The Potentials of Three Writing Modalities in Development and Sustained Development of Grammatical and Lexical Accuracy of Writing Performance

This study investigated the development and sustained development of grammatical and lexical accuracy in three writing modalities of individual, collaborative and e-collaborative writing. To this end, 90 Iranian Intermediate EFL learners were selected according to the participants' scores on a writing pretest.. Participants were assigned into the research groups e on the basis of convenient sampling. The writing performances in three groups of individual, collaborative and e-collaborative writing performance were measured on pretest, posttest and delayed posttests. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that participants’ writing performance in individual writing F (5, 38) = 16.06, p = .000, partial η 2 = .679 representing a large effect size) and collaborative writing (F (5, 38) = 17.64, p = .000, partial η 2 = .699 representing a large effect size) were sustainably improved in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy. MANOVA results also indicated that participants writing performances in E-collaborative writing (F (5, 38) = 8.64, p = .000, partial η 2 = .532 representing a large effect size) were improved and the improvement was sustained with respect to grammatical accuracy but not lexical accuracy. The post hoc comparison indicated that that collaborative writing was the most effective mode of writing as far as grammatical and lexical accuracy were concerned. The results have signicant implications for teaching practitioners.


Introduction
The history of focus on accurate use of language goes back to the debate between non/ interventionist instruction (Ellis, Loewen, & Basturkmen, 2006) Proponents of interventionist (explicit) teaching advocate teachers' directing students' attention to formal aspects. A number of studies con rmed the positive role of explicit teaching on several aspect of language learning including ultimate language achievement (Rahimpour & Salimi, 2010), learning discourse techniques (Rahimpour & Mohamadi, 2012), grammatical accuracy (Andrews, 2007;Rajabi & Dezhkam, 2014) and writing ability (Salehi, 2016). The other camp takes the other extreme where learners' self-directed and exploratory learning through communicative use of language with no teacher interference helps noticing the mechanism of language. Research on noninterventionist instruction approved implicit teaching resulting in grammar learning (Marzban & Mokhberi, 2012), and writing accuracy (Salimi, Bonyadi, & Asghari, 2014). The debate was settled by taking the middle way through integration of focus on form into meaning based instructions (Lyster, 2015; VanPatten, Williams, Rott, & Overstreet, 2004). Among many learning activities for the marriage between form and meaning,, writing has received special attention. Writing is proved to have noticeable potential for language learning as it triggers attention to form-meaning relation (Byrnes & Manchón, 2014). There has been many studies on how learning to write is mediated by various linguistic factors ; for example, Macaro and Masterman (2006) studied how different forms of grammar instruction affect writing (Macaro & Masterman, 2006). Researchers were also intrigued by how cognitive factors mediate writing performance. For example how learner attention allocation, information processing, storage and retrieval and integration of new knowledge to previous one is mediated by artifact such as technology (Diezmann & Watters, 2002) and in turn affects accuracy (Spencer & Pillay, 2005) has long been locus of attention.
Equally important area of research is sociolinguistic perspective upon which collaborative writing (Chao & Lo, 2011;Shehadeh, 2011;Storch, 2005) was introduced Collaborative writing received good amount of attention in related research eld since it fosters re ective thinking and pools language knowledge (Elola & Oskoz, 2010). Collaborative writing is de ned a as writing activity in which learners negotiate with each other (Lin & Maarof, 2013) to nd the best way to construct and communicate their meaning (Challob, Bakar, & Latif, 2016). Recent interest in how computers can mediate the process of language learning led to the development of new terminology "collaborative e-writing"(Pardo-Ballester & Cabello, 2016).
Collaborative e-writing highlights the potential of online education platforms that allow student interaction. Many studies approved positive effect of online connectivity as it maximizes academic performance (Ebadi & Bashir, 2020;Zenouzagh, 2018). Studies also suggested a positive relation between e-collaboration and student engagement (Mahdiuon, Salimi, & Raeisy, 2019). Research also indicated online interaction entails prerequisite conditions for learning which are constructivist theory, scaffolding strategies, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, discovery learning, problem-based learning and active learning. (Salem, 2019). Corpus analysis of Turkish students' online writing performances a rmed the positive role of web based farze.ir application (Çakır & Özer). On the other hand research also alerted for cautious induction of technology in education. For example, Hou, Han, Wang, and Zhang (2020) examined the use of WeChat by university students. Their nding suggests that WeChat is perceived as a "double-edged sword" of learning with two-sided effects; 1) Students' engagement with WeChat on learning is at the upper-medium level, over which the motivation of WeChat usage, other than usage duration and login time, is found to have strong explanatory power. 2) The frequency of WeChat usage affects students' academic performance in a complicated way with selfcontrol playing a moderating role. Besides, several studies indicated that mere utilization of technology in education will not lead to outperformance of student in online platforms implying need for research that takes into account ecological validity of technology induced education (Mohamadi, 2018a(Mohamadi, , 2018bZenouzagh, 2019).
In addition to the inconsistencies in research reports with respect to online education, only very limited research has been undertaken to compare and contrast web-based and conventional writing performance. For example, Cequeña (2020) indicated both web-based writing and conventional writing led to a better writing performance. Engerer (2020) explores the feature of dynamicity (a composite of temporal and local properties) in research on collaborative digital writing (CDW) in academic writing assignments. The paper traces the ways in which current research typically approaches CDW and identi es the underlying elements of current and technological inquiry in this eld: components of text (the process and products of writing and learning communication), external variables, such as learning orientations and group composition, and an intermediate layer of time management that is related to organizing the assignment. The paper identi es the gap which overlooks the sequential dynamics of textual interaction, linearity, and "local" concept construction as in uential factors in collaborative digital writing assignments. This suggests exploring the comparative potential of modality of writing in in uencing writing performance.. Therefore, to ll such as a void, the present research aimed at investigating whether writing modalities help learners develop grammatical and lexical accuracy and if the development is sustained. Besides most of the studies on writing backed grammatical accuracy, therefore, novel to this study is inclusion of lexical accuracy along with grammatical one into the analysis. Besides, several studies indicted the interrelationship between lexical and grammatical accuracy For example, Johnson and Fey (2006) con rmed the effect of lexical aspects on imitation accuracy of English tense aspect morphology. Their study suggested that children' early morphology development is in uenced by lexical aspects at sentence level. Two important aspects of language development in rst language acquisition are lexical and grammatical development. It has been suggested that language development in children at the lexical and grammatical level is interrelated, and thus their lexical knowledge does not precede their grammatical knowledge in early language development (Dixon & Marchman, 2007). Therefore any consideration of grammatical accuracy in language development without considering lexical accuracy will lead to an incomplete picture of the phenomena (Zare, 2013). As a restatement of the objectives of the present research, it aims at investigating the comparative potential of three writing modalities of individual, collaborative and ecollaborative in in uencing writing quality in terms of not only grammatical accuracy but also lexical accuracy.

Individual, Collaborative Writing and E-collaborative Writing
Writing is proved to have noticeable potential for language learning as it triggers attention to formmeaning relation (Byrnes & Manchón, 2014). With the introduction of more learner centered approaches towards learning, new modality of writing emerged. Collaborative writing as an activity performed by several writers to nd the best possible way to communicate what they mean (Ismael, Bakar, & Latif, 2016) and solve the problem through negotiation of meaning through interaction, re ection on form, and collaboratively solve the language problems (Elola & Oskoz, 2010;Li & Kim, 2016). The interaction opportunities through collaborative writing bring society and individuals to a dialogic act (Thorne & Lantolf, 2006). Table 1 indicates and clari es the differences and similarities in individual, collaborative and e-collaborative writing (Felipeto, 2019;Mohamadi, 2018a;Mohammadi, 2017). Research has documented the positive role of collaborative writing in various aspects of language learning.
Collaborative writing positively improved the grammatical accuracy (Nassaji & Tian, 2010), quality of organization, content and vocabulary (Shehadeh, 2011), and writing gain scores (Aminloo, 2013) and language complexity (Lu, 2010). Common among them is the fact that collaborative writing was induced through interventionist in nature in which instruction is directed at special target feature. Table 1 Individual, collaborative and e-collaborative writing Individual writing One usually writes alone and in silence; Based on teacher driven classes and explicit rote learning; product based learning

Collaborative writing
Based on learner centered instruction; Experimental problem solving; places students dialoguing to build a single text through negotiation ; Two or more participants' joint production of text; both the writing coming forth from orality, as well as orality creating writing are observed; The procedure in collaboration is as follow: students choose their partners on the basis of their convenience; (2) they brainstorm about the topic which is chosen considering topic familiarity issue; (3) they research and gather information using any source; (4) they provide the outline and give it back to the teacher and the teachers provides pertinent comments; (5) they then plan and write the rst draft; (6) they check out the rst draft according to the check list provided by the teacher in advance; (7) each student had editing individually with different highlight colors so that when handed together they could track each other's ideas and provide justi cation for the required revisions; (8) they handed in their writing to the teacher and the teachers comment on language, content and organization; (9) students received the teachers' comments and revise the paper together ecollaborative writing The de nition for collaborative writing is true for e-collaborative writing with one difference that all pertained features occur in online modality

Grammatical Accuracy
The inquiry about the quality of writing in terms of accuracy is not new (Yang, Lu, & Weigle, 2015).
Collaborative writing lead to more uent writing measured in terms of total number of words, complexity measured in terms of t-units, and accuracy measured in terms of proportion of error free clauses of all clauses and the number of syntactical and morphological errors per words (Storch, 2005). The same measures of accuracy in collaborative and individual writing has indicated that more accurate language is produced in collaborative writing (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007;Taylor, Wigglesworth, Wigglesworth, & Storch, 2009). Collaborative writing also led to more attention to language related episodes in terms of choice of verb tense, gender agreement, preposition and in turn more accurate use of language in comparison with paired and individual writing (Dobao, 2012).

Lexical Accuracy
Attention to form has been equated with grammar whereas to create meaningful text, the effective knowledge of words and phrases is necessary (Nakamaru, 2010). Historically, the lexicon and its accuracy and complexity and how it fosters language acquisition has been less touched than grammar and measures of. Helping learners develop lexical knowledge is important since lexical errors impede communication (Crossley & McNamara, 2009).
Most research has considered lexical accuracy measures as the ratio of total number of lexical errors to total number words (Mazgutova & Kormos, 2015;Polio, 2001). Fritz and Ruegg (2013) distinguished two general types of errors that are attended by raters in their study. Word formation errors are of three types including formal misselection (su x type, pre x type, vowel-based type, and false friends) and misformation (borrowing L1 words, coinage which is inventing based on L1, and calque which is translation from L1) and distortion (omission, over inclusion, misselection, misordering, and blending).
Semantic errors are of four types including confusion of sense relation (general term for speci c one, overly speci c term, inappropriate co hyponyms and near synonyms), collocation errors (semantic word selection, statistically weighted preferences, arbitrary combination, preposition partners), connotation errors and stylistic errors (verbosity and under speci cation).
With the advancement of computer assisted language learning, new lines of arguments were proposed. There is plenty of research on how computers and technology boosted language learning from linguistic perspective; all reporting positive effect of computer assisted learning on language such as the effect of computers on learning grammar such as adverbial clauses, (Kılıçkaya, 2015) and tenses (Ghorbani & Marzban, 2013), b) vocabulary learning (Bagheri, Roohani, & Ansari, 2012; Barani, 2012). Electronic collaborative writing is coauthored writing for communicating what is meant and negotiate meaning but in online and virtual mode. There are plenty of studies on how computers have affected learning writing.
Wilson and Czik (2016) investigated the potential of Wiki writing and he con rmed it helped students to improve their writing quality and motivation and also helped teachers' to give accredited feedback.
Besides, wiki writing is proved to positively affect the accuracy but not the complexity (Adams, Alwi, & Newton, 2015). The study of electronic mail in EFL indicated that computer assisted writing improved learners lexical errors in comparison with traditional paper and pencil writing in which students attend grammatical accuracy more than lexical one (Gonzälez-Bueno & Pérez, 2000). Although aforementioned studies were both important and timely, they failed to provide a comprehensive picture since they explored each writing modality separately and weighted research on grammatical accuracy more than lexical accuracy.

The Present Study
Building on sociocultural research, the role of learner talk, negotiation of meaning and interaction in classroom is acknowledged to promote language learning (Twiner, Littleton, Co n, & Whitelock, 2014).
Interaction is maximized recently thanks to Technology mediated education. Information and communication technologies (ICT) have universally and profoundly affected today's society and education is not remained indifferent to this change (Almerich, Orellana, Suárez-Rodríguez, & Díaz-García, 2016). With exuberant technology use in society along with constructivist learning orientations, learning and teaching practices have been changed dramatically (Admiraal et al., 2017). Collaborative learning has risen from constructivism and socio-culturalism and involves social interactions between participants and psycho-social processes underlying collaboration can bring together psycholinguistic, interactional, social and ecological aspects of language learning together (Hsieh, 2017). Besides, recent interest in how computers can mediate the process of language learning led to the development of new terminology of "computer supported collaborative learning" (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006) and "ecollaborative learning" (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Raunio, Raami, Muukkonen, & Hakkarainen, 2001).
Despite the contribution these studies made to the eld, there is one thing not addressed which is the connecting potential computers have. There has been plenty of research advocating the need for providing social context and community in classrooms (Lowry, Curtis, & Lowry, 2004;Storch, 2013).
Mutual accountability, negotiation and shared leadership are prerequisites of sociolinguistic approaches towards language learning (Mayo & Ibarrola, 2015).
However, only very limited research has been undertaken to investigate potential of different modalities of writing. To the best of the researchers' knowledge, there is has been no research investigating individual, collaborative and e-collaborative writing modalities comparatively. Therefore, research is needed to investigate writing performance in terms of whether individual, collaborative and e-collaborative writing produce signi cantly different medium for production of accurate language under otherwise similar 3.1 Participants

Student participants.
From among 173 Iranian female and male BA students of EFL with common L1 (Farsi), 90 were invited to participate in three study groups of individual (N, 30), collaborative (N, 30), and e-collaborative (N, 30) writing. The research was conducted on students of the language center of the researcher's institution.
The participant selection was done according to participants' scores on a writing pretest and their assignment into the groups was done on the basis of convenient sampling. Convenient sampling is operationalized as how well the time table of the classes matches students' schedule and their tendency to participate in each group. It should be mentioned that for e-collaborative group, computer literacy was implemented as participant inclusion criterion through a 10 item questionnaire on how often, how well and what activities participants involve with using computers. The answers to the questionnaire determined which participants were assigned into e-collaborative group. Therefore, participant selection was based on random selection of participants on the basis of their scores on writing pretest. The students whose scores were one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected to participate in this study. The group assignment was based on convenient sampling. However, for ecollaborative group students access to computer was considered as a criterion for participant selection.

Teacher participants.
Three male and six female Iranian EFL teachers were paid to enroll in this study. There were EFL PhD candidates and university instructors at the researcher's institution. Two criteria were implemented for teacher participant selection: teaching experience of more than 5 years and teaching writing experience. The teachers 'assignment for the groups were done according to convenient sampling. They played role in two phases of the study. At the study phase they were acted as teachers doing their teaching practice and the analysis phase; they acted as raters rating grammatical and lexical accuracy according to the template given to them. In individual group, teachers introduced the topic, brainstorm it and gave analytic feedback to student writing. The teacher did the same in collaborative group. Students were assigned into 6 groups of ve students. They were debriefed about the group work and the responsibilities they had in each group. Each participant was responsible for managing the group work for one component of essay writing and they took turns for each component in such a way that all members of a group experienced monitoring all components including introduction, body paragraphs and conclusion.
The same collaboration's structure was implemented in e-collaborative group. Learners' collaborative writing was through www.e-writing forum.ir. The teachers managed the class the same way as with the collaborative group's teachers did but this time the teachers were the admin in the website.

Pretest, posttest and delayed posttests.
A pretest of essay writing was conducted at the onset of the research for two reasons. The rst is for selecting homogeneous participants in terms of their writing pro ciency and the second was to assure no statistically signi cant preexisting difference by conducting the homogeneity of variance tests on the results of pretest. After 10 sessions of treatment, an essay writing posttest was conducted to track any signi cant difference in accuracy of learner writing performance in each group. After two week time interval, a delayed posttest of essay writing was administered to track if the accuracy developed in each of the three modes of writing is sustained. There was no time limitation for each test. The essay writing format (task 2 of IELTS) and genres (Agree and disagreement) were instructed in the treatment phase of the study. The topic for all tests was the same. The inter-rater reliability among three raters across the groups at three measures of pretest, posttest and delayed posttest was conducted. Based on the interrater reliability analysis results, it can be claimed that there were signi cant agreement between the three raters who rated the participants' writing on pretest (α = .659, p = .000), posttest (α = .769, p = .000) and delayed posttest of English (α = .804, p = .000)

E-writing forum.
An e-writing forum was designed on http//e-writingforum.ir and launched on September 2016. Some of the features of this website are as follow: (1) Sharing with anyone meaning that no nished le is uploaded; (2) accept or reject changes meaning the possibility of tracking the changes and making control of what makes into the writing tasks and what does not; (3) in line comments which are provided through collaboration on speci c pieces of text; (4) Discussion tools by which participants could share ideas, review changes and gather feedback in one place. Students registered on the website and got an account. They were assigned into 6 groups of ve students and were supposed to run group work equally the same way as students did in collaborative group.

Grammatical and lexical complexity template.
A template for measuring grammatical and lexical accuracy was designed and implemented which included the types and tokens of grammatical and lexical accuracy. Since raters' sensitivity towards lexical and grammatical accuracy affects the accuracy of the coding procedure (Fritz & Ruegg, 2013), three teachers from three groups were instructed and briefed about how to use the template to code participant writing performances for accuracy. Grammatical accuracy was measured on a scale of the ratio of total number of error free clauses to total number of independent clauses plus subordinate clauses and lexical accuracy is measured on the scale of the ratio of total number of errors to the total number of words. Teachers were debriefed about different types of lexical and grammatical error and how to code the errors. Each error was treated as a test score indicative of the degree of inaccuracy.

Procedure
After participant selection, teachers were given instruction on how to hold the classes in terms of teacher roles and teacher feedback with respect to writing modality. A pretest of essay writing on the onset of the study for the purpose of group homogeneity assessment, a posttest of essay writing for the purpose of tracking changes in accuracy measures and a delayed posttest for investigating the sustained development in writing accuracy were conducted across three groups of writing modality. Teachers were debriefed on accuracy measure template and the inter rater reliability between three teachers who acted as raters of writing in three phases of the study was calculated to ensure consistency in measurement and hence the reliability of the decisions of the raters (information on the template and inter-rater reliability indices were provided in previous section. The following owchart shows the procedure in data collection.  As displayed in Table 3  Based on the results displayed in Table 4     As displayed in Table 6  Based on the results displayed in Table 7     As displayed in Table 9,  Based on the results displayed in Table 10    The MANOVA was run to compare the three groups' means on the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest of grammatical accuracy. Before discussing the results it should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variance and covariance matrices were met. As displayed in Table 11, the probabilities associated with the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest of grammatical accuracy were not signi cant (p > .05). The assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices; i.e. correlations between any two dependent variables should be roughly equal, was also met (Box's M = 7.36, p = .850) ( Table 12). Sig. .850 The results of the MANOVA (Table 12) indicated that a)There were not any signi cant differences between the three groups' means on the pretest of grammatical accuracy (F (2, 126) = 1.90, p = .153, partial η 2 = .029 representing a weak effect size). Thus, it can be claimed that they were homogenous in terms of their knowledge on grammatical accuracy prior to the main study, b) there were signi cant differences between the three groups' means on the posttest of grammatical accuracy (F (2, 126) = 3.13, p = .047, partial η 2 = .047 representing an almost moderate effect size), c)There were signi cant differences between the three groups' means on the delayed posttest of grammatical accuracy (F (2, 126) = 4.46, p = .013, partial η 2 = .066 representing a moderate effect size).  The results of the post-hoc comparison tests (Table 15)   The MANOVA was run to compare the three groups' means on the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest of lexical accuracy. Before discussing the results it should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variance and covariance matrices were met. As displayed in Table 16, the probabilities associated with the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest of lexical accuracy, were not signi cant (p > .05). The assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices; i.e. correlations between any two dependent variables should be roughly equal, was also met (Box's M = 12.48, p = .441) ( Table 16). Sig. .441 The results of the MANOVA (Table 17) Table 19 displays the means on the three groups on the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest of lexical accuracy. The results of the post-hoc comparison tests (Table 20)   , posttest and delayed posttest of lexcial accuracy by groups

Discussion
The results indicated that Individual and collaborative writing modality improved writing quality in term of grammatical and lexical accuracy and the improvement was sustained. E-collaborative writing modality resulted in sustained improvement in terms of grammatical accuracy but not lexical accuracy.
Collaborative writing was the most effective mode in improvement and sustained improvement of writing quality in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy.
The results of the study corroborate and contrast with results of a number studies. As with the study of Mazgutova and Kormos (2015) indicated, the present study con rms that collaborative and individual writing can help learners develop the repertoire of lexical and grammatical choices. Besides, the ndings of the present study are in line with the study of lexical issues in writing of international student by Nakamaru (2010) which supports that lexical accuracy are among many lexical issues students attend to in writing of different modes, genres and with different tutoring. The ndings also are consistent with those of the study by Sauro (2012). In contrast with the results of this study which con rmed the positive effect of all writing modality in language improvements in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy ( except for e-collaborative writing), the study by Folkesson and Swalander (2007) indicated that individual writing has not signi cantly affected language improvements.
Likewise, the results of the present study support studies in Education and Information Technology journal as far as collaborative digital writing was concerned. For example, (López-Pellisa, Rotger, & Rodríguez-Gallego, 2020)' study of the collaborative digital writing indicated that peer feedback in their platform was more constructive and effective that unidirectional corrections provided by the teacher.
Similarly, Davoli, Monari, and Eklundh (2009) indicated that group work tools in e-learning practices results in feedbacks in real life context and more attention to style and content of student writing. El Mhouti, Nasseh, Erradi, and Vasquèz (2017) indicated that collaborative e-learning primes real life processing if group work practices follow collaborative design development process in which content generated through that process will be less the product of single author and rather result of team work.Cequeña (2020)'study results also corroborate the results of the present study as both studies con rmed that e-collaborative writing causes better learning quality compared to conventional writing performances. Cequeña also suggested a correlatedself-perception with webbased reading and wriitng compared to conventional reading and writing. As far as computer assisted language learning is concerned, the results of this study are in line with those of Rahnavard and Mashhadi Heidar (2017).
Rahnavard and Mashhadi Heidar's (2017) study indicated that no signi cant evidence was found with respect to lexical and grammatical improvements. However, the present study con rms grammatical improvement due to assistance of computers in language learning. The results of this study also do not con rm the previous research on e-collaborative writing. As Choi (2008)

Conclusion
This study aimed at investigating the potential of three writing modalities of individual, collaborative and e-collaborative writing in fostering the development and sustained development of lexical and grammatical accuracy of EFL intermediate learners.
The results indicated that individual writing and collaborative writing improved and sustained grammatical and lexical accuracy. The results also indicated that E-collaborative writing improved and sustained grammatical accuracy but not lexical one.
The post hoc comparison indicated that that collaborative writing was the most effective mode of writing as far as grammatical and lexical accuracy is concerned.
This study contributes to the growing body of research on maximizing learning opportunities and establishes a platform for further research and beginning to ll existing niche in research on writing ability. The results suggest that teacher's collaboration with student work can help them better direct students and the self (Van Gasse, Vanlommel, Vanhoof, & Van Petegem, 2016). For students also, the results can help them engaged in continuous assessment of self and other learners, higher motivation and autonomy (Pinto-Llorente, Sánchez-Gómez, García-Peñalvo, & Casillas-Martín, 2016). The ndings also can help assessment practitioners to explore the methodological and functional options that collaborative learning may have for evaluation purposes (Strijbos & Sluijsmans, 2010). The results also imply that when it comes to technology, education policy makers need to revisit the role of technology.
High tech does not mean better learning at least in education ecology of Iran. Policy makers need to make principled decision about how to initiate changes and how to manage the consequence of changes. If electronic supported learning is advocated by research on education, rst the infrastructures should be provided if not that may create a digital divide among learners. Iran's haphazard distribution of broadband, connectivity and internet quality (Rabiee, Nazarian, & Gharibshaeyan, 2013) makes privileged few at the advantage of others. As the ndings of this study indicated, the technology induction does not mean better performance. Many inherent ethnographical aspects need to be revisited.
Despite the interesting ndings, this research has a number of limitations that should be followed by further research. The rst is qualitative analysis of student and teacher perspective on writing experience through portfolio or re ective writing. This might be worthy of inclusion and would lead to better understanding of students composing behaviors. The other limitation which calls for further research is that in this study had a linguistic features were taken into account whereas other aspects such as psycholinguistic factors such as satisfaction, motivation, self-e cacy and autonomy can help understand what other bene ts students can have out of writing in different writing modality such as.
Besides, the convenient based sampling assignment of students into groups might have affected the results. As Strijbos and Fischer (2007), mutual in uence of learning partners may affect the group work, group unity and group divergence and convergence. Therefore, further research can help understand how group dynamics can in uence writing performance with respect to writing modality. There is no funding for this research

Con icting interest:
There is no con icting interest