Effects of collaborative vs. individual pre-task planning on EFL learners' L2 writing: transferability of writing quality

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) research highlights pre-task planning (PTP) as a key factor influencing second language (L2) performance across complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). While theory suggests PTP can reduce cognitive load during writing and improve access to linguistic resources, empirical findings on its benefits for L2 writing are mixed and may depend on factors such as task type, planning time, access to notes, and learner proficiency. Influenced by sociocultural theory, recent work has examined collaborative planning (CP) versus individual planning (IP), but results remain inconclusive. Notably, there is little research on combining IP with CP (IPCP) and on whether planning effects transfer to a new task without planning. This study addresses these gaps by comparing CP, IP, IPCP, and no planning (NP) for Chinese EFL undergraduates on argumentative writing and by testing transfer to a subsequent writing task without planning. The research questions were: (1) What are the effects of CP, IP, IPCP, and NP on L2 writing CAF? (2) Do any effects transfer from a pedagogic task to a new task one week later?

Pre-task planning in L2 speaking generally improves fluency and complexity, with mixed effects on accuracy. For L2 writing, findings are more varied: PTP has shown negative, positive, or null effects on lexical complexity and fluency; syntactic complexity often improves but not consistently, with discrepancies attributed to planning time, access to notes, task type, and learner proficiency. Collaboration in L2 writing, grounded in social constructivism and interaction hypothesis, can yield more accurate collaboratively written texts and higher rubric scores in posttests, yet effects on fluency and complexity are inconsistent and concerns include unequal participation, time demands, and limited benefits during product-oriented review stages. Studies contrasting CP and IP during prewriting report mixed outcomes: CP sometimes outperforms IP (e.g., higher holistic quality, argumentation quality, accuracy, fluency, or syntactic complexity), sometimes IP is superior on certain analytic ratings, and sometimes no differences emerge. Potential moderators include group size, proficiency, task complexity/genre, and whether prewriting is structured or unstructured. Critically, prior work rarely examines a combined IP+CP condition or transfer of planning benefits to a new task, motivating the current study.

Design: A between-group quasi-experimental design compared four planning conditions: collaborative pre-task planning (CP), individual pre-task planning (IP), combined individual then collaborative planning (IPCP), and no planning (NP). Participants: 120 first-year Chinese EFL students (ages 18–21) from four intact classes at a southwest China university (majors: obstetrics, medical examination, health therapy, stomatology). All had ~9 years of English study, no study-abroad experience, and comparable proficiency (NCEE scores indicating CEFR B1; one-way ANOVA confirmed comparability). Context: Students prepared for the CET-4. Tasks: Two CET-4–style argumentative writing prompts (familiar, daily-life topics) requiring at least 150 words in 30 minutes. Procedure: Each class was randomly assigned to one planning condition. For Task 1 (pedagogic task): CP pairs self-selected partners and discussed for 10 minutes (notes allowed during planning but collected before writing), then individually wrote for 30 minutes without dictionaries. IP students planned individually for 10 minutes under otherwise identical conditions. IPCP students had a total of 10 minutes split into 5 minutes IP followed by 5 minutes CP (sequenced to avoid CP influencing subsequent IP), then wrote individually. NP students began writing immediately for 30 minutes. One week later, all students completed Task 2 (new task) individually with no planning time to assess transfer. No specific planning strategies were prescribed. Measures: Writing quality was assessed via CAF. Syntactic complexity was analyzed using Lu’s L2SCA with four indices: mean length of T-units (MLT), dependent clauses per T-unit (DC/T), coordinate phrases per clause (CP/C), complex nominals per clause (CN/C). Lexical complexity included COCA log frequency of all words (LFAW) via TAALES for lexical sophistication (lower values indicate higher sophistication) and all-words HD-D (AW HD-D) via TAALED for diversity. Accuracy was the error ratio (grammar and vocabulary errors per 100 words), excluding capitalization, spelling, punctuation; 10% double-coded by two raters with reliability >0.85 before the first author coded the remainder. Fluency was total number of words (TNW) in 30 minutes. Analyses: One-way ANOVAs with Tukey HSD post hoc tests compared groups on each measure for Task 1 and Task 2.

Across both tasks, CP yielded significantly higher syntactic complexity than IP, IPCP, and NP; no significant differences emerged for lexical complexity, accuracy, or fluency. Task 1 (pedagogic task): Significant group effects were observed for syntactic indices—MLT F(3,116)=11.44, p<.001; DC/T F(3,116)=5.56, p=.001; CP/C F(3,116)=40.46, p<.001; CN/C F(3,116)=8.97, p<.001. Means (CP vs others): MLT 14.10 (SD 1.83) vs IP 13.13 (2.96), IPCP 12.64 (1.95), NP 11.67 (2.15); DC/T 0.53 (0.14) vs IP 0.35 (0.20), NP 0.39 (0.19); CP/C 0.52 (0.13) vs IP 0.23 (0.13), IPCP 0.23 (0.11), NP 0.20 (0.14); CN/C 1.46 (0.28) vs IP 1.18 (0.32), IPCP 1.14 (0.27), NP 1.09 (0.33). No significant differences for LFAW F=0.54, p=.656; AW HD-D F=2.47, p=.066; Error ratio F=2.34, p=.077; TNW F=1.53, p=.212. Task 2 (new task, no planning): CP remained superior on syntactic indices—MLT F(3,116)=12.33, p<.001; DC/T F=8.41, p<.001; CP/C F=6.10, p=.001; CN/C F=12.52, p<.001. Means (CP vs others): MLT 14.86 (3.45) vs IP 12.13 (1.88), IPCP 12.34 (2.12), NP 11.44 (1.31); DC/T 0.64 (0.27) vs IP 0.41 (0.18), IPCP 0.43 (0.18), NP 0.43 (0.20); CP/C 0.31 (0.07) vs IP 0.21 (0.12), IPCP 0.21 (0.12), NP 0.22 (0.11); CN/C 0.94 (0.25) vs IP 0.67 (0.14), IPCP 0.69 (0.13), NP 0.78 (0.22). No significant differences for LFAW F=2.27, p=.084; AW HD-D F=2.36, p=.075; Error ratio F=1.74, p=.163; TNW F=0.543, p=.654. The CP advantage in syntactic complexity transferred to the new task completed without planning one week later.

CP consistently enhanced syntactic complexity relative to IP, IPCP, and NP on both tasks. Possible reasons include the higher cognitive demands of argumentative writing (compared to less complex tasks in prior studies), which may make collaboration more beneficial, and the unstructured prewriting discussions that likely focused on idea generation, encouraging greater use of subordination and complex nominals. The absence of CP benefits for accuracy aligns with studies showing that collaborative advantages for accuracy may emerge more in jointly authored texts than when students plan collaboratively but write individually. Smaller pair size (vs. larger groups) and the use of unstructured, unguided planning may also limit accuracy gains. Differences from studies finding fluency gains for CP may reflect participant proficiency (undergraduates vs. younger, lower-proficiency learners) and planning supports (e.g., worksheets, longer planning time). For lexical complexity, no condition outperformed others; task and resource constraints may have shifted attention away from lexical sophistication/diversity during planning. Overall, the findings indicate that CP before individual writing principally supports syntactic elaboration, and that these gains can transfer to a subsequent task without planning.

This study demonstrates that collaborative pre-task planning leads to higher syntactic complexity in EFL learners’ argumentative writing than individual planning, combined individual-plus-collaborative planning, or no planning, and that this advantage transfers to a new task completed without planning one week later. No planning condition yielded superior outcomes for lexical complexity, accuracy, or fluency. Pedagogically, CP may be most effective for promoting syntactic elaboration, especially with cognitively demanding genres. Teachers considering CP should align task design and support with learners’ needs (e.g., guidance, monitoring, group size) to maximize benefits beyond syntax. Future research should compare structured vs. unstructured CP, vary planning time and access to notes, examine language use during planning, explore individual differences (motivation, self-efficacy, aptitude), and test generalizability across proficiency levels, genres, and instructional contexts.

The study did not examine how individual differences (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy, aptitude) might mediate planning effects; it focused only on participatory structure (individual vs. collaborative planning) without manipulating other planning options (time allocation, focus, guidance, language use, access to notes); it did not track how students used planning time or their perceptions of planning and transfer; and the sample comprised intermediate Chinese EFL undergraduates, limiting generalizability to other proficiency levels and contexts.