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

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

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

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

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

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

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 openended, 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

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

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

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 posttest 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
Initial

Tasks

Phase I
Background and
Familiarity with
Systems

Phase II.A
Data and
Observations Part I

Phase II.B
Continued
Data and
Observations Part
II

Phase III
Reflection
Phase IV
Data Analysis

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
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
students assigned to groups
collaborative writing of analysis using
Microsoft Word
audio recordings of each group
observations of each group
Student survey
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
Student Interviews
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

Tentative Dates
August 26-30,
2013

September 2013

Early October
2013

Late October 2013

Early November
2013
November 2013January 2014

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION

Phase V
Final Report

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
January 2014Write final report including charts
with data, challenges, conclusions, and
recommendations for further research 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

students to enter society with an understanding of how to collaborate effectively while
using emerging technological tools.

19

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/panitzpaper.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
Id rather write with a
group than alone.
I got the chance to express
my views in the group.
My ideas got into the
paper we wrote.
I got along with everyone
in my group.
We spent more time
planning than I do when I
write alone.
We spent more time
proofreading than I do
when I write alone.
Each persons ideas in the
group were valued.
Members of the group
sometimes disagreed
about what to say or how
to say it.
Microsoft Word was easy
to use
Word was user-friendly
Word was a suitable tool
for collaborative writing
I would like to write
collaboratively again.

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

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
Id rather write with a
group than alone.
I got the chance to express
my views in the group.
My ideas got into the
paper we wrote.
I got along with everyone
in my group.
We spent more time
planning than I do when I
write alone.
We spent more time
proofreading than I do
when I write alone.
Each persons ideas in the
group were valued.
Members of the group
sometimes disagreed
about what to say or how
to say it.
Google Docs (GD) was
easy to use
GD was user-friendly
GD was a suitable tool for
collaborative writing
I would like to write
collaboratively again.

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

IMPROVING STUDENT COLLABORATION

Appendix C
Coding Scheme
Composing
CR
CT
CM

requesting text content

literal suggesting of text
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

24

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
The group has open and
clear communication
Each member of the group
is able to share his/her
ideas
Each member of the group
is encouraged to
contribute to the writing of
the paper
Each member of the group
is encouraged to revise the
paper
Group members
encourage one another
Group members are able
to ask questions of one
another
Each persons ideas in the
group were valued.
Members of the group
sometimes disagreed
about what to say or how
to say it.

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

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?