在社會文化理論和有關第二語言合作活動實證研究的支持下，合作寫作被認爲有助於為二語學習者提供相互交流以共同構建知識的機會，因此也逐漸廣泛被應用于二語課程中。然而，分配兩個或更多學習者從事合作寫作任務並不一定能創造有利於二語學習的條件，其受互動模式所影響。迄今為止，關於二語合作寫作環境中互動對話的研究大多使用Storch（2001）的全局定性方法且圍繞中級和高級二語學習者，較少關注在合作寫作中低外語程度的學習者是如何在合作寫作中互動交流。在參與合作活動時，二語學習者們可以在專家和新手之間轉換，彼此的角色并非一成不變的。基於此，本文結合案例研究發與部分Zhang（2019）的定量研究方法，以10名來自台灣的低水平EFL學習者，探討他們在合作寫作任務中的二元互動，包括其互動模式，寫作討論焦點以及語言相關片段在互動與草稿上的結果。本研究首先將5對學習者的音頻轉錄文本分割成片段，接著把與任務相關的片段分別編碼為內容、組織、語言使用和任務管理，最後計算每對成員在各個方面產出的字數；同時，檢查同伴們語言相關片段在討論與文本上的結果。
本文研究結果如下：
1. 在參與合作寫作時，低英語程度學習者會根據寫作任務的不同方面，調整他們之間的互動模式。具體而言，僅有1對在與寫作相關的各個方面以合作互動關係展開，1對在寫作各個方面形成了主導/消極的互動關係。另外3 對均會根據談及的寫作任務方面，調整彼此間的互動關係。上述結果不僅支持了二語學習者在合作任務中可互換角色的觀點，同時也説明了從動態視角分析同伴在合作寫作中互動的必要性。
2. 在合作寫作任務中，整體而言低二語程度學習者最頻繁關注内容與語言方面，其次是任務管理與組織。寫作任務的要求、學習者的二語水平與寫作指導可能會影響他們對於任務管理和組織的關注。
3. 在合作寫作任務中，低二語程度學習者可以正確解決大部分（75.2%）討論的語言相關片段，從而從合作寫作中受益。另外，3對同伴在撰寫文本時，有意識或無意識地修改了經過討論的語言相關片段。
綜上所述，此研究以案例研究分析發和定量方法為框架，探討了低二語程度學習者在合作寫作中的互動對話，為瞭解低二語程度學習者如何開展互動提供了新的見解，並就此提出了相關教學建議。

Supported by sociocultural theory and empirical studies on collaborative activities in the second language (L2) contexts, collaborative writing (CW) is believed to provide L2 learners with opportunities to interact with each other to co-construct knowledge and thus has been increasingly popular in L2 classes. However, assigning two or more learners to work in CW tasks does not always create conditions conducive to L2 learning, which is mediated by pairs’ interaction patterns. Much research on pair dynamics in L2 writing settings to date has centered on intermediate and advanced L2 learners by using Storch's (2001) global qualitative method, while little is known about how low-proficiency L2 learners interact with each other. Given that L2 learners would shift their roles when talking about different aspects of writing, the current study employed a case study approach with the descriptive statistics of Zhang's (2019) quantitative method and focused on 10 low-proficiency EFL learners from Taiwan to explore their dyadic interactions in a CW task in terms of interaction patterns, pairs' focus, and the outcome and implementation of discussed language-related episodes (LREs) during the interaction and in the draft. Segmenting five pairs' audio transcripts into episodes, the study coded all task-related episodes as content, organization, language use, and task management and calculated the characters and words produced by each pair member in different aspects. The major results and findings can be summarized as followed:
1. These pairs shifted their roles when discussing different aspects of writing in a CW task. Specifically, one pair (pair 3) functioned in a collaborative interaction pattern in every aspect of writing, and one pair (pair 4) formed a dominant/passive interaction relationship during the whole process of writing. The other three pairs (pairs 1, 2, and 5) constantly adjusted their interaction relationships regarding different aspects of writing. This result supports the fluid nature of pairs' dynamic interactions and the view of the interchangeable role of L2 learners in collaborative tasks. Also, this study highlights the importance of treating peer collaboration as a dynamic construct and the necessity of exploring learners' interaction patterns from a micro-level perspective.
2. The content was the aspect that low-proficiency EFL learners pay most attention to and value most, followed by language use, task management, and organization. The requirements of the task, pairs' proficiency in English, and writing instruction might influence pairs' focus on task management and organization.
3. These low- proficiency EFL learners could resolve the majority of discussed LREs (75.2% of total LREs) and benefit from CW. Moreover, three out of five pairs (pairs 1, 3, and 4) consciously or unconsciously changed the outcome of LREs discussed when they composed the text.
In sum, combining a case study approach and the descriptive statistics from Zhang's (2019) study, this study further explored how low-proficiency EFL learners interacted with each other, supported the fluctuating nature of interaction patterns, and provided some pedagogical implications for applying CW in L2 courses.

Alegria la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91-116). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-008
Biria, R., & Jafari, S. (2013). The impact of collaborative writing on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 164-175. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.1.164-175
Chen, W. (2018). Patterns of pair interaction in communicative tasks: The transition process and effect on L2 teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 72(4), 425-434. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz013
Chen, W. (2019). An exploratory study on the role of L2 collaborative writing on learners' subsequent individually composed texts. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28, 563-573. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40299-019-00455-3
Chen, W., & Hapgood, S. (2021). Understanding knowledge, participation and learning in L2 collaborative writing: A metacognitive theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 256-281.
Cheng, Y. S. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 647-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb01903.x
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X
De Guerrero, M. C., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Ablex.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51-71.
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
Fernández Dobao, A. (2020). Exploring interaction between heritage and second language learners in the Spanish language classroom: Opportunities for collaborative dialogue and learning. In W. Suzuki, & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 91-110). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.04fer
Hanjani, A. M. (2016). Collaborative revision in L2 writing: Learners' reflections. ELT Journal, 70(3), 296-307.
Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 149-181. https://doi.org/10.5070/L422005141
Jalili, M. H., & Shahrokhi, M. (2017). The effect of collaborative writing on Iranian EFL learners' L2 writing anxiety and attitudes. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(2), 203-215.
Jebreil, N., Azizifar, A., Gowhary, H., & Jamalinesari, A. (2015). Study on writing anxiety among Iranian EFL students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(2), 68-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.2p.68
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114-130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00690.x.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183-199.
Lee, S. Y. (2005). Facilitating and inhibiting factors in English as a foreign language writing performance: A model testing with structural equation modeling. Language Learning, 55(2), 335-374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00306.x
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language teaching research, 8(1), 55-81.
Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882-904.
Li, M., & Zhang, M. (2021). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 1-19.
Manchón, R. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In M Manchón (Ed), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61-82). John Benjamins.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016). Thai EFL learners' interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 185-208). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.08mcd
Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 496-516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816641703
Niu, R., Jiang, L., & Deng, Y. (2018). Effect of proficiency pairing on L2 learners' language learning and scaffolding in collaborative writing. Asia-Pacific Edu Res, 27(3), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0377-2
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying Sociocultural Theory to an Analysis of Learner Discourse: Learner-Learner Collaborative Interaction in the Zone of Proximal Development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93-121.
Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of marketing education, 25(1), 37-45.
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2016). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 514-534. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168815584455
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Melbourne.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158. https://doi.org./10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074600
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 98-114). Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). Continuum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1027.
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Longman.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321-332.
Zhang, M. (2019). Towards a quantitative model of understanding the dynamics of collaboration in collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 16-30. https://doi.org/j.jslw.2019.04.001
Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100753