Melisew Tibebu Amare<\/strong> Mekonnen Esubalew Tariku<\/strong> Solomon Mesfin Yilma<\/strong> Writing in English as a foreign language remains a persistent challenge for learners in many instructional contexts where classroom practices are often individual and product-oriented. Although collaborative writing instruction (CWI) has received increasing attention, evidence regarding its association with writing motivation and creativity-related writing performance in underrepresented contexts remains limited. This study compared CWI and individual writing instruction (IWI) among first-year EFL students. An exploratory classroom comparison with an embedded mixed-methods design was conducted using two intact classes (N = 104) over 12 weeks. Data were collected through paragraph writing tests, a writing motivation questionnaire, and post-intervention student reflections. Quantitative data were analyzed using pretest-adjusted regression models equivalent to ANCOVA, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically to contextualize the quantitative data. The findings indicated that students in the CWI class reported higher posttest writing motivation after controlling for baseline differences. However, no statistically significant adjusted difference was observed in creativity-related writing performance. Student reflections showed perceptions of increased engagement, confidence, and idea sharing, alongside reported challenges related to unequal participation and time constraints. Overall, the findings suggest that CWI may be more strongly associated with writing motivation than with creativity-related writing performance in this context.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: Collaborative Writing Instruction; Individual Writing Instruction; EFL Writing; Writing Motivation; Creativity-Related Writing Performance<\/p>\n In many EFL classroom contexts, writing instruction is commonly organized around individual text production and accuracy-focused assessment practices. Such pedagogical orientations tend to prioritize final written products and linguistic correctness over interactive meaning-making processes. Writing, however, is a cognitively demanding activity that requires learners to continuously generate, organize, and revise ideas while managing grammatical, lexical, and rhetorical constraints (Hyland, 2019). In settings where instruction emphasizes individual performance, opportunities for peer interaction and collaborative negotiation of ideas may be limited during the writing process. As a result, learners may experience writing primarily as an individual activity, which can restrict engagement with alternative perspectives and reduce opportunities for extended idea development.<\/p>\n Recent developments in EFL writing pedagogy have increasingly viewed writing as a process-oriented and socially situated activity that integrates planning, drafting, and revision as recursive stages of development (Hyland, 2019; Ortega, 2015; Storch, 2013). At the same time, educational research has highlighted collaboration, communication, and higher-order thinking skills as essential competencies for 21st-century learning (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). Within this perspective, writing instruction is increasingly understood not only as a means of developing linguistic competence but also as a context for interaction, knowledge construction, and learning. Consequently, greater attention has been directed toward pedagogical approaches that create opportunities for learners to engage with one another during the writing process.<\/p>\n Among these approaches, CWI has gained increasing attention in EFL\/ESL writing research. Grounded in sociocultural theory, CWI conceptualizes learning as socially mediated through interaction and shared activity, where knowledge is co-constructed in collaborative contexts (Vygotsky, 1978). In this view, learning is understood as a process that emerges through social interaction and participation in shared activities (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). During collaborative writing tasks, learners typically engage in joint planning, drafting, and revising while negotiating meaning and solving linguistic and rhetorical problems together. These collaborative processes may take different forms depending on how learners organize their work and interact with one another. Interactional patterns such as co-construction and division of labour, for example, can shape the ways learners negotiate meaning, share responsibility, and produce written texts in classroom settings (Storch, 2013).<\/p>\n Research has identified several potential mechanisms through which collaborative writing may support language learning and writing development. Through collaborative dialogue and language-related episodes (LREs), learners jointly identify, discuss, and resolve linguistic problems while completing writing tasks, thereby drawing attention to both language form and meaning (Storch, 2013; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Empirical studies further suggest that collaboratively produced texts may, in some instructional contexts, demonstrate higher levels of accuracy and overall writing quality than individually produced texts, although findings regarding linguistic complexity remain less consistent (Elabdali, 2021; Sang & Zou, 2023; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). Nevertheless, evidence regarding the extent to which these benefits transfer to subsequent individual writing remains inconclusive. Existing findings suggest that outcomes are influenced by factors such as task structure, interaction quality, and instructional context, indicating that the effectiveness of CWI may depend on how collaborative activities are designed and implemented rather than on collaboration alone (Li & Zhu, 2017a; Storch, 2013).<\/p>\n While much of the collaborative writing literature has focused on linguistic and writing-related outcomes, growing attention has also been directed toward learners\u2019 affective experiences. Findings in this area, however, remain mixed. Some studies report that collaborative writing may be associated with increased engagement, confidence, or more positive attitudes toward writing, whereas others identify challenges such as unequal participation, dominance, and reduced autonomy arising from particular group dynamics and instructional conditions (Li & Kim, 2016; Li & Zhang, 2021; Storch, 2013). These findings suggest that learners\u2019 experiences in CWI contexts are shaped not only by collaboration itself but also by how tasks are structured and how interaction unfolds during implementation.<\/p>\n Creativity-related writing performance has been identified as an important dimension of second language (L2) writing, encompassing aspects such as idea fluency, elaboration, originality, and adaptivity in written production (Kormos et al., 2024). Research on creativity in collaborative writing contexts has produced mixed findings. Some studies suggest collaborative interaction may support idea generation and elaboration by exposing learners to multiple perspectives and facilitating negotiated meaning-making during joint knowledge construction (Fern\u00e1ndez Dobao & Blum, 2013; Li & Zhu, 2017b). Nonetheless, other studies highlight conditions that may constrain these benefits, including coordination demands and interactional difficulties that shape learners\u2019 contributions in group writing tasks (Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2013). Overall, existing findings do not present a consistent pattern regarding the relationship between collaborative writing and creativity-related aspects of writing performance, suggesting outcomes are influenced by task design, interaction quality, and broader instructional context. This indicates a need for further context-sensitive investigation into how CWI shapes creativity-related writing performance in specific EFL settings.<\/p>\n A further limitation of the existing literature concerns its geographical concentration. Much of the research on collaborative writing has been studied in East Asian, European, and North American contexts, whereas African EFL settings remain comparatively underrepresented. Differences in educational conditions, including class size, instructional resources, and assessment practices, may influence how collaborative writing is experienced and enacted in classroom settings. As a result, findings derived from other contexts may not fully generalize to African higher education settings. This underscores the need for context-sensitive empirical investigations of collaborative writing in unexplored EFL settings.<\/p>\n In response to these gaps, the present study investigates baseline-adjusted differences between CWI and IWI with respect to EFL learners\u2019 writing motivation and creativity-related writing performance in paragraph-writing tasks. Using a classroom-based comparative design, the study seeks to contribute context-specific evidence from an African EFL higher education setting that has received limited scholarly attention. In addition, learner reflections are incorporated to complement quantitative findings and provide insight into students\u2019 experiences of collaborative writing processes. Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research questions:<\/p>\n From a sociocultural perspective, collaborative writing involves dialogic interaction through which learners externalize ideas, negotiate meaning, and jointly address linguistic and rhetorical problems (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). During this process, learners frequently engage in language-related episodes (LREs), creating opportunities for noticing, peer scaffolding, and collaborative problem solving (Storch, 2013; Swain, 2000). These processes position writing as both a communicative and developmental activity.<\/p>\n Empirical studies suggest that collaborative writing promotes attention to language form through LREs, as learners engage in dialogue to negotiate and resolve linguistic issues during writing tasks (Swain, 2000). Research also indicates that collaboratively produced texts may, in some contexts, show improved accuracy, although findings on complexity are more mixed and context-dependent (Sang & Zou, 2023; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009).<\/p>\n However, evidence regarding transfer to subsequent individual writing suggests that outcomes depend on task conditions, interaction quality, and instructional context (Li & Zhu, 2017a; Storch, 2013). Since collaboration can be organized in different ways, interactional structures may influence participation patterns and writing outcomes, with some learners engaging in co-construction while others distribute tasks more independently, leading to variation in interactional depth (Storch, 2013). This highlights the importance of examining how collaboration is enacted rather than assuming uniform outcomes across educational contexts.<\/p>\n Motivation is widely recognized as a key factor in L2 learning and writing engagement, influencing learners\u2019 persistence, participation, and willingness to invest effort in writing tasks (D\u00f6rnyei & Ushioda, 2021). Self-determination theory provides a useful framework for understanding motivation in instructional contexts, proposing that motivation is shaped by the extent to which learning environments support autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Collaborative writing environments may support motivation by enhancing relatedness through peer interaction and shared responsibility, while also promoting competence through peer feedback and scaffolding. However, autonomy may be constrained when participation is uneven or when group roles are not effectively managed.<\/p>\n Empirical studies generally report positive learner perceptions, engagement, and attitudes toward collaborative writing experiences (Fern\u00e1ndez Dobao & Blum, 2013; Li & Kim, 2016). Nevertheless, collaboration does not always lead to positive motivational experiences. Challenges such as unequal participation, dominance by certain group members, and social loafing have been reported in collaborative classroom settings (Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2013). Overall, the literature indicates that motivation in collaborative writing is context-specific rather than uniform, depending on group dynamics, task design, and how collaboration is structured and facilitated within classrooms.<\/p>\n Creativity-related writing performance is conceptualized through dimensions such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration, which represent key indicators of idea generation and development in L2 writing tasks (Kormos et al., 2024). In EFL\/ESL writing contexts, these dimensions are typically operationalized as observable features of written products rather than broader indicators of general cognitive creativity (Baer, 2012; Kaufman & Baer, 2005). Classroom-based writing research therefore assesses creativity through rubric-based evaluation of learners\u2019 ability to generate relevant ideas, elaborate supporting details, and produce relatively original responses within task constraints, often relying on observable textual features rather than broader psychological constructs of creativity. This distinction is important when interpreting findings in instructional writing contexts.<\/p>\n Research on collaborative writing suggests that interaction among learners may create opportunities for idea generation, elaboration, and exposure to multiple perspectives during the writing process (Fern\u00e1ndez Dobao, 2012; Storch, 2013). Through discussion, negotiation, and shared problem-solving, learners may expand and refine ideas in ways that are less likely to occur during solitary writing. However, evidence regarding the relationship between collaborative writing and creativity-related writing performance remains limited and inconclusive, particularly when outcomes are assessed individually after collaborative activities.<\/p>\n Overall, the literature indicates that collaborative writing is associated with a range of benefits in EFL\/ESL learning, particularly regarding interaction opportunities and writing development (Elabdali, 2021; Li & Zhu, 2017a; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2013). These outcomes are commonly explained through sociocultural and interactionist perspectives, which emphasize peer scaffolding, co-construction of knowledge, and mediated interaction in language learning (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Swain, 2000). Collaborative writing has also been linked to increased motivational engagement, often associated with enhanced relatedness and active participation in classroom tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Storch, 2013).<\/p>\n However, evidence on higher-order writing outcomes in collaborative writing remains mixed. While some studies report improvements in writing quality, fluency, or complexity, findings vary across contexts and appear to depend on task design, interaction patterns, and assessment conditions (Elabdali, 2021; Storch, 2013). Research further suggests that collaborative writing tends to more consistently enhance interactional processes, such as language-related episodes and collaborative dialogue, than individually produced posttest performance, where transfer effects are less stable (Storch, 2013; Swain & Lapkin, 1998).<\/p>\n These inconsistencies are closely related to methodological and contextual variation across studies, including differences in task type (joint text production versus collaborative preparation followed by individual writing), interaction structure, assessment alignment, and instructional duration (Fern\u00e1ndez Dobao, 2012; Li & Zhu, 2017a; Storch, 2013). Consequently, findings across studies are not always directly comparable, which limits broad generalizations about collaborative writing outcomes. In addition, many studies use intact classroom designs, which make it difficult to separate instructional influences from broader classroom-level factors such as teacher practices, peer dynamics, and learning environments. Taken together, these issues highlight the need for classroom-based and context-sensitive research that carefully interprets findings from intact-class comparisons.<\/p>\n This study employed an exploratory pretest\u2013posttest classroom comparison with an embedded mixed-methods component. The quantitative strand served as the primary framework for examining baseline-adjusted differences between instructional conditions in relation to students\u2019 writing motivation and creativity-related writing performance, while qualitative reflections were incorporated to contextualize the quantitative findings. The study was conducted under authentic classroom conditions using intact instructional sections. Pretest measures were included as covariates in the adjusted analyses to account for baseline variation between the two classes. Posttest measures were collected following the 12-week instructional period. Since the study ultimately involved only two intact classes, the instructional condition remained confounded with class membership. The qualitative component was incorporated to complement the interpretation of the quantitative patterns rather than to establish independent explanatory or causal claims.<\/p>\n This study was conducted at Debre Markos University, where English is taught as a compulsory component of the undergraduate curriculum through the course Communicative English Language Skills I<\/em>. The course is delivered across multiple first-year EFL sections following comparable institutional guidelines, syllabus requirements, instructional schedules, and assessment procedures. The target population consisted of twelve intact first-year EFL writing classes enrolled in the course during the study semester. Initially, four intact classes were selected from the twelve available sections for preliminary baseline screening based on administrative feasibility and scheduling accessibility. Prior to the intervention, all four classes completed pretest measures of writing motivation and creativity-related writing performance. A descriptive comparison of pretest means across both outcome variables was conducted to identify the two classes with the closest baseline similarity, as inferential statistical testing was not appropriate due to the limited number of intact classes. Table 1 presents the baseline pretest means for the four initially screened classes.<\/p>\n Table 1. <\/strong>Baseline Pretest Means of Initially Screened Classes<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nDebre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia
\n<melisew2004![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
gmail.com><\/p>\n
\nDebre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia
\n<mekesu655yahoo.com><\/p>\n
\nDebre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia
\n<solenetmesfingmail.com><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Research Questions<\/h3>\n
\n
Literature Review<\/h3>\n
Collaborative Writing: Process and Social Mediation<\/h4>\n
Motivation in Collaborative Writing: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives<\/h4>\n
Creativity-Related Writing Performance in EFL Contexts<\/h4>\n
Synthesis and Positioning of the Present Study<\/h4>\n
Method<\/h3>\n
Research Design<\/h4>\n
Research Setting and Participants<\/h4>\n