MALL‐based collaborative writing in second language classroom: A systematic review

Abstract

Driven by the affordances and benefits of mobile technology, collaborative writing (CW) supported by mobile technologies has been increasingly implemented in the second language (L2) acquisition context. To shed light on the research foci and provide guidance for future research in this promising area, the present study conducted an in‐depth and systematic review of 25 empirical articles on CW supported by mobile technologies in the L2 context published from 2014 to 2022, including quantitative, qualitative, and mix‐methods research. A holistic analysis of these articles was conducted, covering various aspects such as research themes, research contexts and technology, theoretical/pedagogical frameworks, writing tasks, and instruments. Based on the analysis of the previous research, this study provided pedagogical suggestions concerning writing tasks, group division, participant training, and writing assessment and also explores future research directions.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, driven by substantial studies supporting the importance of learner interaction and collaboration (Aufa & Storch, ; Chen et al., ; Li & Kim, ), collaborative writing (CW) has been implemented and investigated by a growing number of L2 researchers. CW involves two or more students interacting, negotiating meaning, and making joint decisions with each other throughout the writing process to co-construct a single written text with shared responsibility and co-ownership (Storch, ). A recent review (Lei & Liu, ) reported that researchers' interest in CW has grown by more than seven times from 2005 to 2016. Previous research has shown many benefits of CW, ranging from enhancing the co-construction of L2 lexical and grammar ability (Chen & Zhang, ; Li & Zhu, ), improving audience awareness (Jiang & Zhang, ) to providing opportunities to use newly-acquired knowledge (Kost, ; Li & Zhu, ), and offering corrective feedback (Storch, ).

The thriving of CW research can be attributed to the integration of Web 2.0 tools that supported participation and collaboration in the writing process. However, with the development of mobile devices, MALL-based collaborative writing (MBCW) has been developed at an unprecedented level, which is defined as language learning supported by the mobility of the learner and the portability of the handheld devices (Hoven & Palalas, ). MBCW has emerged as a promising research area in L2 acquisition contexts because of its characteristics of writing interactivity, reflective composition, and time/space independence.

With the growing research interest in MBCW, L2 researchers need to gain a comprehensive understanding of the research focus, theoretical/pedagogical frameworks, and research methods in this area of inquiry. Therefore, this study aims to provide a systematic review of empirical research on MBCW. In the following section, the author begins with the empirical and theoretical support for mobile-assisted CW and then addresses research questions (RQs) that guide this literature review.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical frameworks for MBCW

With the help of mobile tools, MBCW combines two essential elements for language acquisition in technologically supported contexts: peer interaction and L2 co-construction writing product (Abrams, ), the importance of which are emphasized by both sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, ) and socio-constructive theory (Long, ). According to sociocultural theory, social interactions lead to language development, during which languages serve two primary functions: as a means of communication and as a cognitive tool for the L2 co-construction (Swain, ; Vygotsky, ). From this perspective, language is not merely a tool for communication but also plays a crucial role in promoting the co-construction of understanding and knowledge among individuals in the learning process. Therefore, dialogues during mobile-assisted CW offer learners a platform to seek and offer scaffoldings, pool linguistic resources to address language-related issues, and jointly build L2 knowledge (Lantolf & Appel, ). In this context, learners can engage with each other using mobile technology to get support and guidance and actively participate in L2 learning despite the constraints of time and space.

From a socio-constructive theory standpoint, mobile-mediated peer interaction provides several benefits for L2 learning. It enables students to receive modified input, get corrective feedback from their peers, and give them chances to produce modified output, which promotes language development (Ziegler, ). In addition, the collaborative process of text co-construction in MACW settings, whether considered as a way to mediate L2 learning or a process to produce a meaningful written product, is considered highly valuable for L2 development (Cho, ; Teng, ).

MALL-based collaborative writing

As mobile technologies become more widely accessible worldwide, mobile assisted language learning (MALL) has gained significant research interest. MALL has been a fast-developing area since the term was first coined in 2006. According to previous research, MALL is a sub-area of mobile learning, attracting the attention of an increasing number of scholars. As suggested by researchers, even though MALL developed from Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), it immediately captured language researchers' attention due to its unique features of “anywhere and anytime.” MALL differs from CALL and traditional language learning due to its specific learning attributes enabled by personal, portable devices. These devices offer language learners unrestricted learning resources and chances regardless of time and location, be it at school, home, public places, day, or night. In essence, MALL involves both the mobility of technologies and the flexibility of space, time, and individualized learning experiences. Hence, unlike language learning experiences in the traditional classroom, although instructor guidance is essential, MALL provides language learners with a more flexible and self-oriented approach, enabling them to take control of enhanced mobility to improve their own learning, promote their knowledge based on the past experiences, and get involved in seamless language learning anywhere and anytime. Importantly, MALL has witnessed a surge in user engagement mainly due to the availability of low-cost or free language learning Apps and platforms (such as Duolingo, Hello Talk, and Edmodo), offering both affordable and accessible language learning approaches compared to traditional classroom contexts.

To date, previous studies (Abrams, ; Cahyono & Mukminatien, ) have investigated how mobile technology facilitated CW. Research on MBCW is considered facilitative not only because of the increasing prevalence of mobile devices in society but also because it addresses researchers' calls to explore students' writing experiences beyond the classroom (Kukulska-Hulme, ; Lai, ). Mobile tools, such as Google Docs and ShiMo Docs, offer comprehensive support for the writing process both inside and outside the classroom, from task discussion and collaborative languaging to text co-construction, revision, editing, and final co-written product. Therefore, in recent decades, there has been a growing number of studies on various aspects of MBCW, including investigating where (and how) L2 acquisition happens beyond the formal learning settings (Cho, ; Jiang & Zhang, ), examining the types of technologies individuals are using (and why) (Hwang & Wu, ; Missen et al., ), and gaining insights into students' behaviors, experiences, and perspectives concerning the CW process (Aghajani & Adloo, ; Zou & Li, ).

In recent years, the research on MBCW continues to expand. Hence, conducting a systematic review of these empirical research is timely, as it can broaden our understanding and offer new insights into this promising field. This literature review is guided by the following two RQs:

• (1)

  What are the research trends in current MBCW research?

  • What research themes have been identified?

  • What are the research context and types of participants in empirical L2 MBCW research?

  • What are the theoretical/pedagogical frameworks of L2 MBCW research?

  • What writing tasks have been implemented, and what research instruments have been adopted in MBCW research?

• (2)

  How can the current studies on MBCW provide pedagogical implications and inform future research?

METHODOLOGY

In order to obtain the necessary publications, the author searched relevant peer-reviewed articles published over the past 9 years using key words searching on the dataset Web of Science. Specifically, the author retrieved published works concerning the research area using the following advanced query, in which “TS” (Topics), referring to the title, abstract, or keywords of a publication, was used as a search field with publishing dates from 2014 to 2022.

TS = (('collaborat*' OR 'cooperat*' OR 'team*' OR 'group') AND ('writ*') AND ('mobile'))

At first, 78 published works concerning the area of research on MBCW were retrieved. Publications retrieved from the database were considered if they were: (1) articles, since research articles usually provide original research findings in English, but did not have to be conducted to study English as a Second Language (ESL); (2) in a Web of Science Category with “education,” “educational,” or “language linguistics” in the name; and (3) about L2 acquisition, but did not have to be English as a Foreign Language (EFL). After carefully reading the abstract of the publications, irrelevant articles were deleted, including 16 not found; finally, 25 publications were obtained to investigate the overall trend of CW based on MALL (see Figure ).

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Following Zhang and Plonsky (), the researcher developed a coding scheme (see Table ) to extract five types of information: (1) research ID, (2) research context, (3) research design, (4) research setup, and (5) research practices. The coding scheme was piloted by the author and her colleague, leading to modifications of subcategories and operational definitions for various items. Following this refinement, the author's colleague received comprehensive training and worked with the author to code five studies encompassing diverse research orientations. Any discrepancies or differences in coding were addressed through discussion. Then, the author and her colleague independently coded the remaining studies, resulting in high intercoder reliability of 0.92.

TABLE 1 Coding scheme.

Category	Items
Research ID	Authors, year, type, and journal title
Research context	Sample size, learning language (EFL, ESL, and other), institution (primary school, secondary school, and college), language proficiency
Research design	Theoretical/pedagogical framework and research methodology (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed), research instruments
Research setup	Group size, writing task type, and technology
Research practices	Research themes (writing products/outcomes, interaction/writing process, and students' perception)

Drawing from previous synthesis research (Visonà & Plonsky, ; Zhang et al., ), the analyses were clear and straightforward. After publications were coded in an Excel spreadsheet, the author calculated the frequencies and percentages for each item outlined in the coding scheme. The values obtained for various categories were subsequently employed to address the corresponding RQs.

RESULTS

The author conducted a close examination of the 25 articles and demonstrated the findings related to the RQs. With the illustrative Table , the author provided a comprehensive picture of the existing literature by presenting a detailed research matrix and an in-depth explanation of research lines.

Overview of selected publications

Employing a holistic approach, the author provides a comprehensive overview of the 25 publications by presenting the essential information across different dimensions, such as research themes, context and technology, theoretical/pedagogical frameworks, writing tasks, and instruments. In the following section, the synthesized findings related to RQ 1 will be discussed. The matrix of the selected publications is presented in the . To facilitate the readers' understanding of the selected publications' trends over time, these were ordered chronologically, with the publications from the same year organized alphabetically.

Research themes

In the following section, the author discusses specific research themes that have been investigated in the previous research: (1) writing products/outcomes, (2) students' perceptions, and (3) writing/interaction processes.

Writing products/outcomes

Regarding research themes, 21 out of the 25 existing research focus on the effect of MBCW on students' writing. The effects of using mobile technology in CW are generally positive. For example, Imelda et al. () probed combining video-based mobile learning on 61 Indonesian EFL learners' writing skills. They found that video-based mobile learning can be chosen as an alternative to teaching foreign language writing. Meanwhile, Andujar () studied 80 Spanish undergraduates attending an English writing course using the social-communicative tool WhatsApp and investigated the effects of writing, finding a significant difference between the control and experimental groups regarding writing accuracy. By contrast, some studies showed the drawbacks of using mobile devices in CW. For instance, researchers (Imelda et al., ) used WhatsApp to give corrective feedback to each student's writing and reported the fluctuation and unsystematic patterns of distribution for four types of discourse markers with no sign of significant long-term improvement.

Students' perceptions

Students' perception of technological devices is another research theme frequently investigated by previous research (Aghajani & Adloo, ; Awada, ). Among the studies covering this issue, six showed positive results, implying that proper use of mobile technologies in CW could boost students' learning motivation, broaden writing perspectives, increase audience awareness, and enhance communicative and writing abilities. For example, Chen et al. () reported a positive effect of using Penultimate to help students' learning interest and motivation in the narrative writing practice. Researchers implemented a complementary teaching aid to solve the learners' writing problems and reported positive cognitive, social, and affective perceptions. On the other hand, 14 research have shown students' mixed or negative attitudes toward MBCW, which is mainly due to the time limitation, the lack of experience in using technology, loss of concentration in learning, and unharmonious relationship with other team members (Chen et al., ). A writing course on Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) found that most students showed positive attitude toward the course. At the same time, some complained because of their inexperience in using the Bookcreator App and feelings of frustration in coming up with writing ideas (Eubanks et al., ). Besides, a mobile writing activity focusing on 30 Iranian female students showed that the majority of students were satisfied with the projects, while some felt discomfort with time limitation and showed a preference for other modalities of mediation (Ebadi & Bashir, ).

Writing/interaction processes

However, only two of the current studies on MBCW investigated the interactions during students' learning process and the learning characteristics of students, such as peer feedback, self-efficacy, and self-regulation. For example, Botero, Restrepo, and Chang () investigated the self-regulation of 52 French as a Second Language (FSL) students using Duolingo as a language-learning medium, the result of which showed that self-regulation in writing contributes to significantly higher participation. Since MALL encourages learner autonomy and most learners will struggle without a teacher's direction and guidance (Kessler, ; Kukulska-Hulme, ), the learner-led mobile language learning processes deserve more attention. To facilitate and design MBCW activity effectively, it is crucial to understand how learners interact during the CW process. To date, although there is much research on patterns of interaction in computer-mediated or traditional CW contexts (Li & Zhu, ; Wigglesworth & Storch, ), very few studies have focused on the interaction patterns (i.e., how learners participate in the task and form relationships with each other) in the MBCW. For instance, Syarifudin and Husnawadi () studied the academic writing improvement of Indonesian English learners and concluded that neither teacher–student nor peer interactions were investigated in this research; thus, further research might study different types of classroom interaction patterns in the learning process. Jiang and Zhang () also suggested that future studies can conduct discursive or thematic analysis of group dialogues to determine the differences in interaction types.

Context and technology

The majority of 25 studies were carried out in the tertiary L2 context (16 out of 25), while only nine of them were aimed at K-12 students, including six studies conducted at the secondary level and three at the primary school level. As for the language, the majority of studies were carried out among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or English as a Second Language (ESL) students (22 out of 25), with 20 in the EFL context and two in the ESL context. For example, an empirical study by Sato et al. () investigated whether mobile CW could positively affect students' learning autonomy. The results showed that the mobile learning group demonstrated a significant difference regarding the psychological dimension of learner autonomy and higher motivation. In addition, there were only three research involving other languages, including two in Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) and one in French as a Foreign Language (FFL). For example, Eubanks et al. () studied CFL students' writing based on the Bookcreator App. They showed a significant increase among experiment group students' Chinese writing ability, engagement, and motivation. As for the grouping in the previous studies, the majority (21 out of 25) were conducted on students in small groups, while only four studies concentrated on CW between pairs.

Researchers utilized various learning platforms to conduct CW. 12 studies were on social media platforms, such as WhatsApp, WeChat, Edmodo, and Telegram. For example, Jiang and Zhang () showed that the unfamiliar learners who received explicit socializing tasks using the social network WeChat before learning activities had better learning outcomes and more interactions during the writing process (Jiang & Zhang, ). A pilot study conducted by Awada () indicated that WhatsApp was very efficient in improving writing proficiency and increasing the learning motivation of 52 Lebanese undergraduates. Several studies (6 out of 25) also examined MBCW using Google Docs and four of the articles were done on self-developed writing platforms. For instance, by creating a self-developed App EzVision, Nguyen et al. () showed that storytelling has a better effect on students' writing than describing an activity.

Theoretical/pedagogical framework

The research on MBCW has been significantly influenced by sociocultural theory/social constructive theory/socio-cognitive theory because CW is viewed as a collaborative activity in which students engage in interactions, meaning negotiation and mutual scaffolding to enhance their learning and writing skills. The sociocultural constructs underpinning MBCW include (1) (collective) scaffolding, (2) activity theory, and (3) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). For example, Botero et al. () drew on Donato's () collective scaffolding and analyzed how the CW experience influenced students' writing participation and performance in a French writing class.

In addition to the perspectives mentioned above, researchers also incorporated various other theories to inform the research design in relation to MBCW, including process writing theory, task-based learning, autonomous learning, and self-regulated learning. These diverse theoretical/pedagogical frameworks contributed to shaping the methodology and direction of MBCW. Specifically, based on Littlewood's () autonomous learning concepts, Fattah () investigated how students performed and demonstrated autonomous learning in the WhatsApp writing platform. Shadiev et al. () got inspiration from a task-based approach and designed a new writing platform for junior high school students to engage in language learning in authentic mobile learning environments.

Writing tasks and instrument

Following the sociocultural theory, MBCW tasks draw on students' collective efforts within small groups or pairs. The majority of the studies (21 out of 25) focused on CW in small groups, with 3-5 members in each group; a few studies (4 out of 25) reported CW within pairs (Aghajani & Adloo, ; Chen et al., ; Eubanks et al., ; Imelda et al., ). Related to pedagogical frameworks, the writing tasks employed in these prior studies included (1) conventional writing genres (e.g., narrative/descriptive writing, exposition, and argumentation) (Hoang & Hoang, ; Sato et al., ); (2) topic-specific genres (e.g., critique writing and procedure texts) (Awada, ; Imelda et al., ); and (3) real-life genre writings (e.g., letter writing and travel plan) (Allagui, ; Eubanks et al., ).

The primary sources of data were the pre- and post-writing tests (19 out of 25), in which the online writings were collected and scored to assess the influence of MBCW on students' learning and L2 writing (Aghajani & Adloo, ; Awada, ; Hoang & Hoang, ). In addition, other data sources such as questionnaires (Awada, ; Eubanks et al., ), interviews (Ebadi & Bashir, ; Kayaoğlu & Çetinkaya, ), and self-reports/perception reflection logs (Botero et al., ; Kessler, ) were gathered to investigate students' perspectives on the group interactions and technological affordances in the MALL-based learning process.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This research presents various aspects of the existing body of literature on MBCW, including EFL/ESL, CFL, and FFL at tertiary, secondary, and primary school levels. Based on the research results mentioned above, several conclusions and recommendations for MBCW are shown as follows:

• (1)

  This study found that most studies analyzed the writing products or outcomes of students' CW. Due to its mobility, MALL is distinctively different from CALL or traditional language learning (Kukulska-Hulme, ) in the sense that the former emphasizes learners instead of teachers and is more personal and self-directed. To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of learning, more research should be focused on the effect of personal belief factors in MALL (e.g., self-regulation and self-efficacy) on their learning and the relationship between the students' learning behavior (feedback, correction, and revision) in MALL and the learning outcomes. Students' perceptions during CW are also a frequently investigated area, with most research showing students' mixed or negative feelings toward MBCW. Therefore, despite the immense convenience that mobile technology brings to CW, it is also essential to be mindful of its problems, such as time management, technical problems, and loss of concentration in learning. In light of the above, to better facilitate future MBCW, future research needs to take concrete measures such as ensuring reliable technology access and offering technical support to learners, promoting a distraction-free environment, and implementing clear time management strategies during writing.

• (2)

  In terms of research context, most research has primarily focused on English learning as a foreign language, with limited attention given to learning other languages as a second or foreign language, and there is a significant scarcity of research concerning teaching one's native language. Another notable pattern noticed in this study is its heavy focus on adult learners in universities, with very limited attention given to K-12 learners. Therefore, these patterns indeed highlight the necessity for increasing attention to learners of other languages and learners in K-12 settings. Additionally, regarding the research tool, a large part of previous research is on social-communicative tools, such as WhatsApp, Twitter, WeChat, Edmodo, and Telegram. Because these social network platforms are not naturally designed for writing practices, they have inherent limitations, such as loss of concentration in learning, limited writing functions, etc. (Burston, ). Future research should be conducted on various writing Apps (e.g., Shimo Docs and Google Docs) that combine functions such as simultaneous editing, adding, deleting, communicating, and sharing to promote students' writing performance (Shadiev et al., ). It is meaningful for the researchers to design a CW App that can satisfy learners' needs.

• (3)

  Regarding the theoretical frameworks, the majority of the research favors the sociocultural theory, which includes concepts such as the ZPD and (collective) scaffolding. In contrast to research on face-to-face CW, a relatively small portion of MBCW research is based on the interactionist approach. One potential explanation for this is that CW tasks in MALL emphasize content development instead of language forms, and it is challenging to capture learners' attention to language forms in the MALL-based context. Furthermore, the process writing approach implemented in a few research is associated with the affordances of mobile devices, allowing for multiple rounds of revision and scaffolding. In addition, theoretical frameworks originally from other disciplines (e.g., self-regulated learning, autonomous learning, and metacognition theory) are found to shed light on enhancing work on MBCW.

• (4)

  Furthermore, in contrast to face-to-face CW tasks, which were often carried out in pairs within classroom contexts (Lai & Lei, ; Li, ), MBCW more commonly took place outside the classrooms and involved smaller groups of participants. This trend is linked to the capability of technology to facilitate collaborative work among multiple learners outside the class context synchronously or asynchronously using a wide range of tools. As for the research methods, to preserve the naturalness of teaching and learning settings, more researchers in recent years have adopted a mixed-method approach to better investigate, inspect, describe, and explain mobile CW activities.

This literature review has also yielded valuable insights into L2 pedagogy and offered important implications for future research. In the following section, the author discusses the pedagogical recommendations, implications for future research, and limitations based on the 25 articles reviewed.

Pedagogical recommendations

Based on the comprehensive analysis of previous empirical studies addressing the writing products/outcomes, students' perceptions, and writing/interactive processes, the author provides practical recommendations for conducting the MBCW in L2 contexts. In the task design stage, the instructor should carefully design theoretically grounded and motivating writing tasks closely related to the course learning goals. In addition, before the students embark on their CW tasks, the instructor needs to pay special attention to grouping strategies and adequate student training in CW. After completing the CW tasks, post-task assessment must be appropriately and effectively utilized to evaluate students' CW products/outcomes. The author discusses these recommendations in detail from the following four aspects.

Writing tasks

The writing tasks are considered a crucial aspect of MBCW; researchers (Donato, ; Li & Kim, ) asserting that the task nature, instead of the technology itself, significantly influences learners' interaction and collaboration Storch () also posits that instructors need to adopt writing tasks that do not lead to a “division of labor” (p. 158), thereby encouraging students to collaborate rather than cooperate. Instructors are encouraged to introduce authentic group tasks to promote students' motivation and enhance group members' active participation. This can be illustrated by the research of Imelda et al. (), in which Indonesian EFL students worked collaboratively on food-technology procedure writing to enhance learners' knowledge in real-life writing genres. In the digital age, teachers can utilize mobile technologies to innovate their writing pedagogy by combining multimodal composition with traditional writing tasks, leveraging the benefits of technology while maintaining the essential elements of traditional writing practices. As in Lin et al. (), tertiary EFL students wrote together via an augmented-reality ubiquitous writing application. Such tasks nurtured students' multimodal and digital literacy abilities, enhanced students' audience awareness, and fostered their communicative skills. In addition, other chatting applications, such as Skype or Zoom, might be integrated with mobile writing applications to maximize students' interaction and collaboration.

Group division

When grouping students in MBCW, it is crucial to limit the group size because larger groups tend to have a weaker sense of writing co-ownership, resulting in the presence of one or more "social loafers" or "free riders" in CW (Li, ; Storch, ). By contrast, pair work allows for greater individual accountability and encourages individual contribution (Su et al., ). Therefore, some scholars (Abrams, ; Li & Zhu, ; Storch, ) suggested small groups of three or four students instead of pairs, as more students can better pool their linguistic and writing resources with higher efficiency. However, grouping students into specific group sizes does not necessarily lead to successful collaboration. For example, Aufa and Storch () found that small groups of three exhibited various patterns of interaction, with some being collaborative (expert/novice and collective) and some non-collaborative (facilitative/passive). In order to foster better collaboration among group members, previous studies (Kessler, ; Li & Zhu, ) have suggested that grouping students with different language proficiency levels would contribute to students' scaffolding opportunities and facilitate group interaction. It is also essential for instructors to consider forming groups consisting of students from different L1/cultural backgrounds. However, the instructor needs to assist students in cultivating a positive attitude toward students with different cultural backgrounds and address the potential issue of students' feelings of loneliness among group members during group tasks.

Participant training

A well-organized training process is crucial, including training on the specific mobile technology for CW and CW strategies. In Google Docs-based CW, for instance, instructors can conduct an orientation or a trial-writing task to demonstrate multiple Google Docs functions (i.e., Discussion, Comment, and History) to students prior to the actual collaborative tasks. The instructor should also explain the key elements of CW, emphasizing concepts such as co-ownership and collective accountability to make students aware that co-ownership of writing does not simply involve combining texts contributed by each member but entails collaborative efforts of mutual task direction, individual writing contribution, and collective revision efforts throughout the process (Storch, ).

Writing assessment

Assessment is another crucial aspect that requires significant consideration when conducting MBCW. Because of the transparency of technology, teachers can easily monitor every student's writing behaviors, iterative CW processes, and the ultimate writing product. Although some researchers in this study only evaluated students' final scores on the written work, as suggested by Storch (), to stimulate students' active participation throughout the writing project, assessment criteria should also consider rewarding both the writing process and writing product, namely the co-constructed written text and the quality/quantity of individual contributions. Furthermore, it would be beneficial for group members if they could self-assess and cross-assess their own and other group members' peer interactions at various writing stages to encourage continuous monitoring and evaluation of the CW process for more effective interaction and collaboration.

Implications

In a nutshell, despite the numerous benefits of CW mentioned in previous research and the increasing prevalence of mobile devices today, MBCW is still understudied. With the growing popularity of mobile technologies, research on MBCW is believed to grow in the coming decade. CW via mobile devices will gain increasing attention from researchers in broader learning contexts. According to this review, the majority of the existing research has been conducted on tertiary students, while there are few studies on the MBCW of secondary or primary school (K-12) students. Considering the fact that secondary students have distinctive perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and learning habits, as Kessler () put it, future researchers may wish to investigate users' writing experience with MALL apps using a more diverse participant pool. Therefore, there is a need for further investigations to extend the existing research to K-12 students to shed light on their learning behaviors and provide guidance to younger EFL students' CW supported by MALL. Apart from the three foreign language learning contexts (i.e., EFL, CFL, and FFL), researchers need to expand their investigations to include other major foreign languages such as Spanish and German. Expanding MBCW to more diverse contexts will help us understand how mobile devices can afford CW and language development.

Previous research in this field mainly focused on writing products and students' perceptions of the writing process, with research data heavily relying on questionnaires and pre- and post-task writing tests. Moreover, the current body of literature seems to be dominated by mixed-method studies while leaving a gap for quantitative and qualitative studies. However, due to its mobility, MALL is distinctively different from CALL or traditional language learning (Kukulska-Hulme, ) because the former emphasizes learners instead of teachers and is more personal and self-directed. Therefore, more research should focus on students' writing/interaction process, including students' text co-construction and task-negotiating behaviors during CW (Storch, ; Ziegler, ). Quantitative studies with large sample sizes and qualitative studies with a detailed explorative focus on students' learning behaviors will be the emerging trend to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of learning and gain a complete picture of MBCW behaviors.

Furthermore, regarding the research tool, a large body of previous research was conducted via social-communicative tools, such as WhatsApp, Twitter, WeChat, Edmodo, and Telegram. Because these social network platforms are not naturally designed for writing practices, they have inherent limitations, such as loss of concentration in learning, limited writing functions (Burston, ), etc. Future research should be conducted on various writing Apps (e.g., ShiMo Docs and Google Docs) that combine functions such as simultaneous editing, adding, deleting, communicating, and sharing together to promote students' writing performance (Shadiev et al., ). It is also suitable for the researchers to compare the effectiveness and affordances of various technologies (e.g., Google Docs, Tencent Docs, and a combination with Chats like WeChat) for CW tasks.

In view of the fact that ample studies have noted the potential and effectiveness of CW, such as better writing performance, motivation, enjoyment, learning attitudes, and lowering writing anxiety (Teng, ; Zhang & Chen, ; Ziegler, ), comprehensive research is needed to understand the collaborative effort throughout the MBCW. Undoubtedly, future research will bring fresh insights into how mobile technologies can significantly transform their roles in L2 teaching and learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by the State Scholarship Fund of China Scholarship Council (NO: 202208250018).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Appendix

APPENDIX

A1.

Research coding scheme.

TABLE

	Context/technology	Theoretical framework	Writing task/group size	Data instruments	Research themes
1. Allagui ()	50 EFL students, tertiary level, Oman WhatsApp	Not specified	Invitation letters, Pairs	Pre- and post-task writing tests Questionnaires Quantitative	Writing products, Students' perceptions
2. Zou and Li ()	73 CFL students, primary school, Hong Kong, China Google Docs	Socio constructive theory, Active learning theory, Social view of writing process theory	Narrative writing Group	Interviews, pre- and post-task writing Mix-methods	Writing products, Students' perceptions
3. Fattah ()	30 EFL students, tertiary level, Saudi Arabia, WhatsApp	Autonomous learning	Essay writing Group	Pre- and post-tests Quantitative	Writing products
4. Andujar ()	80 EFL students, tertiary level, Spain WhatsApp	Sociocultural theory (ZPD)	Argumentative essays, Small groups	Pre-test and post-test Chat records mix-methods	Interaction process Writing products
5. Awada ()	52 EFL students, tertiary level, USA WhatsApp	Activity theory, community sharing	Critique writing Small group	Writing tests, perception reflection logs, questionnaires, Mix-methods	Writing products, Students' perceptions
6. Shadiev et al. ()	26 EFL students, junior high school, Hong Kong, China Self-developed technology	Task-based approach	Descriptive writing, Small groups	Pre- and post-task writing tests, interviews,Open-ended questionnaires,Mix-methods	Writing products, Students' perceptions
7. Chen et al. ()	6 EFL students, primary school, USA Plenultimate	Sociocultural theory	Narrative writing Pairs	Interviews, questionnaires, pre- and post-essays, informal observations Mix-methods	Writing process Writing products
8. Aghajani and Adloo ()	70 EFL students, tertiary level, Iran Telegram	Not specified	ESP course writing Pair	Pre- and post-task tests, questionnaires, interviews, mix-methods	Writing products Students' perceptions
9. Chang and Lu ()	80 EFL students, secondary students, China Schematic mind	Process writing theory	Descriptive writing, Small groups	Pre- and post-task writing tests Questionnaires Quantitative	Writing products Students' perception
10. Eubanks et al. ()	24 Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) students, elementary students, Colorado Bookcreator App	Task-based approach	Letter, Pairs	Pre-survey and post-survey, participant observation, audio-visual materials Mix-methods	Writing products, Students' perceptions
11. Kayaoğlu and Çetinkaya ()	26 EFL students, tertiary level, Turkey Google Docs	Autonomous learning	Narrative writing, Small groups	Open-ended questionnaires, a focus group interview Qualitative	Students' perceptions
12. Yusuf et al. ()	23 EFL students, secondary school, Indonesia Edmodo	Not specified	Narrative writing Small groups	Pre- and post-task writing tests, open-ended questionnaires, mix-methods	Writing products, Students' perceptions
13. Botero et al. ()	52 French L2 learning, tertiary level, Columbia Duolingo	Sociocultural theory (scaffolding) Socio-cognitive theory	Argumentative essays Small groups	Pre- and post-task writing tests, questionnaires, self-reports Mix-methods	Writing products Students' perceptions
14. Imelda et al. ()	61 EFL students, vocational high school, Indonesia Google Docs	Process writing theory	Procedure text Pairs	Pre- and post-task writing tests Questionnaires Quantitative	Writing products
15. Farahani et al. ()	112 ESL students, tertiary level, Canada Telegram	Sociocultural theory (ZPD) Self-regulated learning	Argumentative essays Small groups	Pre-test and post-test Quantitative	Writing products
16. Jiang and Zhang ()	60 EFL students, tertiary level, China WeChat	Social presence theory	Argumentative writing, Small groups	Pre- and post-task writing tests, questionnaires, chatting records Mix-methods	Interaction process Writing products
17. Lin et al. ()	17 EFL students, tertiary level, Taiwan, China Self-developed tech	Hayes' () writing model	Essay writing Group	Pre- and post-tests, Interviews Mix-methods	Writing products, Students' perceptions
18. Nguyen et al. ()	46 EFL students, tertiary level, Taiwan, China Ezvision	Process writing approach	Narrative writing Group	Pre- and post-task tests Quantitative	Writing products
19. Sato et al. ()	94 EFL students, tertiary level, Japan Quizlet	Process writing theory	Argumentative essays Small groups	Pre- and post-task writing tests Questionnaires Quantitative	Writing products, students' perceptions
20. Ebadi and Bashir ()	30 EFL students, secondary school, Iran Google Docs	Sociocultural theory (ZPD)	Descriptive, opinion essay, small groups	Pre-tests and post-tests, interviews Mix methods	Writing products, students' perceptions
21. Kessler ()	6 ESL students, tertiary level, USA Duolingo	Metacognition theory	Argumentative essays, Small groups	Writing products, Reflection papers, Video reflection Mix-methods	Students‘ perceptions
22. Shadiev et al. ()	50 EFL students, tertiary level, China Self-developed technology	Sociocultural theory, Cultural schema theory	Descriptive writing, Small groups	Pre- and post-task writing tests, interviews, questionnaires, Mix-methods	Writing products, Students perceptions
23. Hoang and Hoang ()	24 EFL students, secondary school, Vietnam Google Docs	Sociocultural theory	Argumentative writing, small groups	Pre-tests and post-tests, interviews Mix-methods	Writing products, students’ perceptions
24. Syarifudin and Husnawadi ()	106 EFL students, tertiary level, Indonesia Google Docs	Not specified	Descriptive, narrative, and expository essays Small groups	A close-ended questionnaire, and phone-interview and open-ended questionnaire Mix-methods	Students' perceptions
25. Zhang et al. ()	336 EFL students, tertiary level, China WeChat	Socially regulated learning theory	Argumentative writing, small groups	Questionnaires Quantitative	Students' perceptions

References

Abrams (2019). Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 22–42.

Aghajani, M., & Adloo, M. (2018). The effect of online cooperative learning on students' writing skills and attitudes through telegram application. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 433–448. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11330a]

Zou, & Li, X. L. (2014). Enhancing primary school students' story writing by mobile‐assisted collaborative learning: A case study. In M. Ma, A. Yuen, J. Park, W. Lau, & L. Deng (Eds.), New media, knowledge practices and multiliteracies. Springer.