Scaffolding Agency and Responsibility in Cloud-Based Collaborative Writing

2016 ◽  
pp. 230-241
Author(s):  
Kate Fedewa ◽  
Kathryn Houghton
Keyword(s):  
Writing Process ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Composition Classroom ◽  
Google Docs ◽  
Writing Courses ◽  
Academic Environments ◽  
Individual Agency ◽  
Composition Teachers ◽  
Shared Writing

Although most students regularly interact online for social reasons, many are uncomfortable collaborating for academic work, even work utilizing familiar cloud technology. Because collaborative writing in digital spaces is becoming commonplace in work and academic environments, composition teachers must help students to recognize their individual agency within group work and to develop strategies for a shared writing process. How can we scaffold online writing experiences so that our students' ability to collaborate emerges as a strategic and still-developing part of the learning process? In this chapter we discuss strategies for scaffolding a collaborative writing process using Google Docs in the composition classroom. We describe four sample activities appropriate for undergraduate writing courses: anonymous invention, group annotated bibliographies, group agendas and project plans, and peer review. We suggest best practices for developing individual agency and shared responsibility for group writing in the cloud.

Scaffolding Agency and Responsibility in Cloud-Based Collaborative Writing

2017 ◽  
pp. 508-519
Author(s):  
Kate Fedewa ◽  
Kathryn Houghton
Keyword(s):  
Writing Process ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Composition Classroom ◽  
Google Docs ◽  
Writing Courses ◽  
Academic Environments ◽  
Individual Agency ◽  
Composition Teachers ◽  
Shared Writing

Although most students regularly interact online for social reasons, many are uncomfortable collaborating for academic work, even work utilizing familiar cloud technology. Because collaborative writing in digital spaces is becoming commonplace in work and academic environments, composition teachers must help students to recognize their individual agency within group work and to develop strategies for a shared writing process. How can we scaffold online writing experiences so that our students' ability to collaborate emerges as a strategic and still-developing part of the learning process? In this chapter we discuss strategies for scaffolding a collaborative writing process using Google Docs in the composition classroom. We describe four sample activities appropriate for undergraduate writing courses: anonymous invention, group annotated bibliographies, group agendas and project plans, and peer review. We suggest best practices for developing individual agency and shared responsibility for group writing in the cloud.

scholarly journals COMPUTER-ASSISTED COLLABORATIVE WRITING AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GOOGLE DOCS AND WIKIS: A REVIEW PAPER

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-27
Author(s):  
Husam Masaoud Alwahoub ◽  
Mohd Nazri Latiff Azmi ◽  
Mohammad Halabieh
Keyword(s):  
Web 2.0 ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Recent Decade ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Google Docs ◽  
Teachers Perceptions ◽  
Promising Area ◽  
Future Research Directions

Computer-assisted collaborative writing has been gradually employed in L2 and FL contexts due to the introduction of Web 2.0 applications and tools (i.e., Google Docs and wikis) and its benefits in developing learners’ writing skills. Accordingly, extensive literature that dealt with computer-assisted collaborative learning and learners’ perceptions towards this activity has been condensed on shelves by time passing. Thus, a review of former studies over the recent decade is called forth aiming to ameliorate the difficulties of reaching this literature and to awaken broadened knowledge in this promising area. This paper reviewed and discussed about 40 relevant articles published from 2011 to 2019 that dealt with computer-assisted collaborative writing using Web 2.0 tools, precisely Google Docs and wikis, and learners’ perceptions towards this activity (computer-assisted collaborative writing) and tools. All the articles were selected according to specific criteria, where only a true collaborative writing peer-reviewed articles were selected. After that, two main themes were synthesized: (a) collaborative writing outcomes and (b) students’ perceptions, and specific research components in relation to each theme were further reviewed and summarized using illustrative tables. Drawing on the review of this literature, the researchers discuss pedagogical implications in terms of technology integration and writing development and address future research directions including systematically reviewing this topic with teachers’ perceptions of computer-assisted collaborative writing.

scholarly journals Online Collaborative Writing via Google Docs: Case Studies in the EFL Classroom

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 922-934
Author(s):  
Nakhon Kitjaroonchai ◽  
Suksan Suppasetseree
Keyword(s):  
Small Group ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Interaction Patterns ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Google Docs ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Language Functions ◽  
Factors Influencing

This article reported a case study investigating small group interaction patterns in online collaborative writing tasks and factors influencing team collaborations. Participants included six Asian EFL university students who formed two small groups and were engaged in two online collaborative writing tasks via Google Docs. Data collection included the participants’ use of writing change functions and language functions during the collaborative writing processes revealed through Google Docs archives and collaborative essays. Semi-structured interviews were employed to examine factors influencing small group collaborations. The findings revealed that the two teams exhibited divergent interaction patterns, but the patterns of interaction remained consistent within each group across both tasks. The qualitative content analysis showed factors that affected team collaborations were individual goals, learners’ English proficiency, individual roles, and the use of collaborative agency. The findings may help elucidate the divergence of online collaborative writing and provide insightful information for instructors to design collaborative writing activities and assist EFL learners in the co-construction of writing tasks.

The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taichi Yamashita
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Posttest Score ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
American University ◽  
Google Docs ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Description Task ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The present study investigated the relationship between one dyad member’s revision in response to written corrective feedback (CF) and the same person’s learning and the other dyad member’s learning during collaborative writing. Twenty-eight English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) students at an American university were paired up and collaborated on two animation description tasks in Google Docs while receiving the researcher’s written CF on their errors on the indefinite and definite articles. Learners worked individually on an animation description task one week prior to the written CF treatment (pretest), immediately after the treatment (posttest), and two weeks after (delayed posttest). When pretest score and CF frequency were controlled for, the number of one’s revisions was not related to the same person’s or the partner’s posttest score. However, the number of one’s revisions was significantly positively related to the same learner’s delayed posttest score, but not to the partner’s delayed posttest score.

Does Google Docs facilitate collaborative writing? A case from Indonesia

2021 ◽  
pp. 154-158
Author(s):  
Anis Handayani ◽  
Nur Arifah Drajati ◽  
Ema Wilianti Dewi ◽  
Niken Sri Noviandari
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Google Docs

scholarly journals 'You're in FunDzaland': Pre-service teachers (re)imagine audience on a creative writing course

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Mendelowitz
Keyword(s):  
Creative Writing ◽  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Peer Feedback ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Digital Revolution ◽  
Writing Courses ◽  
Self And Other ◽  
Writing Course ◽  
Group 2

This study explores how collaborative writing for a digital platform can enable students to (re) imagine audience. Although in the context of process writing peer feedback is foreground, in practice, its effectiveness is uneven. The digital revolution offers new opportunities for alternative peer feedback through collaborative writing and re-imagining self and other in the process. This study examines data from a creative writing course in which pre-service teachers wrote collaborative short stories for the FunDza digital site and individual reflective essays about the process. The study’s research questions are the following: (1) what were the affordances of this multilayered audience for engaging the students’ imaginations? (2) How did this process of (re)imagining audience impact on students’ conceptions of themselves as writers? The data set comprised 16 collaboratively authored stories (published on the site) and 34 individual reflective essays. Six of the latter were selected for detailed analysis. Hence, the data for this study encompass detailed analysis of two groups’ reflective essays on the process of writing their stories. These groups were selected because they exemplified contrasting collaborative, imaginative writing processes. Group 1 was familiar with the FunDza audience and context, while Group 2 struggled to imagine it. Thematic content analysis was used for analysis. Each essay was read first in relation to the entire data set, then in relation to the other reflections in the author’s group. The combination of gearing stories towards the FunDza audience and writing stories collaboratively created two sets of audiences that writers needed to hold in mind simultaneously. Analysis indicates that both audiences challenged students to make imaginative leaps into the minds of an unfamiliar audience, deepening their understanding of the writing process. It also highlights students’ mastery of writing discourses and increasing awareness of the choices authors make for specific audiences. Theoretically, this study theorises audience in relation to imagination. A number of concepts have emerged from this research that may enable a more fine-tuned analysis of the audience – imagination nexus. Structured freedom is an important thread that connects the central concepts of audience, imagination and collaboration, foregrounding the idea that imaginative freedom needs to be understood and worked with in nuanced ways. While freedom and imagination are closely related, the provision of free pedagogic spaces with specific constraints in creative writing courses can be extremely productive, as illustrated by the data analysed in this study.

scholarly journals A blended collaborative writing approach for Chinese L2 primary school students

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lung-Hsiang Wong ◽  
Wenli Chen ◽  
Ching-Sing Chai ◽  
Chee-Kuen Chin ◽  
Ping Gao
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Chinese Students ◽  
Learning Effects ◽  
Primary School Students ◽  
School Students ◽  
Essay Writing ◽  
Individual Essay ◽  
Chinese Writing

<span>This paper outlines an adaptable collaborative writing approach employing a wiki to address the typical weaknesses of young Singaporean Chinese students learning Chinese as second language (L2) in Chinese writing. These students' problems in writing include limited and incorrect use of vocabulary, English-style grammar, badly structured passages, and so on. The collaborative writing approach, V.S.P.O.W., can be characterised as a recursive, bottom-up writing process that requires the students to collaboratively carry out wiki-based "word/phrase pooling" (V), "sentence making" (S), "paragraph writing" (P), and "outlining" (O); and eventually individual essay writing (W). We analysed the potential learning effects of the writing process among Primary 4 (10-year-old) students - especially in addressing and leveraging students' individual differences. Through teacher and student-initiated customisation of the original V.S.P.O.W. process, we hope to improve the students' micro-skills for writing. The results of the pilot study show that the target students' micro-skills for writing were significantly improved, which could be attributed to emerging peer coaching practices among them.</span>

scholarly journals The troublesome guidance towards academic literacy.

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-64
Author(s):  
Marit Greek ◽  
Kari Mari Jonsmoen
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Literacy Skills ◽  
Academic Learning ◽  
Writing Courses ◽  
Writing Theory ◽  
Text Organization ◽  
Upper Secondary ◽  
Research Findings

According to research findings, students having graduated from upper secondary school, ought to be sufficiently prepared for meeting the demands of higher education, and for further developing their textual competences within the discipline specific contexts. Nevertheless, according to lecturers and librarians in higher education, students are still in need of guidance in their textual work. The question is what the students need and who are qualified for guiding the students. The overall goal is to promote a meaningful writing process, when assisting the students towards the planned academic learning outcome.  The article discusses «Writing courses» as a phenomenon, in light of writing theory and literacy research. According to international research findings, writing in higher education is part of a disciplinary discourse, and disciplinary literacy skills are essential for building textual competences within a specific disciplinary community. Thus the essential factors in guiding students in their writing process, are genre conventions, text organization and argumentation. However, the students also need guidance in searching relevant literature as well as dealing with sources in a correct manner. The article emphasizes the significance of textual knowledge when guiding the students in higher education. However, librarians and lecturers possess different knowledge, and are part of different disciplinary discourses. There is therefore a need for debating what guidance in writing is to be, and how lecturers and librarians can complement each other and together offer constructive and relevant guidance.     

scholarly journals INTEGRATING PROCESS-GENRE APPROACH WITH PROJECT IBUNKA TO IMPROVE STUDENTS� ENGLISH WRITING

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Elis Homsini Maolida ◽  
Vina Aini Salsabila
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Writing Project ◽  
Writing Improvement ◽  
English Writing ◽  
Independent Writing ◽  
Score Improvement ◽  
Integrating Process

This study goes into how an integration of process-genre approach and project ibunka improves students� English writing. Through Process-Genre approach, students put in writing essays by combining Process and Genre based writing. Meanwhile, Project Ibunka as an online collaborative writing project is deployed as a means of publishing the students� writing to be read and commented by other students from various cultures and countries. In the context of this study, Ibunka also provides sources used to explore the topic and as a writing model. This study is a classroom action research that involved 46 university students in two classes who learned to compose English essays in three learning cycles within twelve meetings. The integration of Process-Genre and Project Ibunka is implemented in four stages: introducing and exploring theme and topics of writing, modeling and determining genre, joint writing and independent writing. In joint and independent writing, the students go through several stages of writing process such as planning, drafting, writing, revising and editing. The result of essays scoring shows average score improvement in both classes from cycle 1 to cycle 2 and cycle 3. This students� writing improvement is also confirmed by students� positive responses revealed from observation, questionnaire and students interview.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document