The effects of using collaborative writing vs. peer review treatments on subsequent individual writings

Abstract

Previous researches have investigated separately the effects of collaborative writing and peer review. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there has not been any research comparing both approaches. This study is aimed to analyse the effects of two treatments, collaborative writing and peer review on individual writing, on a subsequent individually written production in terms of fluency, lexical variety, accuracy and complexity. A total of 29 students of lower-intermediate level took part in this study, 16 in the collaborative writing group and 13 in the peer review group. The students wrote a total of 3 compositions using a news article format from which the pre-test and the post-test writings were analysed following a quantitative and a holistic analysis. The results suggest that students who had received collaborative writing as a treatment produced longer writings and used more complex language, while those who carried out peer review in the treatment session improved their final individual writing in terms of lexical variety and accuracy. The implications of these results are discussed.