The use of social technologies, such as wikis and chats, has brought a renewed attention to L2 collaborative writing. Yet, a question that still remains to be answered is the extent to which learners' writing is enhanced when using these tools. By analyzing learners' individual and collaborative writing, this study (a) explores L2 learners' approaches to the writing task in the wikis, (b) examines learners' collaborative synchronous interactions when discussing content, structure and other aspects related to the elaboration of the writing task, and (c) describes learners' perceptions of individual and collaborative writing and their impressions of the use of social tools in the FL writing class. Analysis of the data showed that while statistically significant differences were not evident in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity when comparing the individual and collaborative assignments, there were observable trends that inform us about how learners' interactions with the text differ when working individually or collaboratively. Further, an analysis of learners' approaches to collaborative writing through the use of social tools shows that wikis and chats allowed them to concentrate on writing components in a different, yet complementary, manner depending on whether they interacted in the wikis or in the chats.

Despite the availability and growing use of digital story software for authoring and instructional purposes, little is known about learners’ perceptions on its integration in the foreign language writing class. Following both a social semiotics approach and activity theory, this study focuses on six advanced Spanish learners’ perceptions about the production of a digital story in which they integrated a variety of modes (written, oral, images, sounds) and manipulated the semiotic resources within each mode (size, color, lines in the image mode), to convey meaning. Analyzing participants’ reflections, questionnaires, and online journals, results highlight learners’ (a) interpretation of the tools and artifacts and their effect on their understanding of a final product, (b) connections between short-term goal-oriented actions and the longer-term object-oriented activity of developing a multimodal text, and (c) linguistic reorientations when creating a digital story.

This chapter reports on the benefits of embedding chats and wikis, two Web 2.0 social tools, within a module designed to teach the process model of writing with argumentative and expository essays. Sixteen learners enrolled in an advanced Spanish writing course at a mid-sized, east-coast university in the United States completed two three-week essay writing modules working collaboratively in pairs: the first writing piece was in the argumentative genre and the second concerned expository writing. In each module, the same sequence of pedagogic tasks scaffolded the learners through the writing stages of planning, drafting, getting feedback, revising, and publishing. Students were asked to use chats and wikis at specific points during the completion of the modules. Content analysis of the chat and wiki data showed that the synchronous nature of the chats encouraged learners to focus on the content and structure of their writing, while the wikis allowed learners to focus more on localized aspects of text production, such as grammar, fine-tuning of chosen vocabulary, and editing. Comparison of data across the two genres further indicated that while working on the argumentative essay learners focused on syntactic complexity, whereas for the expository essay (completed later in the same semester) learners focused more on accuracy. We conclude that the task-based collaborative approach to teaching process writing, with the mediation of the social tools, allowed learners to construct and reconstruct their content knowledge, to engage with various writing conventions, and to adopt an appropriate, genre-specific language register.

This study explores the effect of collaborative writing (CW) and peer feedback (PF) practices on subsequent individual writing assignments. Two groups of university students in a Spanish as a foreign language course experienced both CW and PF (Group 1 CW then PF; Group 2 PF then CW), and pre and posttests were analyzed for syntactic complexity, lexical diversity, accuracy, and fluency, as well as for overall quality using an analytic scale. Results suggest both treatments produced improvements, although PF was more beneficial for syntactic complexity, fluency, and overall quality, while CW led to more accurate texts. The order of treatments also affected scores: PF followed by CW produced better results in overall quality and fluency, while CW followed by PF was more beneficial for syntactic complexity and accuracy. Based on the results, pedagogical implications and recommendations, as well as limitations and suggestions for future research, are provided.

The integration of digital multimodal composing (DMC) in the second language (L2) and heritage language (HL) classrooms has expanded our notion of writing, shifting from a focus on the written mode to include other modes of expression (e.g., visual, textual, or aural). Notwithstanding the increasing presence of L2 multimodal learning tasks, which combine different semiotic resources (e.g., language and visual components such as images or videos) as intrinsic elements used to generate meaning, instructors have not yet modified the way in which they provide feedback. That is, despite the increasing integration of different modes in a multimodal task, instructors still focus exclusively on language development – replicating the feedback behaviors modeled by non-digital writing assignments – rather than on all the components of multimodal texts. In digitally influenced environments and societies, however, there is a need to reconsider our approaches to feedback to pay greater attention to the linguistic and nonlinguistic elements of DMC. With the scarcity of research on feedback in DMC, this article first identifies a gap in multimodal teaching and research regarding the role and focus on feedback in DMC, and, second, provides an assessment rubric from which to base formative feedback that addresses both linguistic and nonlinguistic elements to help students develop their multimodal texts.

Following a cognitively-oriented framework, this study builds upon the authors’ previous work (Elola and Mikulski 2013; Mikulski and Elola 2011), which analyzed writing processes (planning time, execution time, revision time), fluency, and accuracy of Spanish heritage language (SHL) learners when composing in English and in Spanish. By analyzing Spanish foreign language (SFL) learners’ writing processes when composing in English and Spanish, the current study compares writing behaviors in both languages within the SFL group, as well as provides a comparison between the writing behaviors of the SHL and SFL learners completing the same writing tasks. SFL learners wrote less fluently, performed more surface revisions, and demonstrated less accuracy when writing in Spanish than in English, but monitored more in English. However, they allocated similar amounts of time to execution and planning across languages. Compared to their SHL counterparts, SFL learners wrote less fluently and accurately and devoted less time to Spanish intersentential planning and English monitoring. The SFL learners performed more surface revisions in Spanish and fewer meaning revisions in English and Spanish than the SHL learners. Insights into cross-linguistic transfer of writing skills and pedagogical suggestions are provided.