Effects of Collaborative Writing Instruction on EFL Students’ Paragraph Writing Performance

Effects of Collaborative Writing Instruction on EFL Students’ Paragraph Writing Performance | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effects of Collaborative Writing Instruction on EFL Students’ Paragraph Writing Performance Melisew Tibebu, Mekonnen Esubalew, Solomon Mesfin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8386228/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract With increasing recognition of peer interaction in writing pedagogy, this study examined the effects of collaborative writing instruction (CWI) on English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ paragraph writing performance. A quasi-experimental embedded mixed-methods design was employed on EFL students attending freshman courses in the social science stream at one of the Ethiopian universities. Out of a total of 12 sections, two sections, each with 53 and 51 students, were selected for the study based on convenience sampling. These two sections were assigned randomly to the collaborative writing and the individual writing groups. During the intervention, which lasted for twelve weeks, the students in the control group were taught using the individual writing tasks, while the students in the experimental group were taught using the collaborative writing tasks. Pre- and post-tests were employed to collect data. The quantitative findings showed a statistically significant difference in paragraph writing performance between the two groups in favor of the experimental group. Students’ reflective responses further revealed CWI enhanced peer interaction, participation, and writing confidence, although unequal participation and time limitations were noted. Overall, the findings suggest that CWI is an effective pedagogical practice for improving paragraph writing performance and should be integrated into EFL curricula. This study also contributes to enhancing educational quality and inclusive learning practices by providing insights into effective collaborative teaching strategies that improve EFL students’ learning outcomes. Collaborative Writing Instruction EFL Paragraph Writing Performance Peer Interaction Embedded mixed-methods 1. Introduction Over the past several decades, language teaching has undergone substantial theoretical and pedagogical shifts. Early paradigms, such as the Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual methods, emphasized individual learning, viewing learners as primarily responsible for internalizing linguistic knowledge through mental processes [ 1 ][ 2 ]. Learning was often viewed as an individual cognitive process, shaped through practice and problem-solving, with limited attention to social interaction [ 3 ]. In these approaches, writing was typically treated as a solitary activity, with a strong focus on producing error-free texts rather than engaging learners in interactive or socially mediated learning experiences [ 4 ][ 5 ]. With the advent of socio-constructivist and sociocultural perspectives, learning is increasingly recognized as a socially mediated process in which interaction, collaboration, and negotiation play critical roles in knowledge construction [ 6 ][ 7 ][ 8 ][ 9 ]. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory posits that higher-order cognitive functions emerge first in social contexts before being internalized individually, suggesting that learners often achieve greater proficiency when engaged in collaborative activities [ 10 ]. Vygotsky argues that learning takes place in mediated activities, wherein learners acquire knowledge and skills through participation in the zone of proximal development (ZPD), or the gap between what an individual can perform on their own and what they can achieve with the help of a more skilled peer or instructor. Collaboration plays a key role in the process of making meaning and learning in that it enables students to work within the ZPD with the aid of more expert others [ 6 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ]. On the basis of this principle, collaborative learning was introduced as a pedagogical approach, highlighting peer interaction, collective problem solving, and group accountability for learning. Its earliest rationalization and application is often referred to as originating in medical education in the late 1960s and early 1970s with problem-based learning at McMaster University in Canada [ 13 ]. The effectiveness of problem-based learning in enhancing diagnostic reasoning, communication skills and knowledge retention led to its adoption by other educational fields such as social sciences and language education [ 14 ] [ 15 ]. In EFL contexts, collaborative learning is closely aligned with communicative language teaching, which foregrounds interaction as both the means and the goal of language acquisition. Consequently, the principles of collaborative learning have been extended to the writing classroom. Although writing was primarily viewed as a solitary activity grounded in individual cognition and personal expression [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 16 ], subsequent studies on the issue stressed its social aspects. The dialogic, interactive, and communal aspects of writing were noted by scholars [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ] [ 20 ]. Contemporary research synthesizes these views and considers writing as an intricate task where cognition is situated and influenced by social environments [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 23 ] [ 24 ]. In support of this integrated perspective, [ 25 ] notes that all writing activities involve others indirectly; brainstorming with peers, jointly researching topics, discussing ideas, and receiving feedback from teachers demonstrate that writing is rarely carried out in isolation. However, writing is still predominantly viewed as an individual task, and therefore sustained interaction, negotiation, and shared scaffolding among peers are limited [ 26 ] [ 27 ]. As a result, recently, CWI has been increasingly advocated as a pedagogical practice that can address these limitations by fostering peer interaction, negotiation of meaning, and the co-construction of texts. In contrast to traditional group work in which the task is divided and compiled at the end, in collaborative writing (CW) settings the co-authors are involved in sustained co-authoring and joint decision-making in each step of the writing process, necessitating that they collectively handle ideas and negotiate linguistic options during the collaboration process [ 28 ] [ 29 ]. Building on this, CWI has the potential to improve students’ writing quality as it combines cognitive, linguistic, and social processes that mutually influence and enhance the written output quality. As learners interact and make decisions jointly, they can explain their thinking, negotiate meaning, and evaluate options for content, which might result in more developed ideas and better organized paragraphs [ 30 ] [ 31 ]. Peer collaboration can also contribute to the raising of students’ awareness on grammatical accuracy, lexical diversity, and syntactical complexity as they engage in monitoring one another’s output and co-investigate alternative linguistic options [ 32 ] [ 33 ] [ 34 ]. Furthermore, the sustained scaffolded assistance through CW tasks, as learners challenge, direct, and elaborate each other’s ideas, may enable them to advance their writing capacities, to internalize good writing strategies, and to regulate themselves as writers during the composing process [ 8 ] [ 35 ]. Together, these processes imply that CWI facilitates a socially mediated learning environment that promotes more ideational elaboration, greater linguistic accuracy, and a higher quality writing overall. Although scholars often associate CWI with positive learning outcomes, some others argue that it does not consistently lead to improvements in paragraph writing performance. They argue that students’ inconsistent participation in groups can negatively affect text quality because more dominant or higher proficiency students may monopolize talk and less confident students are simply filling the space with minimal input, leading to the compromise of the coherence, originality, and organization of group-composed paragraphs vis-à-vis individually produced texts [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ]. Collaborative procedures may also lead learners to concentrate on sentence-level changes rather than higher order issues such as the development of ideas and paragraph structure, thus hampering improvements in overall writing quality [ 39 ] [ 40 ]. Overall, while CWI is widely recognized for its potential to enhance EFL learners’ writing performance, research findings remain inconclusive. Moreover, despite extensive international research, empirical evidence on its efficacy in Ethiopian higher education contexts remains limited. To address these gaps, the present study is intended to examine the effects of CWI on EFL students’ paragraph writing performance in the local context. The study is expected to generate empirical insights that can inform pedagogical practice, guiding instructors in the effective integration of CW tasks into EFL instruction and contributing to the enhancement of learners’ overall writing development. By focusing on CWI, this research promotes equitable access to effective learning practices and contributes to improved educational outcomes in EFL contexts. Accordingly, the study aims to address the following research questions: RQ1 Is there a statistically significant difference in paragraph writing performance between students who participate in CW tasks and those who complete individual writing tasks? RQ2 How do students reflect on their experience with CWI after the intervention? 2. Review of related literature 2.1. The Concept of Collaborative Writing Over the years, various researchers have defined and conceptualized CW from different perspectives. Each has emphasized joint effort, mutual engagement, and the social dimensions of writing. For instance, [ 41 ] defines CW as "an activity where two or more authors work jointly to produce a text." This definition highlights the shared responsibility authors have throughout writing, producing a final text planned, drafted, and revised collaboratively. Storch’s focus on shared effort underscores that CW is intrinsically a joint venture to which all participants contribute in creating one coherent piece of writing. Similarly, [ 42 ] suggests that CW involves more than just working together on one or all stages of writing. While tasks are often divided among members in cooperative group work, CW emphasizes active collaboration at every stage whether during brainstorming, drafting, revising, or editing. Thus, it places CW in a social and interactive framework where knowledge and ideas have been constructed through the continuous dialogue and negotiation that have taken place between group members. Therefore, CW is a dynamic and iterative process where participants contribute to mutually shaping the text in contributing to its overall development. Building on these definitions, [ 19 ] offer two models of collaboration: hierarchical and dialogical. In the first model of collaboration, known as hierarchical collaboration, one member of the group takes on the role of the leader, while the other participants act based on that member's guidance and instructions. The model tends to emphasize efficiency and the division of labor, with the leader organizing the writing process and making the final decisions about the text. By contrast, in dialogic collaboration, there is equal participation from members, with shared decision-making being made throughout the writing process. This form of collaboration reflects a more democratic and interactive means of collaboration in which group members, through negotiation, make shared decisions on the structure and content to constitute the text. Ede and Lunsford’s categorization, hence, highlights how CW may take varying forms, depending on the nature of the task at hand and the dynamics within a group. [ 43 ] extend the explanation of CW by describing CW as an ‘iterative and social process’ where multiple authors are jointly producing a document. According to them, CW is actually the intersection of cycles of joint planning, drafting, reviewing, revising, and editing with social interaction and feedback. These features bring into effect the emphasis on revision and peer feedback that is important in CW, whereby participants use different drafts to come to a better version. Consequently, this iterative process refines ideas and language to make CW not only a writing method but also one of learning and improving through collaboration about writing proficiency. 2.2. Theoretical Foundations of Collaborative Writing Collaborative writing is grounded in sociocultural theory and collaborative learning principles. According to [ 6 ], higher-order cognitive functions develop first through social interaction before being internalized by individuals. Collaborative tasks allow learners to operate within their ZPD, receiving scaffolding from peers and jointly constructing knowledge [ 8 ] [ 10 ]. Collaborative learning frameworks emphasize interdependence and shared responsibility for achieving learning outcomes, arguing that meaningful interaction improves not only performance but also critical thinking and problem-solving skills [ 14 ] [ 15 ]. These theoretical foundations suggest that CW is both a cognitive and social activity, promoting learning through dialogue, negotiation, and joint text construction. The integration of CW in language education supports quality and inclusive learning by fostering learner-centered pedagogies that encourage active participation, collaboration, and higher-order thinking skills. 2.3. Implementing Collaborative Writing Tasks in the Classroom A variety of ways can be used to carry out CW tasks in EFL classroom. Sometimes researchers use the dictogloss technique to perform these tasks. In these tasks, a short text is read to the students at normal speed by the teacher. While listening to the text, the students are expected to take notes and write down the familiar words or fragments that they hear. Then the students sit together in small groups and pool their resources to reconstruct their version of the original text [ 44 ]. Along these lines, [ 45 ] used this method to examine how learners develop strategies and succeed in reconstructing texts with a focus on grammatical and vocabulary accuracy. Conversely, some researchers prefer more open-ended approaches where students collaboratively create original texts in pairs or groups [ 46 ]. For these tasks to be effective, active guidance is essential. For instance, [ 47 ] suggests that teachers act as facilitators or coaches, teaching teamwork skills and incorporating self- and peer evaluation to maximize learning [ 48 ]. Moreover, [ 49 ] recommend a structured seven-step process for teachers to follow in CW projects. This includes generating ideas, outlining, individual drafting, collaborative revision, integrating sections, thorough editing, and final submission for assessment. 2.4. Benefits of Collaborative Writing 2.4.1. Cognitive Benefits Collaborative writing can help to build profound cognitive involvement by encouraging the students to express their ideas, reflect upon their writing, and include feedback from peers. Indeed, through CW, higher levels of thinking skills can be attained, including problem-solving, reasoning, and critical analysis, as shown in research articles on this aspect [ 39 ]. While students operate within groups, they are likelier to question one another, negotiate meaning, and attain a deeper understanding of the writing process [ 50 ]. This collaborative exchange scaffolds learning because students who may have problems with aspects of writing have an opportunity to begin to learn from their peers in other perspectives and approaches. Also, in CW, students can share the cognitive load. Writing is a heavy and complex task because it demands that the writer generate content, organize it, and control linguistic accuracy all at once. In CW, this becomes divided among members so that the students focus on particular aspects of writing. This collaborative effort allows for more efficient processing and better quality output. As a result, learners are likely to present a better quality of text since diverse ideas are refined into the best, are better organized, and grammatically few errors arise, as revealed in [ 40 ]. It also fosters revision in CW since one is most likely to go through iterative cycles of drafting, reviewing, and improvement with peers, as supported by [ 41 ]. 2.4.2. Motivational Benefits The atmosphere of mutual support and interaction that develops in CW can significantly empower students' motivation. Motivation is widely recognized as a critical factor in writing, influencing students' willingness to engage, persistence in completing tasks, and the overall quality of their writing output [ 51 ] [ 32 ]. In this context, CW cultivates a sense of community, which helps alleviate writing apprehension and boosts students’ confidence in their writing abilities [ 52 ]. Furthermore, students working in groups often exhibit increased responsibility toward their peers, fostering a collaborative environment that encourages deeper involvement in writing tasks and enhances their collective effort [ 46 ]. This supportive dynamic not only promotes individual growth but also contributes to the development of essential teamwork skills that are valuable in academic and professional settings [ 18 ]. Another potential benefit of CW might be found in students’ motivation to write and ownership of the writing process. The chance to voice an opinion, listen, and see what one has to offer as part of the final product is likely to foster the intrinsic motivation of students [ 51 ]. The social interaction inherent in the act of CW establishes a sense of collective achievement and, therefore, collective success [ 32 ] [ 52 ]. This could help boost the confidence levels in students by engendering goal orientation based on mastery, or rather, learning for the sake of improvement, rather than at a competitive level [ 53 ]. 2.4.3. Social and Interpersonal Benefits In addition to cognitive and motivational benefits, CW nurtures relevant social and interpersonal skills. The collaborative process demands students’ effective communication, negotiation of meaning, and conflict resolution. These skills are essential for academic, professional, and personal development. The participants of a CW group have to listen to the suggestions of each other, give helpful responses to them, and agree upon how to improve the text. This requires empathy, active listening, and the ability to give and receive criticism; skills highly valued both in and out of the academic environment. Collaborative writing also allows students to feel part of a community and be integrated into the classroom. In traditional writing assignments, students may work alone, which can lead them either to alienation or disengagement from their classwork, as stated by [ 54 ]. On the other hand, in CW, students share the learning experience because they work toward a common goal. This could increase peer support, a reduction of feelings of isolation, and enjoyment of the process of writing. Additionally, collaborative environments foster a sense of belonging, which enhances students’ overall motivation to engage with their work. The CW process will also allow students from different walks of life to work together, which may further result in the cross-cultural sharing of ideas and a more profound respect for diversity. 2.5. Challenges in Implementing Collaborative Writing 2.5.1. Unequal Participation and Free-Riding One of the biggest problems with CW is fairness among members. Very often, this does not occur, resulting in some students giving more than others, which includes issues of uneven workload distribution [ 50 ]. A very good example of this is "free-riding," which simply refers to a phenomenon whereby one or more members of the group rely on others to bear the lion’s share of the workload so that they can only give a little contribution themselves [ 55 ]. This imbalance can significantly undermine the collaborative process and the overall effectiveness of the group. Free-riding leads to tension in the group, whereby students who contribute a great deal may feel frustrated or resentful toward those who contribute less. Addressing the free-riding issue in CW tasks requires thoughtful group formation, clear guidelines, and accountability measures. An instructor can decrease the likelihood of not having participation by either assigning distinct roles to each member of the group or by requesting individual reflections or contributions in addition to the group work itself [ 39 ]. However, this often proves very time-consuming for both instructors and students in trying to manage group dynamics and attempting to ensure that participation remains consistent. 2.5.2. Group Conflicts and Communication Barriers Indeed, in the process of negotiating multiple perspectives, most of these writing tasks in CW involve students in negotiating their way through conflicts and disagreements. While an unresolved conflict may impede the development of the writing process, an unfruitful inhibitive group atmosphere may thus prevail. Though a small dose of disagreement may prove useful in challenging students to work their way to better insight, conflict can occur due to different ways of working or communicating. For example, some of the students may enjoy the process of writing, while others would much rather like to write in a flowing creative nature. These differences can result in frustration and misunderstandings within the group. Similarly, [ 56 ] note that inter-group tensions, which arise due to variations in writing habits, academic experience, and personal preferences, can create tensions that dampen creativity. Some students may oppose giving up their ideas or get demotivated when their contributions are not accepted, which may impede the creative process. These tensions may not only lower the quality of creative work but also demotivate students, further limiting their creative thinking capabilities. [ 57 ] further caution that peer feedback may lack constructive value if students lack the expertise to provide meaningful input. Besides, unequal participation, as [ 37 ] adds, can lead to personality clashes that might hinder both creative thinking and writing quality. 2.5.3. Dependency on Peers While CW enhances meaningful peer learning, it also makes students overly dependent on others to complete the task. Students who are reliant on their peers, especially the perceived stronger writers, may tend to exhibit reduced individual responsibility and personal learning. The reality of being too dependent on one’s peers can inhibit crucial individual skill development in writing independently because the student is not fully engaging with the entire process of writing. Knowing that their peers will revise or improve upon the final product, weaker students may be less motivated to enhance their writing in CW tasks [ 19 ]. 2.5.4. Assessment Challenges Assessing CW can be complex, as it is often difficult to distinguish individual contributions from group work. Instructors may struggle to evaluate the extent to which each student has contributed to the final product, particularly if some students have taken on more of the writing or editing responsibilities [ 40 ]. This can lead to fairness concerns, as students who contribute less may receive the same grade as those who contribute more. Moreover, traditional assessment methods, which focus on the final written product, may not fully capture the collaborative process itself. To address these challenges, instructors can use a combination of group and individual assessments, such as peer evaluations, reflective essays, or process logs, which allow students to demonstrate their contributions and reflect on the collaborative experience [ 41 ]. 3. Research Method 3.1. Research Design This study employed a quasi-experimental embedded mixed-methods design to examine the effects of CWI on EFL students’ paragraph writing performance. According to [ 58 ], an embedded mixed-methods design is particularly suitable when one data type (usually quantitative) plays a primary role while the other (qualitative) provides supportive, contextual insights into the intervention process and outcomes. Accordingly, the present study adopted a dominant quantitative approach using a pretest–posttest control group design to measure changes in students’ paragraph writing performance, complemented by an embedded qualitative component in the form of a reflection questionnaire that explored students’ CW experiences, peer interaction, participation, and writing confidence during CW activities. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data enabled triangulation and a more comprehensive understanding of the instructional effects, making this design appropriate for examining both measurable learning outcomes and students’ subjective experiences within a natural classroom context. 3.2. Participants of the Study The participants were freshman EFL students enrolled in the social science stream and attending Communicative English Language Skills I courses at Debre Markos University, Ethiopia. From a total of twelve intact sections, two sections were selected based on convenience sampling due to accessibility and scheduling considerations. The selected sections consisted of 104 students in total, with 53 students in one section and 51 students in the other. The two sections were randomly assigned to either the treatment group, which received CWI, or the comparison group, which received individual writing instruction. All participants were of mixed gender and varying English proficiency levels. Using intact classes helped preserve the natural instructional setting, while random assignment at the class level enhanced the internal validity of the study. 3.3. Instructional Procedures The intervention lasted for twelve weeks. During this period, students in the treatment group were taught paragraph writing through CW tasks, which required students to work in small groups to plan, draft, revise, and edit paragraphs jointly. These activities emphasized peer interaction, shared responsibility, and negotiation of meaning. In contrast, students in the comparison group were taught using individual writing tasks, in which they completed the same paragraph-writing activities independently without peer collaboration. Both groups received instruction on the same writing topics, followed the same syllabus, and were taught by the same instructor to control for instructional variation. The following table presents a comparative overview of the instructional steps followed by the treatment and comparison groups. As the table illustrates, the treatment group engaged in structured CW processes, such as role assignment, iterative peer commenting, and group rotation, while the comparison group adhered to conventional individual writing procedures without collaborative scaffolding. This contrast highlights the systematic design of the CW intervention and clarifies how each group experienced the instructional sequence. No Steps Treatment Group Comparison Group 1 Group Formation Formed heterogeneous groups based on pretest scores No groups formed; students worked individually 2 Roles & Responsibilities Assigned specific roles and responsibilities No role assignment; individual responsibility 3 Brainstorming Group brainstorming and idea categorization Individual brainstorming 4 Drafting Collaborative drafting of first version Individual drafting 5 Feedback Ongoing peer feedback and joint revision Instructor-only feedback 6 Merging Contributions Individual inputs merged into a cohesive draft No merging; each student worked independently 7 Commenting & Revising Iterative peer commenting and section refinement Individual self-revision 8 Master Draft Compiled a cohesive master draft as a group Each student prepared their own draft 9 Refining Collaborative refining for style, flow, and organization Individual editing 10 Peer Review Peer review (internal or external) using rubrics No peer review; instructor feedback only 11 Final Revision Revised based on peer feedback Final revision done individually 12 Submission Submitted one final group product to instructor Each student submitted their own final product 13 Group Rotation Group members rotated every four weeks Not applicable 14 Instruction and Materials Same materials and teacher used as comparison group Same materials and teacher used as treatment group 3.4. Instruments Data were collected using paragraph writing tests and a reflection questionnaire. Paragraph writing tests were administered before and after the intervention to assess students’ writing performance. Students were asked to produce coherent expository paragraphs, which were evaluated using a rubric adapted from IELTS Writing Task-2 descriptors, covering task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical accuracy [ 59 ]. Parallel prompts were used for the pretest and posttest to reduce practice effects while ensuring that the same constructs were measured. The reflection questionnaire was administered only to the treatment group and consisted of open-ended items designed to capture students’ reflections on the CW process, including peer interaction and participation, the strategies they employed, challenges encountered, and perceived impacts on their writing skills and writing confidence. This instrument aimed to examine multiple dimensions of learning, including cognitive, metacognitive, and affective aspects, allowing for a deeper understanding of students’ experiences and engagement during the CW process [ 60 ] [ 61 ]. The qualitative data collected through this instrument complemented the quantitative findings from the paragraph writing tests and provided insights into how collaborative activities influenced learners’ writing development and attitudes. 3.5. Reliability and Validity of the Instruments To ensure the reliability and validity of the instruments, several strategies were employed. First, parallel-forms reliability was examined for the pre- and post-tests, which were constructed as equivalent forms measuring the same constructs. The Pearson correlation between participants’ scores on the two test forms yielded r = 0.81, p < 0.001, indicating strong equivalence. Second, inter-rater reliability was established. Two experienced raters were trained extensively to align their understanding of the rubric and ensure consistent scoring. Sample student responses were rated independently and discussed collectively, addressing common scoring challenges such as bias and subjectivity. Inter-rater reliability, calculated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), indicated substantial agreement between raters (ICC = 0.763). In addition, the internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, yielding α = 0.76, indicating that the components consistently measured the overall construct of paragraph writing performance. Finally, content validity was ensured through expert review by the research supervisors and two TEFL PhD holders, who examined the marking rubrics and writing prompts to confirm that all aspects of paragraph writing performance, including task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical accuracy, were adequately represented. Pilot testing also confirmed the clarity and suitability of the instruments. 3.6. Data Analysis Quantitative data from the pretest and posttest paragraph writing assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize means and standard deviations for both the treatment and comparison groups. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted to examine within-group changes from pretest to posttest, while independent-samples t-tests compared posttest performance between the two groups. Assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were verified using Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s tests, respectively, and effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d to determine the practical significance of observed differences. The qualitative data collected through the reflection questionnaire were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns and key themes related to collaborative learning strategies, peer interaction, learner engagement, confidence, and challenges [ 62 ]. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative findings enabled a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of CWI, allowing the study to link observed performance improvements with students’ reflections on their experiences regarding the CW process. 3.7. Ethical Considerations Ethical standards were strictly observed throughout the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, and students were fully informed of the study’s objectives, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Participation was voluntary, and students could withdraw at any time without penalty. All responses were treated confidentially and anonymized, and collected data were securely stored to protect participant identities. Students were also informed that they could access the study results upon request. These procedures ensured adherence to established ethical guidelines for research involving human participants and safeguarded their rights and well-being throughout the study. 4. Results 4.1. Pre-Intervention Results A pretest was conducted to assess baseline paragraph writing performance. An independent samples t-test confirmed that the treatment and comparison groups were comparable before the intervention. Table 1 Pretest Paragraph Writing Performance by Group Group N Mean SD Levene’s F p (Levene) t df p (2-tailed) Treatment 53 47.93 2.53 0.341 0.56 1.27 102 0.204 Comparison 51 47.30 2.50 — — 1.27 101.9 0.204 Levene’s test confirmed homogeneity of variances (F = 0.341, p = 0.56), and the independent samples t-test showed no significant difference between groups (t(102) = 1.27, p = 0.204), indicating that both groups started at comparable levels in paragraph writing performance. 4.2. Post-Intervention Results After twelve weeks, posttest results revealed clear differences between groups. The treatment group, which engaged in CWI, outperformed the comparison group. Table 2 Posttest Paragraph Writing Performance by Group Group N Mean SD Levene’s F p (Levene) t (Welch) df p (2-tailed) Cohen’s d Treatment 53 50.47 1.88 28.64 0.001 3.48 75.38 < 0.001 0.73 Comparison 51 48.52 3.54 — — — — — — Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = 28.64, p = 0.001), so Welch’s t-test was used. The treatment group scored significantly higher than the comparison group (t(75.38) = 3.48, p < 0.001, d = 0.73), demonstrating a substantial effect of CWI on paragraph writing performance. 4.3. Within-Group Pre/Post Comparisons Paired-samples t-tests examined changes within each group over the intervention period. Table 3 Treatment and Comparison Groups Pre- and Post-Test Comparison Group Test N Mean SD T Df p (2-tailed) Cohen’s d Treatment Pretest 53 47.93 2.52 -5.74 52 < 0.001 0.79 Posttest 53 50.47 1.88 — — — — Comparison Pretest 51 47.30 2.50 -1.92 50 0.061 0.27 Posttest 51 48.52 3.54 — — — — The treatment group showed a significant improvement from pretest to posttest (t(52) = -5.74, p < 0.001, d = 0.79), whereas the comparison group’s increase was not statistically significant (t(50) = -1.92, p = 0.061, d = 0.27). 4.4. Results from the Reflection Questionnaire Analysis of the reflection questionnaire from the treatment group showed that students generally viewed CWI positively. Many reported that working collaboratively strengthened peer interaction, helped them exchange ideas, and enabled them to clarify and negotiate meaning more effectively. One student explained, “We shared ideas and corrected each other, so I understood the topic better.” Another stated, “Discussing with my group helped me see different ways of expressing the same idea.” Students also indicated that CWI boosted their confidence and reduced the anxiety they usually felt when writing alone. As one participant reflected, “I was not afraid to write because my group supported me,” while another noted, “CW made me more confident because I could ask my friends when I was unsure.” In addition, several students reported improvement in planning, organizing ideas, and revising paragraphs. They found peer feedback particularly helpful in identifying grammatical, lexical, and structural issues. For example, one student commented, “My peers helped me find mistakes I did not see by myself.” Despite these benefits, students also mentioned some challenges. A number of groups experienced unequal participation, with some members contributing less actively. One student remarked, “Sometimes only two people talked, and the others stayed quiet.” Coordination and time management were additional concerns. As another participant noted, “It was difficult to finish on time because we did not always agree quickly.” Some students suggested that structured roles and more teacher guidance would make CW tasks more effective. 5. Discussion 5.1. Effects of CWI on Paragraph Writing Performance The results indicate that CWI significantly enhanced EFL students’ paragraph writing, with the treatment group showing notable gains in clarity, cohesion, lexical choice, and grammatical accuracy compared to the comparison group, who engaged in individual writing tasks. These findings align with previous research demonstrating that collaboration fosters negotiation of meaning, mutual scaffolding, and greater attention to language form and organization [ 30 ] [ 31 ]. The observed large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.73) suggests that CWI can improve paragraph-level writing even over a relatively short intervention period, supporting the sociocultural perspective that social interaction plays a critical role in cognitive development [ 6 ] [ 7 ]. The absence of a significant improvement in the comparison group further underscores the effectiveness of CWI as a pedagogical practice. Individual writing activities may fail to provide opportunities for immediate peer feedback, negotiation of ideas, or shared problem-solving, limiting the scope for performance improvement [ 36 ]. By engaging collaboratively, students benefit not only from their own cognitive processes but also from observing and responding to the strategies of their peers, leading to enhanced organization, lexical richness, and grammatical accuracy. These findings also highlight the role of CWI in promoting educational quality and inclusive learning experiences, enhancing student engagement and writing performance. 5.2. Students’ Reflections on CWI Thematic analysis of reflection questionnaire revealed that students generally perceived CWI positively. Participants reported that CWI fostered peer interaction, engagement, and confidence, enabling them to exchange ideas, discuss sentence structure, and collectively refine paragraphs. These findings align with prior studies indicating that collaborative learning enhances motivation, encourages active participation, and promotes a sense of accountability among learners [ 18 ] [ 41 ]. Students also highlighted the development of metacognitive skills, such as planning, revising, and self-monitoring, which are crucial for independent writing development [ 60 ] [ 61 ]. At the same time, students identified challenges associated with CWI. Unequal participation was frequently mentioned, with more proficient students dominating the drafting process, aligning with findings from previous research [ 37 ] [ 36 ]. Time management was another concern, as coordinating collaborative tasks required additional effort compared to individual writing, with many learners indicating that managing time and coordinating group work posed a recurrent challenge, as also reported in previous research on EFL collaborative writing [e.g., 63]. These challenges suggest that while CWI is highly effective, it benefits from structured role assignments, clear instructions, and ongoing instructor guidance to ensure equitable contribution and maximize learning outcomes. 6. Implications for EFL Instruction The findings of this study have practical implications for EFL educators. Incorporating CW tasks into language instruction can enhance paragraph-level writing performance, engagement, and motivation. Teachers should consider forming heterogeneous groups to balance proficiency levels, assigning clear roles, and providing scaffolding and feedback throughout the writing process. Furthermore, integrating reflective activities enables students to monitor their learning, develop metacognitive awareness, and consolidate writing strategies. Such practices not only improve writing outcomes but also cultivate collaborative and social skills essential for language learning in diverse contexts. Incorporating these practices not only benefits students’ writing skills but also advances inclusive and high-quality educational experiences for learners. 7. Conclusion This study provides empirical evidence that CWI significantly enhances EFL students’ paragraph writing performance, including clarity, cohesion, organization, lexical choice, and grammatical accuracy. The findings indicate that engaging students in joint planning, drafting, revising, and peer feedback supports both cognitive and affective aspects of learning, as reflected in improved writing skills, increased confidence, and greater engagement. Reflection data further show that students value the social interaction, shared responsibility, and strategic awareness fostered through CWI, although challenges such as unequal participation and time management highlight the need for careful instructor guidance. Overall, the results suggest that integrating CW tasks into EFL instruction is an effective pedagogical approach that enhances writing development, fosters active participation, and supports inclusive learning. Teachers are encouraged to use heterogeneous grouping, clear role assignment, structured peer feedback, and reflection activities to maximize the benefits of collaborative learning. Future research should examine long-term effects, different writing genres, and optimal group composition strategies to further strengthen the effectiveness of CWI in diverse EFL contexts. By integrating performance outcomes with learners’ reflections on the writing process, this study contributes to evidence-based instructional practices that promote inclusive and sustainable teaching approaches in EFL education. 8. Limitations and Future Research Despite the positive outcomes, the study has some limitations. The intervention was conducted with a relatively small sample in a single educational setting, which may limit generalizability. The twelve-week duration of the intervention, while sufficient to observe measurable improvements, may not reflect long-term effects of CWI. Future research could explore longer interventions, include larger and more diverse samples, and investigate the effects of CWI on different genres and writing levels. Additionally, examining the influence of specific group composition strategies, peer roles, and feedback mechanisms could provide further insights into optimizing CWI for EFL learners. Declarations Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the participating students for their cooperation and active engagement in the study. The authors also disclose the use of generative AI–assisted tools during manuscript preparation, strictly for language editing and proofreading to enhance clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy. Ethics statement : The study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Debre Markos University, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Department of English Language and Literature, Ethiopia (Ref. No. 441/12/2024, 26 December 2024), and conducted in accordance with applicable institutional and national ethical guidelines. Consent to Participate : Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. All collected data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality. Consent to Publish: Not applicable. Clinical Trial Number: Not applicable. Funding: This research received no external funding. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author Contributions : M.T. conceived the study, designed the research framework, conducted data collection, performed data analysis, and wrote the main manuscript. M.E. and S.M. supervised the study, provided methodological and theoretical guidance, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and take responsibility for its content. Data Availability : The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Richards JC, Rodgers TS. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2014. Ellis R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008. Piaget J. The Psychology of the Child. New York, NY, USA: Trans.; Basic Books; 1972. Weaver, H.. Elbow P. Writing without Teachers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1973. Murray D. Internal revision: Toward a theory of writing. Coll Compos Commun. 1978;29:134–43. Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press; 1978. Lantolf JP. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2000. Donato R. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research ; Lantolf, J.P., Appel, G., Eds.; Ablex: Norwood, NJ, USA, 1994; pp. 33–56. Burbules NC, Callister TA, Watch IT. The Risks and Promises of Information Technologies for Education. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview; 2000. Lantolf JP, Thorne SL. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006. Shin TW. The role of ICT in scaffolding collaborative writing. Engl Teach. 2014;43:33–47. Smagorinsky P. What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st-century language arts teacher? Lang Arts. 2013;90:192–204. Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM. Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill; 1980. Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Learning Together and Alone. 4th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon; 1994. Slavin RE. Cooperative Learning. Boston, MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon; 1995. Tran L. Using pair work and group work in teaching writing. Teach Ed. 2001;5:22. Bakhtin MM. In: Holquist M, Emerson C, Holquist M, editors. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX, USA: Trans.; University of Texas; 1981. Bruffee KA. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University; 1999. Ede L, Lunsford A. Singular Texts/Plural Authors. Carbondale, IL, USA: Southern Illinois University; 1990. Wells G. Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000. Flower L, Hayes JR. A cognitive process theory of writing. Coll Compos Commun. 1981;32:365–87. Hyland K. Second Language Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2003. Bazerman C, Prior P. What Writing Does and How It Does It. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. Scardamalia M, Bereiter C. Knowledge building and knowledge creation. In: Sawyer RK, editor. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 397–417. Speck BW. Collaborative Writing in the Classroom. New York, NY, USA: Routledge; 2002. Huang J, Zhang W. Process-genre approaches in EFL writing. TESOL Q. 2022;56:150–75. Wu X, Zhu W, Yang Y. Process-genre writing in EFL contexts. TESOL Q. 2022;56:300–20. Li L. Collaborative writing and EFL learning outcomes. J Second Lang Writ. 2023;56:101118. Nugroho A. Collaborative writing in EFL classrooms. J Asia TEFL. 2024;21:1–15. Li M, Storch N. Collaborative Writing in Language Education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017. Yim S, Warschauer M. Web-based collaborative writing. System. 2017;65:123–35. Storch N. Collaborative writing. J Second Lang Writ. 2005;14:153–73. Li L. Collaborative writing and EFL learning outcomes. J Second Lang Writ. 2023;56:101118. Özdemir E. Effects of collaborative writing on EFL learners’ linguistic complexity. J Second Lang Writ. 2024;63:100999. Elabdali R. Are two heads really better than one? J Second Lang Writ. 2021;52:100788. Storch N. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Lang Learn. 2002;52:119–58. Webb NM. Peer interaction in learning. Learn Instr. 2009;19:143–54. Sato M, Ballinger S. Raising language awareness in peer interaction. Lang Aware. 2012;21:157–79. Storch N. Collaborative Writing. London, UK: Routledge; 2019. Wigglesworth G, Storch N. What role for collaboration? J Second Lang Writ. 2012;21:364–79. Storch N. Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters; 2013. Yong C. Collaboration in writing. Lang Learn Technol. 2006;10:48–72. Lowry PB, Curtis A, Lowry MR. Building a taxonomy of collaborative writing. J Bus Commun. 2004;41:66–99. Wajnryb R. Grammar Dictation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1990. Kuiken F, Vedder I. Collaborative writing in L2. Int J Appl Linguist. 2002;12:168–86. Bremner S, Peirson-Smith A, Jones R, Bhatia VK. Task-Based Learning in English for Professional Communication. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; 2014. Bolton G. Acting in Classroom Drama. Trentham Books: Stoke-on-Trent, UK; 1999. Fredrick TA. Facilitating Better Teamwork. Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Education; 2008. Barkley EF, Cross KP, Major CH. Collaborative Learning Techniques. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass; 2005. Dobaο AF. Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom. J Second Lang Writ. 2012;21:40–58. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The what and why of goal pursuits. Psychol Inq. 2000;11:227–68. Li M, Zhu Y. Collaborative writing in second language contexts. Lang Teach. 2017;50:461–78. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press; 2017. Bruffee KA. Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. Coll Engl. 1984;46:635–52. Shehadeh A. Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. J Second Lang Writ. 2011;20:286–305. Chang Y. Group composition and collaborative writing in EFL contexts. System. 2021;98:102458. Liu NF, Carless D. Peer feedback. Teach High Educ. 2006;11:279–90. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage; 2018. British Council. IELTS Writing Task Descriptors. London, UK: British Council; 2018. Zimmerman BJ. Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory Pract. 2002;41:64–70. Moon J. A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer; 2004. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. Murtiningsih S. Challenges in collaborative writing. J Foreign Lang Teach Learn. 2016;1:1–10. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8386228","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":572472635,"identity":"d65c84f6-2969-47bb-959d-69c0855eb00c","order_by":0,"name":"Melisew Tibebu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Debre Markos University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melisew","middleName":"","lastName":"Tibebu","suffix":""},{"id":572472636,"identity":"b22b2672-aff7-4ac8-9091-4f95c53271ef","order_by":1,"name":"Mekonnen Esubalew","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Debre Markos University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mekonnen","middleName":"","lastName":"Esubalew","suffix":""},{"id":572472637,"identity":"212a5394-b2ba-4f54-8b13-7d5201b97f9a","order_by":2,"name":"Solomon Mesfin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Debre Markos University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Solomon","middleName":"","lastName":"Mesfin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-17 13:23:52","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8386228/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8386228/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100055019,"identity":"24c2884a-51cb-4c3d-a9e7-2519214b2599","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 13:51:53","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":62334,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ManuscriptWithAuthorsDetails.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8386228/v1/5d316bf5ae1f2ec536be4399.docx"},{"id":100055016,"identity":"6d41ad6d-f5dd-4253-8378-49dbe7952560","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 13:51:53","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5724,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"885d2a97d1794c2a9beef2dc904e1019.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8386228/v1/11001f7ea3ae5d2ed67f22c8.json"},{"id":100055020,"identity":"a0c669fa-5459-42c4-8a4f-bbb8517fd0db","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 13:51:53","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":124709,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"885d2a97d1794c2a9beef2dc904e10191enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8386228/v1/1cd6a8e0cbb7cdce4913889a.xml"},{"id":100055017,"identity":"af931c67-d23c-48d7-8db6-50566801d713","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 13:51:53","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":121790,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"885d2a97d1794c2a9beef2dc904e10191structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8386228/v1/eb968cb4fdcf8f782263fb25.xml"},{"id":100055018,"identity":"c12c47e4-b7bb-49ec-9970-5cb78c57411d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 13:51:53","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":134557,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8386228/v1/9b7a8782781228bd615e0a65.html"},{"id":106974231,"identity":"98cb5fa6-38d5-4643-a133-9e8ae92e7041","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 10:31:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1029454,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8386228/v1/c973b14d-afcf-4ea6-b070-94199c42a2bd.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Effects of Collaborative Writing Instruction on EFL Students’ Paragraph Writing Performance","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOver the past several decades, language teaching has undergone substantial theoretical and pedagogical shifts. Early paradigms, such as the Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual methods, emphasized individual learning, viewing learners as primarily responsible for internalizing linguistic knowledge through mental processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Learning was often viewed as an individual cognitive process, shaped through practice and problem-solving, with limited attention to social interaction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. In these approaches, writing was typically treated as a solitary activity, with a strong focus on producing error-free texts rather than engaging learners in interactive or socially mediated learning experiences [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith the advent of socio-constructivist and sociocultural perspectives, learning is increasingly recognized as a socially mediated process in which interaction, collaboration, and negotiation play critical roles in knowledge construction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Vygotsky\u0026rsquo;s sociocultural theory posits that higher-order cognitive functions emerge first in social contexts before being internalized individually, suggesting that learners often achieve greater proficiency when engaged in collaborative activities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Vygotsky argues that\u0026ensp;learning takes place in mediated activities, wherein learners acquire knowledge and skills through participation in the zone of proximal development (ZPD), or the gap between what an individual can perform on their own and what they can achieve with the help of a more skilled peer or instructor. Collaboration plays a key role in the process of making meaning and learning in that it enables students to work within the ZPD with the\u0026ensp;aid of more expert others [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the basis of this principle, collaborative learning was introduced as a pedagogical approach, highlighting peer interaction, collective\u0026ensp;problem solving, and group accountability for learning. Its earliest\u0026ensp;rationalization and application is often referred to as originating in medical education in the late 1960s and early 1970s with problem-based learning at McMaster University in Canada [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. The effectiveness of problem-based learning in enhancing diagnostic reasoning, communication skills and knowledge retention led to its adoption by other educational fields such as\u0026ensp;social sciences and language education [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. In EFL contexts, collaborative learning is closely aligned with communicative language teaching, which foregrounds interaction as both the means and the goal of language acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, the principles of collaborative learning have been extended to\u0026ensp;the writing classroom. Although writing was primarily viewed as a solitary activity grounded in individual cognition and personal expression [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], subsequent studies on the issue stressed its social aspects. The dialogic, interactive, and communal aspects of writing were noted by scholars [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Contemporary research synthesizes\u0026ensp;these views and considers writing as an intricate task where cognition is situated and influenced by social environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. In support\u0026ensp;of this integrated perspective, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] notes that all writing activities involve others indirectly; brainstorming with peers, jointly researching topics, discussing ideas, and receiving feedback from teachers demonstrate that writing is rarely carried out in isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, writing is still predominantly viewed as an individual task, and therefore sustained interaction, negotiation, and shared scaffolding among peers\u0026ensp;are limited [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. As a result, recently, CWI has been increasingly advocated as a pedagogical practice that can address these limitations by fostering peer interaction, negotiation of meaning, and the co-construction of texts. In contrast to traditional group work in which the task is divided and compiled at the\u0026ensp;end, in collaborative writing (CW) settings the co-authors are involved in sustained co-authoring and joint decision-making in each step of the writing process, necessitating that they collectively handle ideas and negotiate linguistic options during the collaboration process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on this, CWI has the potential to improve students\u0026rsquo; writing quality as it combines cognitive, linguistic,\u0026ensp;and social processes that mutually influence and enhance the written output quality. As learners interact and make decisions jointly, they can explain their thinking, negotiate meaning, and evaluate\u0026ensp;options for content, which might result in more developed ideas and better organized paragraphs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Peer collaboration can also contribute to the raising of students\u0026rsquo; awareness\u0026ensp;on grammatical accuracy, lexical diversity, and syntactical complexity as they engage in monitoring one another\u0026rsquo;s output and co-investigate alternative linguistic options [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, the sustained scaffolded assistance through CW tasks, as learners challenge, direct, and elaborate each other\u0026rsquo;s ideas, may enable them to advance their writing capacities, to internalize good writing strategies, and to regulate themselves as writers during the\u0026ensp;composing process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Together, these processes imply that CWI facilitates a socially mediated learning environment that promotes more ideational elaboration, greater linguistic accuracy, and a higher quality writing overall.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough scholars often associate CWI with positive learning outcomes, some others argue that it does not consistently lead to improvements in paragraph writing performance. They argue that students\u0026rsquo; inconsistent participation in groups can negatively affect text quality because more dominant or\u0026ensp;higher proficiency students may monopolize talk and less confident students are simply filling the space with minimal input, leading to the compromise of the coherence, originality, and organization of group-composed paragraphs vis-\u0026agrave;-vis individually produced texts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. Collaborative procedures may also lead learners to concentrate on\u0026ensp;sentence-level changes rather than higher order issues such as the development of ideas and paragraph structure, thus hampering improvements in overall writing quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, while CWI is widely recognized for its potential to enhance EFL learners\u0026rsquo; writing performance, research findings remain inconclusive. Moreover, despite extensive international research, empirical evidence on its efficacy in Ethiopian higher education contexts remains limited. To address these gaps, the present study is intended to examine the effects of CWI on EFL students\u0026rsquo; paragraph writing performance in the local context. The study is expected to generate empirical insights that can inform pedagogical practice, guiding instructors in the effective integration of CW tasks into EFL instruction and contributing to the enhancement of learners\u0026rsquo; overall writing development. By focusing on CWI, this research promotes equitable access to effective learning practices and contributes to improved educational outcomes in EFL contexts. Accordingly, the study aims to address the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eIs there a statistically significant difference in paragraph writing performance between students who participate in CW tasks and those who complete individual writing tasks?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do students reflect on their experience with CWI after the intervention?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Review of related literature","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. The Concept of Collaborative Writing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOver the years, various researchers have defined and conceptualized CW from different perspectives. Each has emphasized joint effort, mutual engagement, and the social dimensions of writing. For instance, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] defines CW as \"an activity where two or more authors work jointly to produce a text.\" This definition highlights the shared responsibility authors have throughout writing, producing a final text planned, drafted, and revised collaboratively. Storch\u0026rsquo;s focus on shared effort underscores that CW is intrinsically a joint venture to which all participants contribute in creating one coherent piece of writing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] suggests that CW involves more than just working together on one or all stages of writing. While tasks are often divided among members in cooperative group work, CW emphasizes active collaboration at every stage whether during brainstorming, drafting, revising, or editing. Thus, it places CW in a social and interactive framework where knowledge and ideas have been constructed through the continuous dialogue and negotiation that have taken place between group members. Therefore, CW is a dynamic and iterative process where participants contribute to mutually shaping the text in contributing to its overall development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on these definitions, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] offer two models of collaboration: hierarchical and dialogical. In the first model of collaboration, known as hierarchical collaboration, one member of the group takes on the role of the leader, while the other participants act based on that member's guidance and instructions. The model tends to emphasize efficiency and the division of labor, with the leader organizing the writing process and making the final decisions about the text. By contrast, in dialogic collaboration, there is equal participation from members, with shared decision-making being made throughout the writing process. This form of collaboration reflects a more democratic and interactive means of collaboration in which group members, through negotiation, make shared decisions on the structure and content to constitute the text. Ede and Lunsford\u0026rsquo;s categorization, hence, highlights how CW may take varying forms, depending on the nature of the task at hand and the dynamics within a group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e] extend the explanation of CW by describing CW as an \u0026lsquo;iterative and social process\u0026rsquo; where multiple authors are jointly producing a document. According to them, CW is actually the intersection of cycles of joint planning, drafting, reviewing, revising, and editing with social interaction and feedback. These features bring into effect the emphasis on revision and peer feedback that is important in CW, whereby participants use different drafts to come to a better version. Consequently, this iterative process refines ideas and language to make CW not only a writing method but also one of learning and improving through collaboration about writing proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Theoretical Foundations of Collaborative Writing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborative writing is grounded in sociocultural theory and collaborative learning principles. According to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], higher-order cognitive functions develop first through social interaction before being internalized by individuals. Collaborative tasks allow learners to operate within their ZPD, receiving scaffolding from peers and jointly constructing knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Collaborative learning frameworks emphasize interdependence and shared responsibility for achieving learning outcomes, arguing that meaningful interaction improves not only performance but also critical thinking and problem-solving skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. These theoretical foundations suggest that CW is both a cognitive and social activity, promoting learning through dialogue, negotiation, and joint text construction. The integration of CW in language education supports quality and inclusive learning by fostering learner-centered pedagogies that encourage active participation, collaboration, and higher-order thinking skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Implementing Collaborative Writing Tasks in the Classroom\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA variety of ways can be used to carry out CW tasks in EFL classroom. Sometimes researchers use the dictogloss technique to perform these tasks. In these tasks, a short text is read to the students at normal speed by the teacher. While listening to the text, the students are expected to take notes and write down the familiar words or fragments that they hear. Then the students sit together in small groups and pool their resources to reconstruct their version of the original text [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Along these lines, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] used this method to examine how learners develop strategies and succeed in reconstructing texts with a focus on grammatical and vocabulary accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, some researchers prefer more open-ended approaches where students collaboratively create original texts in pairs or groups [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. For these tasks to be effective, active guidance is essential. For instance, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] suggests that teachers act as facilitators or coaches, teaching teamwork skills and incorporating self- and peer evaluation to maximize learning [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e] recommend a structured seven-step process for teachers to follow in CW projects. This includes generating ideas, outlining, individual drafting, collaborative revision, integrating sections, thorough editing, and final submission for assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Benefits of Collaborative Writing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.1. Cognitive Benefits\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborative writing can help to build profound cognitive involvement by encouraging the students to express their ideas, reflect upon their writing, and include feedback from peers. Indeed, through CW, higher levels of thinking skills can be attained, including problem-solving, reasoning, and critical analysis, as shown in research articles on this aspect [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. While students operate within groups, they are likelier to question one another, negotiate meaning, and attain a deeper understanding of the writing process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. This collaborative exchange scaffolds learning because students who may have problems with aspects of writing have an opportunity to begin to learn from their peers in other perspectives and approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlso, in CW, students can share the cognitive load. Writing is a heavy and complex task because it demands that the writer generate content, organize it, and control linguistic accuracy all at once. In CW, this becomes divided among members so that the students focus on particular aspects of writing. This collaborative effort allows for more efficient processing and better quality output. As a result, learners are likely to present a better quality of text since diverse ideas are refined into the best, are better organized, and grammatically few errors arise, as revealed in [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. It also fosters revision in CW since one is most likely to go through iterative cycles of drafting, reviewing, and improvement with peers, as supported by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.2. Motivational Benefits\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe atmosphere of mutual support and interaction that develops in CW can significantly empower students' motivation. Motivation is widely recognized as a critical factor in writing, influencing students' willingness to engage, persistence in completing tasks, and the overall quality of their writing output [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. In this context, CW cultivates a sense of community, which helps alleviate writing apprehension and boosts students\u0026rsquo; confidence in their writing abilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, students working in groups often exhibit increased responsibility toward their peers, fostering a collaborative environment that encourages deeper involvement in writing tasks and enhances their collective effort [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. This supportive dynamic not only promotes individual growth but also contributes to the development of essential teamwork skills that are valuable in academic and professional settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother potential benefit of CW might be found in students\u0026rsquo; motivation to write and ownership of the writing process. The chance to voice an opinion, listen, and see what one has to offer as part of the final product is likely to foster the intrinsic motivation of students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. The social interaction inherent in the act of CW establishes a sense of collective achievement and, therefore, collective success [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. This could help boost the confidence levels in students by engendering goal orientation based on mastery, or rather, learning for the sake of improvement, rather than at a competitive level [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.3. Social and Interpersonal Benefits\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to cognitive and motivational benefits, CW nurtures relevant social and interpersonal skills. The collaborative process demands students\u0026rsquo; effective communication, negotiation of meaning, and conflict resolution. These skills are essential for academic, professional, and personal development. The participants of a CW group have to listen to the suggestions of each other, give helpful responses to them, and agree upon how to improve the text. This requires empathy, active listening, and the ability to give and receive criticism; skills highly valued both in and out of the academic environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborative writing also allows students to feel part of a community and be integrated into the classroom. In traditional writing assignments, students may work alone, which can lead them either to alienation or disengagement from their classwork, as stated by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. On the other hand, in CW, students share the learning experience because they work toward a common goal. This could increase peer support, a reduction of feelings of isolation, and enjoyment of the process of writing. Additionally, collaborative environments foster a sense of belonging, which enhances students\u0026rsquo; overall motivation to engage with their work. The CW process will also allow students from different walks of life to work together, which may further result in the cross-cultural sharing of ideas and a more profound respect for diversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Challenges in Implementing Collaborative Writing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.1. Unequal Participation and Free-Riding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the biggest problems with CW is fairness among members. Very often, this does not occur, resulting in some students giving more than others, which includes issues of uneven workload distribution [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. A very good example of this is \"free-riding,\" which simply refers to a phenomenon whereby one or more members of the group rely on others to bear the lion\u0026rsquo;s share of the workload so that they can only give a little contribution themselves [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. This imbalance can significantly undermine the collaborative process and the overall effectiveness of the group. Free-riding leads to tension in the group, whereby students who contribute a great deal may feel frustrated or resentful toward those who contribute less.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Addressing the free-riding issue in CW tasks requires thoughtful group formation, clear guidelines, and accountability measures. An instructor can decrease the likelihood of not having participation by either assigning distinct roles to each member of the group or by requesting individual reflections or contributions in addition to the group work itself [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. However, this often proves very time-consuming for both instructors and students in trying to manage group dynamics and attempting to ensure that participation remains consistent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.2. Group Conflicts and Communication Barriers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndeed, in the process of negotiating multiple perspectives, most of these writing tasks in CW involve students in negotiating their way through conflicts and disagreements. While an unresolved conflict may impede the development of the writing process, an unfruitful inhibitive group atmosphere may thus prevail. Though a small dose of disagreement may prove useful in challenging students to work their way to better insight, conflict can occur due to different ways of working or communicating. For example, some of the students may enjoy the process of writing, while others would much rather like to write in a flowing creative nature. These differences can result in frustration and misunderstandings within the group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e] note that inter-group tensions, which arise due to variations in writing habits, academic experience, and personal preferences, can create tensions that dampen creativity. Some students may oppose giving up their ideas or get demotivated when their contributions are not accepted, which may impede the creative process. These tensions may not only lower the quality of creative work but also demotivate students, further limiting their creative thinking capabilities. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e] further caution that peer feedback may lack constructive value if students lack the expertise to provide meaningful input. Besides, unequal participation, as [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] adds, can lead to personality clashes that might hinder both creative thinking and writing quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.3. Dependency on Peers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile CW enhances meaningful peer learning, it also makes students overly dependent on others to complete the task. Students who are reliant on their peers, especially the perceived stronger writers, may tend to exhibit reduced individual responsibility and personal learning. The reality of being too dependent on one\u0026rsquo;s peers can inhibit crucial individual skill development in writing independently because the student is not fully engaging with the entire process of writing. Knowing that their peers will revise or improve upon the final product, weaker students may be less motivated to enhance their writing in CW tasks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.4. Assessment Challenges\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssessing CW can be complex, as it is often difficult to distinguish individual contributions from group work. Instructors may struggle to evaluate the extent to which each student has contributed to the final product, particularly if some students have taken on more of the writing or editing responsibilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. This can lead to fairness concerns, as students who contribute less may receive the same grade as those who contribute more. Moreover, traditional assessment methods, which focus on the final written product, may not fully capture the collaborative process itself. To address these challenges, instructors can use a combination of group and individual assessments, such as peer evaluations, reflective essays, or process logs, which allow students to demonstrate their contributions and reflect on the collaborative experience [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Research Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employed a quasi-experimental embedded mixed-methods design to examine the effects of CWI on EFL students\u0026rsquo; paragraph writing performance. According to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e], an embedded mixed-methods design is particularly suitable when one data type (usually quantitative) plays a primary role while the other (qualitative) provides supportive, contextual insights into the intervention process and outcomes. Accordingly, the present study adopted a dominant quantitative approach using a pretest\u0026ndash;posttest control group design to measure changes in students\u0026rsquo; paragraph writing performance, complemented by an embedded qualitative component in the form of a reflection questionnaire that explored students\u0026rsquo; CW experiences, peer interaction, participation, and writing confidence during CW activities. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data enabled triangulation and a more comprehensive understanding of the instructional effects, making this design appropriate for examining both measurable learning outcomes and students\u0026rsquo; subjective experiences within a natural classroom context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Participants of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe participants were freshman EFL students enrolled in the social science stream and attending Communicative English Language Skills I courses at Debre Markos University, Ethiopia. From a total of twelve intact sections, two sections were selected based on convenience sampling due to accessibility and scheduling considerations. The selected sections consisted of 104 students in total, with 53 students in one section and 51 students in the other. The two sections were randomly assigned to either the treatment group, which received CWI, or the comparison group, which received individual writing instruction. All participants were of mixed gender and varying English proficiency levels. Using intact classes helped preserve the natural instructional setting, while random assignment at the class level enhanced the internal validity of the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Instructional Procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intervention lasted for twelve weeks. During this period, students in the treatment group were taught paragraph writing through CW tasks, which required students to work in small groups to plan, draft, revise, and edit paragraphs jointly. These activities emphasized peer interaction, shared responsibility, and negotiation of meaning. In contrast, students in the comparison group were taught using individual writing tasks, in which they completed the same paragraph-writing activities independently without peer collaboration. Both groups received instruction on the same writing topics, followed the same syllabus, and were taught by the same instructor to control for instructional variation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe following table presents a comparative overview of the instructional steps followed by the treatment and comparison groups. As the table illustrates, the treatment group engaged in structured CW processes, such as role assignment, iterative peer commenting, and group rotation, while the comparison group adhered to conventional individual writing procedures without collaborative scaffolding. This contrast highlights the systematic design of the CW intervention and clarifies how each group experienced the instructional sequence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSteps\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Formation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormed heterogeneous groups based on pretest scores\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo groups formed; students worked individually\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoles \u0026amp; Responsibilities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssigned specific roles and responsibilities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo role assignment; individual responsibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrainstorming\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup brainstorming and idea categorization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual brainstorming\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrafting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborative drafting of first version\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual drafting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOngoing peer feedback and joint revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstructor-only feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMerging Contributions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual inputs merged into a cohesive draft\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo merging; each student worked independently\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommenting \u0026amp; Revising\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIterative peer commenting and section refinement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual self-revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster Draft\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompiled a cohesive master draft as a group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach student prepared their own draft\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRefining\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborative refining for style, flow, and organization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual editing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeer Review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeer review (internal or external) using rubrics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo peer review; instructor feedback only\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinal Revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRevised based on peer feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinal revision done individually\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubmission\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubmitted one final group product to instructor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach student submitted their own final product\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Rotation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup members rotated every four weeks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstruction and Materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSame materials and teacher used as comparison group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSame materials and teacher used as treatment group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected using paragraph writing tests and a reflection questionnaire. Paragraph writing tests were administered before and after the intervention to assess students\u0026rsquo; writing performance. Students were asked to produce coherent expository paragraphs, which were evaluated using a rubric adapted from IELTS Writing Task-2 descriptors, covering task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical accuracy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. Parallel prompts were used for the pretest and posttest to reduce practice effects while ensuring that the same constructs were measured.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reflection questionnaire was administered only to the treatment group and consisted of open-ended items designed to capture students\u0026rsquo; reflections on the CW process, including peer interaction and participation, the strategies they employed, challenges encountered, and perceived impacts on their writing skills and writing confidence. This instrument aimed to examine multiple dimensions of learning, including cognitive, metacognitive, and affective aspects, allowing for a deeper understanding of students\u0026rsquo; experiences and engagement during the CW process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e]. The qualitative data collected through this instrument complemented the quantitative findings from the paragraph writing tests and provided insights into how collaborative activities influenced learners\u0026rsquo; writing development and attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Reliability and Validity of the Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo ensure the reliability and validity of the instruments, several strategies were employed. First, parallel-forms reliability was examined for the pre- and post-tests, which were constructed as equivalent forms measuring the same constructs. The Pearson correlation between participants\u0026rsquo; scores on the two test forms yielded r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.81, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, indicating strong equivalence. Second, inter-rater reliability was established. Two experienced raters were trained extensively to align their understanding of the rubric and ensure consistent scoring. Sample student responses were rated independently and discussed collectively, addressing common scoring challenges such as bias and subjectivity. Inter-rater reliability, calculated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), indicated substantial agreement between raters (ICC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.763). In addition, the internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, yielding α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.76, indicating that the components consistently measured the overall construct of paragraph writing performance. Finally, content validity was ensured through expert review by the research supervisors and two TEFL PhD holders, who examined the marking rubrics and writing prompts to confirm that all aspects of paragraph writing performance, including task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical accuracy, were adequately represented. Pilot testing also confirmed the clarity and suitability of the instruments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6. Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative data from the pretest and posttest paragraph writing assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize means and standard deviations for both the treatment and comparison groups. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted to examine within-group changes from pretest to posttest, while independent-samples t-tests compared posttest performance between the two groups. Assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were verified using Shapiro-Wilk and Levene\u0026rsquo;s tests, respectively, and effect sizes were calculated using Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d to determine the practical significance of observed differences. The qualitative data collected through the reflection questionnaire were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns and key themes related to collaborative learning strategies, peer interaction, learner engagement, confidence, and challenges [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative findings enabled a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of CWI, allowing the study to link observed performance improvements with students\u0026rsquo; reflections on their experiences regarding the CW process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.7. Ethical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthical standards were strictly observed throughout the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, and students were fully informed of the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Participation was voluntary, and students could withdraw at any time without penalty. All responses were treated confidentially and anonymized, and collected data were securely stored to protect participant identities. Students were also informed that they could access the study results upon request. These procedures ensured adherence to established ethical guidelines for research involving human participants and safeguarded their rights and well-being throughout the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Pre-Intervention Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA pretest was conducted to assess baseline paragraph writing performance. An independent samples t-test confirmed that the treatment and comparison groups were comparable before the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePretest Paragraph Writing Performance by Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevene\u0026rsquo;s F\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep (Levene)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.341\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.204\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e101.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.204\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevene\u0026rsquo;s test confirmed homogeneity of variances (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.341, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.56), and the independent samples t-test showed no significant difference between groups (t(102)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.27, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.204), indicating that both groups started at comparable levels in paragraph writing performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Post-Intervention Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter twelve weeks, posttest results revealed clear differences between groups. The treatment group, which engaged in CWI, outperformed the comparison group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePosttest Paragraph Writing Performance by Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevene\u0026rsquo;s F\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep (Levene)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et (Welch)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevene\u0026rsquo;s test indicated unequal variances (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.64, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001), so Welch\u0026rsquo;s t-test was used. The treatment group scored significantly higher than the comparison group (t(75.38)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.48, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.73), demonstrating a substantial effect of CWI on paragraph writing performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Within-Group Pre/Post Comparisons\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePaired-samples t-tests examined changes within each group over the intervention period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment and Comparison Groups Pre- and Post-Test Comparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePretest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-5.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePosttest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePretest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePosttest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe treatment group showed a significant improvement from pretest to posttest (t(52) = -5.74, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.79), whereas the comparison group\u0026rsquo;s increase was not statistically significant (t(50) = -1.92, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.061, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.27).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Results from the Reflection Questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the reflection questionnaire from the treatment group showed that students generally viewed CWI positively. Many reported that working collaboratively strengthened peer interaction, helped them exchange ideas, and enabled them to clarify and negotiate meaning more effectively. One student explained, \u0026ldquo;We shared ideas and corrected each other, so I understood the topic better.\u0026rdquo; Another stated, \u0026ldquo;Discussing with my group helped me see different ways of expressing the same idea.\u0026rdquo; Students also indicated that CWI boosted their confidence and reduced the anxiety they usually felt when writing alone. As one participant reflected, \u0026ldquo;I was not afraid to write because my group supported me,\u0026rdquo; while another noted, \u0026ldquo;CW made me more confident because I could ask my friends when I was unsure.\u0026rdquo; In addition, several students reported improvement in planning, organizing ideas, and revising paragraphs. They found peer feedback particularly helpful in identifying grammatical, lexical, and structural issues. For example, one student commented, \u0026ldquo;My peers helped me find mistakes I did not see by myself.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these benefits, students also mentioned some challenges. A number of groups experienced unequal participation, with some members contributing less actively. One student remarked, \u0026ldquo;Sometimes only two people talked, and the others stayed quiet.\u0026rdquo; Coordination and time management were additional concerns. As another participant noted, \u0026ldquo;It was difficult to finish on time because we did not always agree quickly.\u0026rdquo; Some students suggested that structured roles and more teacher guidance would make CW tasks more effective.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1. Effects of CWI on Paragraph Writing Performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that CWI significantly enhanced EFL students\u0026rsquo; paragraph writing, with the treatment group showing notable gains in clarity, cohesion, lexical choice, and grammatical accuracy compared to the comparison group, who engaged in individual writing tasks. These findings align with previous research demonstrating that collaboration fosters negotiation of meaning, mutual scaffolding, and greater attention to language form and organization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. The observed large effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.73) suggests that CWI can improve paragraph-level writing even over a relatively short intervention period, supporting the sociocultural perspective that social interaction plays a critical role in cognitive development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe absence of a significant improvement in the comparison group further underscores the effectiveness of CWI as a pedagogical practice. Individual writing activities may fail to provide opportunities for immediate peer feedback, negotiation of ideas, or shared problem-solving, limiting the scope for performance improvement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. By engaging collaboratively, students benefit not only from their own cognitive processes but also from observing and responding to the strategies of their peers, leading to enhanced organization, lexical richness, and grammatical accuracy. These findings also highlight the role of CWI in promoting educational quality and inclusive learning experiences, enhancing student engagement and writing performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Students\u0026rsquo; Reflections on CWI\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThematic analysis of reflection questionnaire revealed that students generally perceived CWI positively. Participants reported that CWI fostered peer interaction, engagement, and confidence, enabling them to exchange ideas, discuss sentence structure, and collectively refine paragraphs. These findings align with prior studies indicating that collaborative learning enhances motivation, encourages active participation, and promotes a sense of accountability among learners [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. Students also highlighted the development of metacognitive skills, such as planning, revising, and self-monitoring, which are crucial for independent writing development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, students identified challenges associated with CWI. Unequal participation was frequently mentioned, with more proficient students dominating the drafting process, aligning with findings from previous research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Time management was another concern, as coordinating collaborative tasks required additional effort compared to individual writing, with many learners indicating that managing time and coordinating group work posed a recurrent challenge, as also reported in previous research on EFL collaborative writing [e.g., 63]. These challenges suggest that while CWI is highly effective, it benefits from structured role assignments, clear instructions, and ongoing instructor guidance to ensure equitable contribution and maximize learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Implications for EFL Instruction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study have practical implications for EFL educators. Incorporating CW tasks into language instruction can enhance paragraph-level writing performance, engagement, and motivation. Teachers should consider forming heterogeneous groups to balance proficiency levels, assigning clear roles, and providing scaffolding and feedback throughout the writing process. Furthermore, integrating reflective activities enables students to monitor their learning, develop metacognitive awareness, and consolidate writing strategies. Such practices not only improve writing outcomes but also cultivate collaborative and social skills essential for language learning in diverse contexts. Incorporating these practices not only benefits students\u0026rsquo; writing skills but also advances inclusive and high-quality educational experiences for learners.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides empirical evidence that CWI significantly enhances EFL students\u0026rsquo; paragraph writing performance, including clarity, cohesion, organization, lexical choice, and grammatical accuracy. The findings indicate that engaging students in joint planning, drafting, revising, and peer feedback supports both cognitive and affective aspects of learning, as reflected in improved writing skills, increased confidence, and greater engagement. Reflection data further show that students value the social interaction, shared responsibility, and strategic awareness fostered through CWI, although challenges such as unequal participation and time management highlight the need for careful instructor guidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the results suggest that integrating CW tasks into EFL instruction is an effective pedagogical approach that enhances writing development, fosters active participation, and supports inclusive learning. Teachers are encouraged to use heterogeneous grouping, clear role assignment, structured peer feedback, and reflection activities to maximize the benefits of collaborative learning. Future research should examine long-term effects, different writing genres, and optimal group composition strategies to further strengthen the effectiveness of CWI in diverse EFL contexts. By integrating performance outcomes with learners\u0026rsquo; reflections on the writing process, this study contributes to evidence-based instructional practices that promote inclusive and sustainable teaching approaches in EFL education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Limitations and Future Research","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite the positive outcomes, the study has some limitations. The intervention was conducted with a relatively small sample in a single educational setting, which may limit generalizability. The twelve-week duration of the intervention, while sufficient to observe measurable improvements, may not reflect long-term effects of CWI. Future research could explore longer interventions, include larger and more diverse samples, and investigate the effects of CWI on different genres and writing levels. Additionally, examining the influence of specific group composition strategies, peer roles, and feedback mechanisms could provide further insights into optimizing CWI for EFL learners.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge the participating students for their cooperation and active engagement in the study. The authors also disclose the use of generative AI\u0026ndash;assisted tools during manuscript preparation, strictly for language editing and proofreading to enhance clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics statement\u003c/strong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Debre Markos University, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Department of English Language and Literature, Ethiopia (Ref. No. 441/12/2024, 26 December 2024), and conducted in accordance with applicable institutional and national ethical guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. All collected data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to Publish: Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical Trial Number: Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding: This research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eM.T. conceived the study, designed the research framework, conducted data collection, performed data analysis, and wrote the main manuscript. M.E. and S.M. supervised the study, provided methodological and theoretical guidance, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and take responsibility for its content.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichards JC, Rodgers TS. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEllis R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiaget J. The Psychology of the Child. New York, NY, USA: Trans.; Basic Books; 1972. Weaver, H..\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElbow P. Writing without Teachers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1973.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMurray D. Internal revision: Toward a theory of writing. Coll Compos Commun. 1978;29:134\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press; 1978.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLantolf JP. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDonato R. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In \u003cem\u003eVygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research\u003c/em\u003e; Lantolf, J.P., Appel, G., Eds.; Ablex: Norwood, NJ, USA, 1994; pp. 33\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurbules NC, Callister TA, Watch IT. The Risks and Promises of Information Technologies for Education. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview; 2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLantolf JP, Thorne SL. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShin TW. The role of ICT in scaffolding collaborative writing. Engl Teach. 2014;43:33\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmagorinsky P. What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st-century language arts teacher? Lang Arts. 2013;90:192\u0026ndash;204.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarrows HS, Tamblyn RM. Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill; 1980.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson DW, Johnson RT. Learning Together and Alone. 4th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Allyn \u0026amp; Bacon; 1994.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlavin RE. Cooperative Learning. Boston, MA, USA: Allyn \u0026amp; Bacon; 1995.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTran L. Using pair work and group work in teaching writing. Teach Ed. 2001;5:22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakhtin MM. In: Holquist M, Emerson C, Holquist M, editors. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX, USA: Trans.; University of Texas; 1981.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBruffee KA. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University; 1999.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEde L, Lunsford A. Singular Texts/Plural Authors. Carbondale, IL, USA: Southern Illinois University; 1990.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWells G. Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlower L, Hayes JR. A cognitive process theory of writing. Coll Compos Commun. 1981;32:365\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHyland K. Second Language Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBazerman C, Prior P. What Writing Does and How It Does It. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScardamalia M, Bereiter C. Knowledge building and knowledge creation. In: Sawyer RK, editor. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 397\u0026ndash;417.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeck BW. Collaborative Writing in the Classroom. New York, NY, USA: Routledge; 2002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang J, Zhang W. Process-genre approaches in EFL writing. TESOL Q. 2022;56:150\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu X, Zhu W, Yang Y. Process-genre writing in EFL contexts. TESOL Q. 2022;56:300\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi L. Collaborative writing and EFL learning outcomes. J Second Lang Writ. 2023;56:101118.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNugroho A. Collaborative writing in EFL classrooms. J Asia TEFL. 2024;21:1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi M, Storch N. Collaborative Writing in Language Education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYim S, Warschauer M. Web-based collaborative writing. System. 2017;65:123\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStorch N. Collaborative writing. J Second Lang Writ. 2005;14:153\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi L. Collaborative writing and EFL learning outcomes. J Second Lang Writ. 2023;56:101118.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;zdemir E. Effects of collaborative writing on EFL learners\u0026rsquo; linguistic complexity. J Second Lang Writ. 2024;63:100999.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElabdali R. Are two heads really better than one? J Second Lang Writ. 2021;52:100788.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStorch N. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Lang Learn. 2002;52:119\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWebb NM. Peer interaction in learning. Learn Instr. 2009;19:143\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSato M, Ballinger S. Raising language awareness in peer interaction. Lang Aware. 2012;21:157\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStorch N. Collaborative Writing. London, UK: Routledge; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWigglesworth G, Storch N. What role for collaboration? J Second Lang Writ. 2012;21:364\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStorch N. Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYong C. Collaboration in writing. Lang Learn Technol. 2006;10:48\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLowry PB, Curtis A, Lowry MR. Building a taxonomy of collaborative writing. J Bus Commun. 2004;41:66\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWajnryb R. Grammar Dictation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1990.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKuiken F, Vedder I. Collaborative writing in L2. Int J Appl Linguist. 2002;12:168\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBremner S, Peirson-Smith A, Jones R, Bhatia VK. Task-Based Learning in English for Professional Communication. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolton G. Acting in Classroom Drama. Trentham Books: Stoke-on-Trent, UK; 1999.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFredrick TA. Facilitating Better Teamwork. Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman \u0026amp; Littlefield Education; 2008.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarkley EF, Cross KP, Major CH. Collaborative Learning Techniques. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass; 2005.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDobaο AF. Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom. J Second Lang Writ. 2012;21:40\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM. The what and why of goal pursuits. Psychol Inq. 2000;11:227\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi M, Zhu Y. Collaborative writing in second language contexts. Lang Teach. 2017;50:461\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBruffee KA. Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. Coll Engl. 1984;46:635\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShehadeh A. Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. J Second Lang Writ. 2011;20:286\u0026ndash;305.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChang Y. Group composition and collaborative writing in EFL contexts. System. 2021;98:102458.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu NF, Carless D. Peer feedback. Teach High Educ. 2006;11:279\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBritish Council. IELTS Writing Task Descriptors. London, UK: British Council; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZimmerman BJ. Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory Pract. 2002;41:64\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoon J. A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer; 2004.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77\u0026ndash;101.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMurtiningsih S. Challenges in collaborative writing. J Foreign Lang Teach Learn. 2016;1:1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Collaborative Writing Instruction, EFL, Paragraph Writing Performance, Peer Interaction, Embedded mixed-methods","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8386228/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8386228/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWith increasing recognition of peer interaction in writing pedagogy, this study examined the effects of collaborative writing instruction (CWI) on English as a foreign language (EFL) students\u0026rsquo; paragraph writing performance. A quasi-experimental embedded mixed-methods design was employed on EFL students attending freshman courses in the social science stream at one of the Ethiopian universities. Out of a total of 12 sections, two sections, each with 53 and 51 students, were selected for the study based on convenience sampling. These two sections were assigned randomly to the collaborative writing and the individual writing groups. During the intervention, which lasted for twelve weeks, the students in the control group were taught using the individual writing tasks, while the students in the experimental group were taught using the collaborative writing tasks. Pre- and post-tests were employed to collect data. The quantitative findings showed a statistically significant difference in paragraph writing performance between the two groups in favor of the experimental group. Students\u0026rsquo; reflective responses further revealed CWI enhanced peer interaction, participation, and writing confidence, although unequal participation and time limitations were noted. Overall, the findings suggest that CWI is an effective pedagogical practice for improving paragraph writing performance and should be integrated into EFL curricula. This study also contributes to enhancing educational quality and inclusive learning practices by providing insights into effective collaborative teaching strategies that improve EFL students\u0026rsquo; learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effects of Collaborative Writing Instruction on EFL Students’ Paragraph Writing Performance","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-12 13:51:44","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8386228/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b73003e7-da3f-4187-83bb-1a19f2c5fe13","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 12th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T10:18:54+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-12 13:51:44","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8386228","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8386228","identity":"rs-8386228","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}