and Storch (2016) found dissimilar forms of interaction depending on the mode of communication, which in their study were synchronous text-based CM and FTF. Along the same lines, Cho (2017) found distinct patterns of participation and interaction across text-based and voice-based groups, which further supports differences across modes of interaction. Regarding collaboration with no explicit interaction during the writing phase, results from Abrams’ (2016) study showed that students tend to place more importance on meaning than form, but she did not include fluency, accuracy or complexity measures in her analyses. Finally, in order to explain these results, we must add that the type of task, L2 proficiency, and group structures may greatly affect collaboration and its outcomes (Storch, 2016). Since the body of research in the area of CM L2 collaborative writing is relatively small

and quite varied, further studies that include text-based, synchronous CM communication both in the L1 and the L2 should be performed with similar types of tasks and designs in order to confirm these preliminary results. As discussed above, there has been recent demand for an “examination of how students use multiple languages within the composing process” (Smith et al., 2017, p. 8). In particular, there is an evident lack of research that addresses and compares how learners interact in their L1 and their L2 when collaborating in L2 writing. For these reasons, we set out to answer our second research question that explored the number of interactional turns in both groups (English chat and Spanish chat) and the areas on which they focused during their interactions. In answering this research question, we aim to contribute to the debate on how L2 learners use their L1s in their L2 writing performance. Results of this study showed that participants in the L1 chat group chatted more; that is to say, they took more turns on average (76.3) and per minute (4.22) than the L2 group (56.5/2.7). In addition, not only did students who were able to use their L1 interact more, but their writing was more accurate (i.e., they had a significantly higher percentage of error-free T-units). Interpreting these results may not be as straightforward as it would appear, since the learners’ ultimate goal is L2 production and the benefits that come from interacting in the L2 (i.e., negotiation for meaning) did not seem to transfer to the writing outcome (participants in the L2 chat group had more errors than their counterparts). Regarding the areas of focus in the interactions, there were several findings that warrant further discussion. First, content was the area of focus most common across groups, which has also been found in past research (Elola & Oskoz, 2010a, 2010b; Kessler et al., 2012). Interpreting the comic strips was the other area in which learners focused more in both groups;

this is understandable, given the nature of this open task in which students were asked to interpret the pictures in the comic strips. In fact, nearly 50% of the interactions were related to the content and interpretation of the comic strips, which further confirms previous findings (Abrams, 2016) on learners’ emphasis on content and meaning. The focus on vocabulary by both groups is also worth mentioning (EC: 11%; SC: 18%), which confirms and supports previous research (Elola & Oskoz, 2010a, 2010b; Kessler et al., 2012; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007) in which the lexicon has been stressed as the main element in the meaning-making process that is writing in a second language (Abrams, 2016). It should be noted, however, that the percentage of vocabulary focus was higher for the SC group. Part of that increase in Spanish vocabulary use was due to the task per se, whereas some of it was part of the conversation, as seen in the examples shown above. In addition, we found prominent disparities in the combination of structure and planning percentages between the two groups (EC: 18%; SC: 13%). It seems that participants in the L1 chat group spent more time discussing how to carry out the task and its form. Finally, our results show a higher focus on grammar, spelling and accentuation, and vocabulary by the SC group (EC: 31%; SC: 41%), which might be beneficial for learners if, as it appears, negotiation of meaning does take place (Long, 1996). When interpreting these results, caution must be taken and it must be borne in mind that “various mediating factors contribute to the degree and quality of interaction and collaboration, including task type, mode selection, participants’ characteristics, learning styles and preferences” (Zheng & Warschauer, 2017: p. 63). However, given this study’s results, the line of inquiry started in this investigation should be pursued in future studies because fundamental differences in the areas of focus in learners’ interactions in their L1 and L2 have been shown. Future studies should qualitatively analyze these interactions in order to gain a deeper insight into how these

dissimilarities affect learners’ interaction patterns and their L2 development. 6. Conclusion and limitations This study aimed to contribute to the strand of L2 writing research that investigates computer-mediated text-based interaction. In particular, we set out to investigate L1 and L2 synchronous text-based interaction by pairs of students when carrying out a writing task in the L2. Results of the current study show some differences both in the written outcome and in the areas on which learners focus during their interactions, which should be confirmed in further studies. It seems that interacting in the L1 could have a positive effect on the L2 written product, but the cost should be considered, since interactive negotiation of meaning is compromised. Nonetheless, we believe that results from this study corroborate our conclusion that the use of the L1 and its effects on students’ L2 learning and writing processes should be explored in potential new studies. There are several limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting these results, and which should be addressed in future studies. First, a deeper analysis of the interaction patterns in relation to the written text should be carried out. These analyses would allow us to identify which member of the pair wrote what part of the text, and to determine what kind of interaction led to the written text. Second, our study focused solely on one type of task; future studies should ideally compare different types of tasks so that stronger pedagogical implications may be drawn. Finally, as mentioned above, proficiency level is an important variable that should be carefully considered; different proficiency levels should be included in future research designs in order to better inform the field. Therefore, our results cannot be generalized across task types or proficiency levels, which are very relevant factors that influence the opportunities for interaction and collaborative dialogue.

References

Abrams, Z. (2016). Exploring collaboratively written L2 texts among first-year learners of German in Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1259–1270. Alghasab, M., & Handley, Z. L. (2017). Capturing (non-) collaboration in wiki-mediated collaborative writing activities: The need to examine discussion posts and editing acts in tandem. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7), 1–29. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F.J. (2009). The discursive features of the collaborative interaction of advanced learners of Spanish: A sociocultural perspective. ELUA, 23, 13–30. Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431–448. Basterrechea, M., & García-Mayo, M.P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks. A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough and A. Makey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts, 25–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of Web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language Learning and Technology, 20(1), 79–99. Canagarajah, A.S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95, 401–417. Canagarajah, A.S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48, 40–67. Cho, H. (2017). Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 37–51. Cohen, A.D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 169–188. Ducate, L., Lomicka L., & Moreno, N. (2011). Wading through the world of wikis: An analysis of three wiki projects. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 495–524. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010a). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010b). A social constructivist approach to foreign language writing in online environments. In G. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy, 185–201. Boston, MA: Cengage Heinle. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58. Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing, 119–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hsu, H., & Lo, Y. (2018). Using Wiki-Mediated Collaboration to Foster L2 writing performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 103–123. Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves, and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 57–84. Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web- based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42, 183–215. Knutson, E.M. (2006). Thinking in English, writing in French. The French Review, 80(1), 88– 109. Kormos, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenuntericht [Online], 9(2), 19 pp. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Research on language teaching methodologies: A review of the past and an agenda for the future. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 119–132. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–276. Li, M. (2018) Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: an analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96–120. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bathia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 413–468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54. Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S.M. (2012). Interactionist approaches. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, 7–23. New York, NY: Routledge. Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131. Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2011). Meeting at the wiki: The new arena for collaborative writing in foreign language courses. In M.J.W. Lee & C. MacLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching, 209–227. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2012). Understanding the impact of social tools in the FL writing classroom: Activity theory at work. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & Elola, I. (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks, 131–154. San Marcos, TX: Texas State University. Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In M. González-Lloret, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks, 115–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pae, J. (2011). Collaborative writing versus individual writing: Fluency, accuracy, complexity, and essay score. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 14(1), 121–148. Rollet, G. & Tremblay, R. (1975). Speaking and writing with comic strips. Montreal, Canada: Centre Educatif et Culturel, Inc. Rouhshad, A. & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In M. Sato and S. G. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda, 267–289. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554–577. Schwartz, A. M. (2005). Exploring differences and similarities in the writing strategies used by students in SNS courses. In L.A. Ortiz López & M. Lacorte (Eds.), Contactos y contextos: El Español en los Estados Unidos y en contacto con otras lenguas, 323–334. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57.

Smith, B. E., Pacheco, B. P. & Rossato de Almeida, C. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6–22. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Storch, N. (2016). Collaborative writing. In R.M. Manchón & P.K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing, 386–406. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M.P. García-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, 157–177. London: Multilingual Matters. Strobl, C. (2014). Affordances of web 2.0 technologies for collaborative advanced writing in a foreign language. CALICO Journal, 31(1), 1–18. Strobl, C. (2015). Learning to think and write together: Collaborative synthesis writing, supported by a script and a video-based model. In M. Deane & T. Guasch (Eds.), Learning and teaching writing online: Strategies for success, 69–95. Leiden: BRILL. van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 235–250. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weissberg, R. (2000). Developing relationships in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing versus speech. Learning and Instruction, 10, 37–53. Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2009). Pairs versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26. 445–466. Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.

Woodall, B.R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the First Language While Writing in a Second Language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7–28. Yanguas, I. & Bergin, T. (2018). Focus on form in task-based L2 oral computer-mediated communication. Language Learning and Technology, 22(3), 65–81. Yanguas, I. & Navarro, G. (2014). Learners’ anxiety in L2 interaction: Video, Chat, or face-toface? The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 3(1), 5–22. Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115–132. Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2010). The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22(1), 20–38. Zheng, B. & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computermediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61–67.

Appendix A Background and Task Preference Questionnaire Please complete the following questionnaire and let the researchers know when you are finished. A. Biographical and Background Information (1) Computer Number: _________________________ (2) Native language: _________________________ (3) What year in school are you? _________________________ (4) What is/are your current major(s)/minor(s): _______________________________ (5) For how many semesters have you studied Spanish? High School: ____________________ Number of semesters: ___________________ College: ____________________ Number of semesters: ___________________ (6) What’s your age _________ (7) Why are you taking Spanish? Please circle all reasons that apply. a) Career: _______________________________________ b) Fun c) Speak with friend/significant other d) Requirement e) Study abroad f) Other: ________________________________________ B. Computer Use (1) Are you comfortable using a computer to communicate with others using Skype? a) I’m very comfortable b) I’m comfortable c) I’m not comfortable d) I’m very uncomfortable (2) Are you comfortable using Google Docs to write an assignment? a) I’m very comfortable b) I’m comfortable c) I’m not comfortable d) I’m very uncomfortable (3) Please indicate how much time you do each computer activity per week. a) E-mail ________hrs/wk b) Instant messenger _______ hrs/wk c) Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, etc.) _______ hrs/wk d) Word processing _______ hrs/wk (4) Are you satisfied with your typing skills? a) I’m very satisfied b) I’m satisfied c) I’m not satisfied d) I’m very unsatisfied

Appendix B Instructions: Write a single, continuous short story IN THE PAST about what you think happened in the comic strips below. You must not only narrate the events, but also describe the characters and include a dialogue between Luis and his dad. For example, write about what Luis and his dad were doing, when they were doing it, what they were wearing, what they were saying, and, in the case of Luis, what he was thinking. Please use connectors to integrate everything into the narrative based on the combined events (make sure you follow the order of the comic strips). TRY TO BE AS CREATIVE AS POSSIBLE! THANKS.