Running Head: IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION

Research Proposal: Improving Student Collaboration Using Google Docs

Quentin Flokstra 50567072

ETEC 500, Section 65E The University of British Columbia

Dr. Janet McCracken April 11, 2013

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM .........................................................................................3 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................4 Benefits to using Digital Collaborative Tools .......................................................5 Research in Secondary Education .........................................................................8 Social Factors ........................................................................................................10 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................12 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................13

Research Method ...................................................................................................13 Participants .............................................................................................................14 Procedure and Instruments .....................................................................................15 Schedule of Events .................................................................................................16

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................17 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................20 APPENDICES A. STUDENT SURVEY 1 ..............................................................................................22 B. STUDENT SURVEY 2 ..............................................................................................23 C. CODING SCHEME ...................................................................................................24 D. OBSERVATION CHECKLIST ...............................................................................25 E. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ......................................................................................26

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 2 Research Proposal:

Improving Student Collaboration Using Google Docs Meaningful collaboration is a key ingredient for success in all facets of life.

Indeed, society itself is an example of how the collective is more intelligent than the most

intelligent in the collective (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2008, p.66). Thus, a

learning environment which fosters collaboration will allow the best ideas to emerge.

This will expand the space of possible ideas and create conditions for the emergence of

the not yet imagined (Davis et al, 2008, p.172).

Web 2.0 technologies can facilitate this lofty goal for collaboration by allowing

students to communicate across time and space. Teachers need to understand that the

learning environment extends beyond their classroom walls and that the digital

collaboration tools that are readily available ought to be used. On the other hand, they

must keep in mind that the use of these digital collaboration tools does not in and of itself

guarantee collaboration (Vallance, Towndrow, & Wiz, 2010). Thus, meaningful

collaborative assignments must be designed to maximize the use of the technological

tools that are available.

Indeed, there are several online collaborative tools that can be used to facilitate

effective collaboration. Two popular tools include wikis and Google Docs (GD).

However, there seems to be significantly more research discussing the use of wikis

compared to GD in academic settings (Chu & Kennedy, 2010). Although GD is free,

accessible, and has been available since 2006, more research is needed to assess its

effectiveness in promoting collaboration (Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen, 2011).

Moreover, much of the research regarding the use of digital collaboration is focused on

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 3 post-secondary students. While those research results do have value for secondary

settings, we should remember that current secondary students are digital natives and have

grown up with wikis in various forms and have likely encountered GD. Thus,

researching whether these familiar tools can facilitate meaningful collaboration and

promote engagement with their projects is a worthwhile endeavour.

This research proposal seeks to fill a void in the research literature regarding the

use of GD, and, more specifically, the benefits of using GD to promote effective and

engaging collaboration in secondary classrooms. This proposal outlines the specificity

of the intended research, examines the pertinent literature, outlines the proposed research

methodology including a schedule of activities, and discusses the significance and

possible implications of this research.

Statement of Problem

Given the increased use of Web 2.0 technologies and an increased awareness of

the need to utilize collaborative learning strategies, the merits of using GD in secondary

classrooms as a means to facilitate and enhance collaboration ought to be more

thoroughly investigated than it has been.

In order to effectively investigate this issue, a proper understanding of

collaboration is needed. Collaboration is not simply two or more people working

together nor is it simply a teaching technique. Panitz (2005) argues that it is a philosophy

of interaction in which there is a sharing of authority and acceptance of responsibility

among group members for the groups actions. Within a classroom then, collaborative

learning can be seen as a social interaction that involves a community of learners where

the members share experience of knowledge (Liaw, Chen, & Huang, 2008). Because the

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 4 group members rely on each other, a meaningful collaborative environment is one in

which the differences in knowledge, skills, and attitudes are overcome because there is

social and intellectual interaction (Chu & Kennedy, 2010). Specifically, these

interactions will include: giving ideas and feedback, writing and revising, researching,

raising questions for one another regarding content and style, peer editing, and

encouraging one another (Kittle & Hicks, 2009, p.527). Essentially, collaboration is

typified by two or more participants engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship to

meet pre-defined goals (Vallance et al., 2010, p.21).

The success of collaborative learning activities depends on the constant

generation, transfer, and understanding of knowledge (Liaw et al., 2008). Given that

todays secondary students are true digital natives, there is a need to understand what role

online collaborative technologies can do to enhance meaningful collaboration. The

purpose of this study is to investigate how Google Docs encourages and enhances student

collaboration and engagement with their work.

Some of the key questions that this research seeks to answer are as follows:

a. To what extent does Google Docs foster meaningful collaboration?

b. What are the benefits to using Google Docs in secondary classrooms?

c. To what extent are students engaged in their projects when using Google

Docs?

Literature Review

As previously noted, much of the literature regarding the use of digital

collaboration tools is focused on the use of wikis within post-secondary institutions,

though there are a few studies which do examine the use of GD. Moreover, given the

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 5 relative newness of both wikis and GD, many of these studies cover small convenience

samples. Despite these limitations, there are valuable insights that emerge from the

research that suggests that digital collaboration tools can enhance meaningful

collaboration in secondary classrooms.

This literature review will examine the research that deals with the benefits of

using digital collaborative tools, collaboration in secondary education, and the social

factors that affect online collaboration.

Benefits to Using Digital Collaborative Tools

Prior to investigating the benefits of digital collaboration, a look at the extent to

which it is better than face-to-face collaboration is warranted. Tutty and Klein (2008)

conducted such a study of 120 pre-service teachers using a quasi-experimental post-test

only control group design.

The study consisted of a pretest on computer ability in order to determine student

ability for the groups. A posttest measuring the knowledge and skills of the particular

assignment was given in the week following the assignment. Additionally, a survey

consisting of both Likert-type items and open-ended questions was given to the

participants and interviews were conducted with members from each of the groups.

Finally, the projects were assessed with an author-devised rubric to assess content,

accuracy, and format of the project.

This was a robust study including trained observers who collected and categorized

student interactions during the project. The log files for the groups involved in the digital

project were collected and categorized for the same behaviours as the face-to-face

participants.

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 6 The results were quite interesting. Lower ability students who were grouped with

higher ability students in a face-to-face collaborative group did better on the knowledge

test than those in the digital group. Generally speaking, the face-to-face groups did

better on the knowledge test then the virtual groups. However, higher ability students

grouped with lower ability students in a digital environment did better on the knowledge

test than their counterparts in the face-to-face groups. Moreover, the virtual groups, no

matter the composition, did better overall on the group project.

In their discussion of the findings, Tutty and Klein noted that the virtual groups

asked more questions of each other but the face-to-face groups found it easier to share

information. Moreover, it was noted that the face-to-face groups were prone to working

individually and not collaboratively. Overall, they note that the nature of the task may

determine which of the collaborative methods should be used. They suggest that open-

ended, inquiry based tasks would work well in virtual collaborative environments

whereas factual tasks would benefit from face-to-face interactions.

This study does indicate the benefits of digital collaboration but there is one

aspect regarding the virtual group that must be mentioned. The researchers insisted that

the participants in the virtual groups communicate solely by the online chat functions.

This seems unrealistic and inauthentic. While digital collaboration can happen

synchronously and asynchronously, there is no need for students to solely use a digital

chat when they are in the same room. Overall, this study does provide a solid rationale

for collaboration and the benefits for digital tools in educational settings.

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 7 Vallance et al (2010) and Kittle and Hicks (2009) outline further potential benefits

to using online collaborative tools while providing some helpful tips and cautionary

statements.

Kittle and Hicks contend that digital collaborative technologies can make the

collaborative process more streamlined, transparent, and ultimately more collaborative

than non-digital methods (2009, p. 528-529). They provide a number of activities which

they have found, through various case studies, to be useful in writing instruction,

particularly collaborative writing. Moreover, they share some of the key advantages to

using GD, namely: shared authorship, ability to work on the same document at the same

time, ability to see changes in real time, and the fact that the document is regularly saved

(Kittle & Hicks, 2009, p. 529). Thus, there a significant benefits to using GD in classes.

Kittle and Hicks provide novice GD users some excellent tips. However, without

the actual data regarding their suggested activities, it is up to the individual instructor to

assess the value of the writing activities. Likewise, it is up to each instructor to take their

suggestions to avoid problems at face value, as the researchers did not provide the basis

for their tips. This does not necessarily discount the suggestions, but it does mean that

further research employing their suggestions will require some faith they have had

success with their own strategies.

Similarly, Vallance et al, also provide some helpful suggestions to ensure

successful online document collaboration. Based on a case study of 16 pre-service

teachers1 they suggest some key approaches to help aid successful collaboration.

1 This case study by Stewart Martin and Michael Vallance was not considered for this review as it was beyond the scope of the specific topic and covered the use of a now defunct online system. The implications of the study are more pertinent for this proposal. The Martin & Vallance study can be found in Computers & Education Volume 51, Issue 1, pages 34-53.

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 8 One of the key suggestions is a reminder that a collaborative tool does not

necessitate collaboration. Therefore, a sound pedagogy is still needed. They suggest that

instructors use specific activities that support epistemic fluency. Moreover, these tasks

should promote learner explanations, predictions, arguments, and critiques (Vallance et

al, 2010, p. 21). Another suggested approach is to use a task-specific learning activity.

Although their study covers a small sample size, these general suggestions can be helpful

when designing a collaborative task for research participants.

Research in Secondary Education

There are studies that do discuss collaboration in secondary classes. Dale (1994)

conducted a study of one ninth-grade classroom to evaluate a variety of factors that

contributed to meaningful collaboration with a specific focus on the way in which group

members interacted with one another. Her study focused on three of eight original

writing groups which she labeled as being model, typical, and problem (Dale,

1994, p.336). The groups were labeled in terms of their ability to coauthor after being

observed for a few weeks. This weakened her study as there seemed to be preconceived

conclusions drawn out of the transcripts of each groups conversations. Moreover, given

how her study was structured, it would have been beneficial to study all eight groups to

make more robust conclusions about the nature of collaboration in a secondary

classroom.

Dale audiotaped all eight groups, but transcribed and coded the coauthoring

protocols for only the three specific groups. She also collected a Likert-type

questionnaire from the entire class regarding the collaborative writing experience. She

also interviewed 22 of the 24 students. So, although Dale could have spent a bit more

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 9 time transcribing and coding for all eight groups, but chose not to, she did have some data

from all the students that participated. However, the conclusions she drew could have

been more thorough and covered a broader range of possibilities from within her sample

group.

The most significant conclusion that Dale drew from her study was that

collaborative writing has the potential to foster engagement in writing and learning albeit

within the right circumstances. The students found that having a topic which caused

conflict lead to more meaningful interactions. Moreover, the most effective writing took

place within a positive social environment with students being engaged with each other,

the topic, and the process. These seem to be mostly obvious conclusions, but Dales

work does shed light on key aspects regarding social factors of group dynamics.

Successful collaboration depends on social factors and Dale found that it was important

to ensure that collaboration operated within the paradigm of a conversation, with each

comment building off the one previous. Moreover, Dale provides a useful manner to

code the interactions that took place within the group. This coding scheme, which covers

the writing process, procedural suggestions, affective elements, and miscellaneous, is

useful for any researcher interested in effectively understanding the interactions that

occur in collaborative groups.

Gros (2001) also looked at collaboration within secondary schools, albeit on a

more general level. Gros, like Dale, looked at group dynamics but did not offer any

conclusions regarding group formation. Overall, his study emphasized that there is a

great need to understand how computers can enhance effective collaborative learning.

Interestingly, Gros study found that that collaboration promoted higher achievement on

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 10 technology assisted learning tasks when social skills were emphasized. Coupled with

Dales study, this study indicate that there is a great need to understand social interactions

that take place within collaborative learning whether technology is used or not.

Social Factors

A focus on such social factors was key focus in the work done by Koh and Lim

(2012). Their field experiment, chosen for lending itself to an authentic learning

environment, examined 235 students enrolled in an undergraduate introductory computer

class. The focus of their study was on the interplay between design and human

characteristics. Specifically they were interested in sociability and visibility. Sociability

... refers to the extent that technology facilitates the emergence of sound social space in

which healthy social relationships among group members are formed ... Visibility

concerns different modes of access for group workspaces (Koh & Lim, 2012, p.481).

Their experiment utilized two online collaborative applications for high and low

sociability. Both applications allowed for private or public visibility and groups were

randomly assigned to their workspaces. The researchers conducted a pre-test and post-

test questionnaire. Moreover, three outside experts in the subject material also evaluated

the academic performance on the assigned task.

Koh and Lim found that students who used the highly sociable application were

more satisfied with the learning process and their end product. However, the results also

indicated that students were committed to working towards a group solution with

whatever application they were using. Yet, the application with a higher sociability

rating promoted more interactions among learners. Interestingly, sociability did not

affect academic performance, leading Koh and Lim to conclude that online collaboration

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 11 may not necessarily provide a greater understanding of learning material but may

enhance collaboration and IT skills.

Liaw et al (2008) came to different conclusions then Koh and Lim (2012)

regarding online collaboration and individual performance. Similar to Koh and Lim, they

were interested in how students perceived their online collaborative experiences. Liaw

et al used a questionnaire after the use of an online collaborative system. Their study of

178 students yielded positive reactions to the use of online collaborative tools. A key

finding from the survey was that learners believed that web-based collaborative learning

was timesaving and efficient for sharing knowledge. Liaw et al were willing to stretch

these findings to conclude that learning with peers not only improves individual

performance but also enhances team performance. However, since they do not have any

qualitative data to back such claims, there is a need to research which the links between

web-based collaborative tools and improved academic performance. Koh & Lim were

unable to make a conclusive claim utilizing their qualitative data, so the conclusions

drawn from Liaw et al seem to be overstated.

Chu and Kennedy (2010) also conducted a study of 22 undergraduate students

who utilized wikis and GD to create a group project in order to evaluate the perceived

benefits of using wikis and GD and to compare the perceptions between these two

platforms.

The students filled in a questionnaire and participated in a follow-up interview

following the final project. The final sample included only 14 students. Thus, the data is

quite limited and the conclusions that Chu and Kennedy make cannot be generalized.

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 12 However, given the limited amount of research into the use of GD, any data is worth

examining.

Overall, the data indicated that there were benefits in using both the wiki and GD.

Generally speaking, the students scored both platforms quite similarly in terms of ease of

use and user-friendly layouts. GD did score higher on user-friendly features and students

appreciated the more private nature of GD compared to wikis. Overall, the students

reported that GD was less complicated to use due to their familiarity with other word

suite programs.

This study does raise awareness for the need for more research into the use and

benefits of digital collaboration tools. The researchers themselves note that further

studies should aim to include more objective indicators in assessing the effectiveness of

GD as a collaborative tool (Chu & Kennedy, 2010, p. 593). This research does contribute

to the body of literature that shows that students are generally positive about the use of

digital collaboration tools. Thus, if students do find the tools useful, there is merit in

exploring the benefits and usefulness beyond their perceptions.

Conclusions from Literature Review

The literature review of the benefits of digital collaboration tools indicates that

students perceive the general benefits of collaboration in general as well as the specific

benefits in using digital collaborative tools. Moreover, many of the studies are focused

on post-secondary institutions utilizing small sample sizes. There is a great need for a

more robust study and studies which examine the use of digital collaborative tools in

secondary settings. Moreover, there is a real need to quantify the benefits of digital

collaboration. Finally, while some of the studies have examined GD, certainly a great

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 13 need exists for further study into the use of GD particularly as GD continues to gain

prominence in education.

Research Methodology

Research Method

Given that this research is seeking to fill a void within this area of research, an

initial case study of Grade 11 and 12 students at an independent school in the Fraser

Valley, British Columbia will be the focus of a comparative study. The study will make

use of both quantitative and qualitative methods. The comparative aspect of the study

will have students complete similar projects utilizing first Microsoft Word then using

Google Docs. The rationale behind using these platforms is that the students are quite

familiar with using both and thus time will not be needed to explain the function of these

tools.

The qualitative data will include Likert-type surveys after the use of each platform

(See Appendix A & B for these surveys). After both projects are completed, a random

sample from the two classes will be asked to participate in a follow-up interview.

The quantitative data will consist of transcribing and coding audio-recorded

conversations of the groups utilizing an adapted version used by Dale (1994) in her study

(See Appendix C). In addition, any chat logs from GD will also be accessed and coded in

a similar manner. This part of the study will take a significant amount of time once the

projects are complete. Finally, a checklist (See Appendix D) has been developed to

assess collaborative behaviours.

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 14 Participants

The participants for this study will be Grade 11 and 12 students from an

independent school located in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. Given that this is a

case study to determine whether further, more robust research should be conduct at the

secondary level, my current students will be the participants. There are currently 22

students in both of these grades. These numbers are similar for next school year as well.

The study will utilize projects that will be done in their respective English classes which I

currently teach.

Given that the current administration of this school is highly supportive of

teachers pursuing graduate studies and the fact that there is one current research

endeavour happening at this time and one research endeavour which just concluded, I am

confident of gaining the necessary administrative permission to conduct this case study.

I am aware that I will need to obtain parental/guardian consent as this study goes

beyond the scope of just informing my own practice. Moreover, the students will need to

be aware, and comfortable with, being audio-recorded during this study. However, since

the study will involve utilizing familiar tools and will not add more work to the students

lives, I do not anticipate any difficulties in gaining permission. Finally, prior to any

research being shared or published, I will take care to utilize pseudonyms when

describing the students.

I am aware that using non-random purposive sampling may cause bias but believe

these groups are still representative of other learners in their age category. Moreover, as

this is a case study, these results may encourage a larger scale study.

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 15 Procedure and Instruments

The class will be randomly assigned into groups of 4 (with two groups having 5

people). These groups will form the basis of their groups for the comparative study. The

first study will have each group write a collaborative analysis of a poem using Microsoft

Word. The second study will have students write a collaborative analysis of a short story

using GD. Some review will be done on how to write an analysis. Students will have

written an individual analysis prior to writing a collaborative one.

The students will complete two analyses, one using Microsoft Word and one

using Google Docs. These analyses are part of the regular English curriculum at this

school.

During the writing of the analyses, students will be audio-recorded using an iPad

which will allow for a (hopefully) speedy transcribing process if the recording and

dictation software works at an optimal level. Once the transcription is complete, the

conversations will be coded. Using the work by Dale (1994), the coding scheme will

identify: elements of the writing process, procedural suggestions, affective elements, and

miscellaneous categories (p.337). Furthermore, six specific tag codes will show the

relationship of ideas. Moreover, the revision history logs in GD will be accessed at the

completion of the activities. These logs will also be coded and tagged.

During the writing of the analyses, students will also be observed and evaluated

based on a checklist which will indicate the presence or absence of desired collaborative

behaviours.

After each analysis is completed, students will do a Likert-type questionnaire

regarding their experience in collaborative writing. The questionnaires will focus on the

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 16 students perceptions of the collaborative effort and their own engagement in the process.

Finally, a random selection of four participants from each grade will be asked to

participate in a follow-up interview.

Schedule of Events

Phase Tasks Tentative Dates

Initial obtain consent from administration confirm enrolment for English 11 &

12 finalize assignment specifics for

projects to be used in study ensure computer availability through

school computer booking system

August 26-30, 2013

Phase I Background and Familiarity with Systems

regular curriculum instruction ensure students complete one analysis

of a poem or short story on their own assignments given using both

Microsoft Word and Google Docs; ensure familiarity and answer any questions regarding function

September 2013

Phase II.A Data and Observations Part I

students assigned to groups collaborative writing of analysis using

Microsoft Word audio recordings of each group observations of each group Student survey

Early October 2013

Phase II.B Continued Data and Observations Part II

Audio recordings of Phase II.A coded and tagged

Collaborative writing of analysis using GD

Audio recordings of each group Observations of each group Student Survey

Late October 2013

Phase III Reflection

Student Interviews Early November 2013

Phase IV Data Analysis

Audio recordings of Phase II.B coded and tagged

Collate survey results for compare and contrast picture

Tag and code revision histories of GD Quantify audio data as per variables of

November 2013-January 2014

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 17 conversational turns, tag codes, and cognitive conflict

ANOVA to determine if scores are significantly different

Analysis or group work rubric Phenomenological analysis of

interviews Triangulation of data

Phase V Final Report

Write final report including charts with data, challenges, conclusions, and recommendations for further research

January 2014-

March 2014

Discussion

The coded transcripts and GD revision histories should provide some rich insights

into the nature of the interactions and extent to which collaboration took place within

each group. Of particular interest will be the ability to view how the groups

collaboratively wrote in GD. The revision history will allow us to see who wrote, edited,

revised, any part of the document at any time. Moreover, any chat logs or comments

made on the document are also preserved. Figure 1 indicates a sample document revision

history.

Figure 1

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 18 The comparison then between the coded data and the observed data will then shed

insights as to the validity of the rubric. Moreover, the students perceptions from the

surveys and interviews can then be correlated to the data. Based on the previous

research, we are likely to find that students will be generally positive about the process.

However, by being able to quantify the actual work that was completed, we will be better

equipped to evaluate the extent to which each group worked on the particular assignment

and the conversations that aided (or prevented) the collaborative process. That is to say,

the analysis of the data should indicate whether the students collaborated or merely felt

that they collaborated (or vice versa).

By comparing not only students perceptions, as has been done in numerous

studies, this quasi QUAL-QUAN study will provide a more robust schema for evaluating

the benefits of digital collaborative tools, particularly GD. By comparing the

collaborative process to utilizing a single platform such as Microsoft Word and

comparing nearly identical data, we will be able to ascertain the collaborative value of

GD. Moreover, this study can contribute to the growing body of literature which

examines the general benefits of collaboration.

If this study indicates a positive correlation between the use of GD and

collaboration, a larger scale experimental study can be conducted using a larger sample

size. Moreover, any issues discovered within this study can be further refined. Overall,

the shift to digital collaboration is slowly taking place and this research can aid in

providing a sound pedagogical reason for educators to consider the benefits in using a

tool such as GD in their teaching. Thus, the move to creating meaningful and beneficial

collaborative learning environments can be realized on a larger scale and aid these

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 19 students to enter society with an understanding of how to collaborate effectively while

using emerging technological tools.

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 20 References

Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0

technologies: Education students' perceptions. Journal of Information Technology

Education: Innovations in Practice, 10, 73-103. Retrieved from EBSCO database.

(Accession No. 60635508)

Chu, S. K-W. & Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups to

co-construct knowledge. Online Information Review, 35(4), 581-597.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521111161945

Dale, H. (1994). Collaborative writing interactions in one ninth-grade classroom. The

Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 334-344. Retrieved from JSTOR

database.

Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in

complex times (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gros, B. (2001). Instructional design for computer-supported collaborative learning in

primary and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 439-451.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00016-4

Judd, T., Kennedy, G., & Cropper, S. (2010). Using wikis for collaborative learning:

Assessing collaboration through contribution. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 26(3), 341-354. Retrieved from

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/judd.html

Kittle, P., & Hicks, T. (2009). Transforming the group paper with collaborative online

writing. Pedagogy, 9(3), 525-538. Retrieved from Project MUSE database.

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 21 Koh, E., & Lim, J. (2012). Using online collaboration applications for group assignments:

The interplay between design and human characteristics. Computers & Education,

59(2), 481-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.002.

Liaw, S.-S., Chen, G.-D., & Huang, H.-M. (2008). Users' attitudes toward web-based

collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Computers &

Education, 50(3), 950-961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.007

Panitz, T. (2005, July 25). A definition of collaborative vs. cooperative learning.

Retrieved March 18, 2013, from Deliberations website:

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-learning/panitz-

paper.cfm

Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of

online and face-to-face collaboration. Education Technology Research and

Development, 56(2), 101-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9050-9

Vallance, M., Towndrow, P. A., & Wiz, C. (2010). Conditions for successful online

document collaboration. Tech Trends, 54(1), 20-24.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0359-6

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 22 Appendix A

Student Survey 1 (After Using Microsoft Word)

Please circle the most appropriate number of each statement which corresponds most closely to your desired response.

Statement Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Id rather write with a group than alone. 1 2 3 4 5

I got the chance to express my views in the group. 1 2 3 4 5

My ideas got into the paper we wrote. 1 2 3 4 5

I got along with everyone in my group. 1 2 3 4 5

We spent more time planning than I do when I write alone.

1 2 3 4 5

We spent more time proofreading than I do when I write alone.

1 2 3 4 5

Each persons ideas in the group were valued. 1 2 3 4 5

Members of the group sometimes disagreed about what to say or how to say it.

1 2 3 4 5

Microsoft Word was easy to use 1 2 3 4 5

Word was user-friendly 1 2 3 4 5 Word was a suitable tool for collaborative writing 1 2 3 4 5

I would like to write collaboratively again. 1 2 3 4 5

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 23

Appendix B Student Survey 2 (After Using Google Docs)

Please circle the most appropriate number of each statement which corresponds

most closely to your desired response.

Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Id rather write with a group than alone. 1 2 3 4 5

I got the chance to express my views in the group. 1 2 3 4 5

My ideas got into the paper we wrote. 1 2 3 4 5

I got along with everyone in my group. 1 2 3 4 5

We spent more time planning than I do when I write alone.

1 2 3 4 5

We spent more time proofreading than I do when I write alone.

1 2 3 4 5

Each persons ideas in the group were valued. 1 2 3 4 5

Members of the group sometimes disagreed about what to say or how to say it.

1 2 3 4 5

Google Docs (GD) was easy to use 1 2 3 4 5

GD was user-friendly 1 2 3 4 5 GD was a suitable tool for collaborative writing 1 2 3 4 5

I would like to write collaboratively again. 1 2 3 4 5

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 24 Appendix C

Coding Scheme

Composing CR requesting text content CT literal suggesting of text CM mechanics Strategic Thinking About Process Task Representation STD difficulty STA audience STP purpose/stance STR requirement/content STG genre STW meta-writing talk Planning SPCG content-global SPCL content local SPSG structural-global SPSL structure - local SPR requesting ideas Revising SRCG content-global SRCL content local SRSG structural-global SRSL structure - local SRR requesting ideas Procedural Suggestions PT time management PS status of text PG group functioning Affective Elements AA personal association AP positive AN negative Miscellaneous RR rereading text OT off task U unclear INC incomplete SRT study-related talk O other Further Codes /A alternative idea /C asking for clarification /E Elaboration /EV Evaluation + positive

- negative ? uncertain

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 25 Appendix D

Observation Checklist Each of the following factors influences the collaborative process. For each item, a number will be circled that best reflects the observation of the group using the following scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 =Disagree; 3 = Neither Agree or Disagree; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree.

Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

The group has open and clear communication 1 2 3 4 5

Each member of the group is able to share his/her ideas

1 2 3 4 5

Each member of the group is encouraged to contribute to the writing of the paper

1 2 3 4 5

Each member of the group is encouraged to revise the paper

1 2 3 4 5

Group members encourage one another 1 2 3 4 5

Group members are able to ask questions of one another

1 2 3 4 5

Each persons ideas in the group were valued. 1 2 3 4 5

Members of the group sometimes disagreed about what to say or how to say it.

1 2 3 4 5

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION 26 Appendix E

Interview Questions

1. How do you like working with a group? Would you rather write in a group or alone? Explain.

2. Would you say that Microsoft Word is a suitable system for collaborative writing?

Why or why not? 3. Would you say that Google Docs is a suitable system for collaborative writing?

Why or why not? 4. Which system, if any, enhanced collaboration? 5. Which system was more user-friendly?