Running Head: USING WEB 2.

0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

Using Web 2.0, Collaborative Writing, and Document Sharing to Improve Writing Conventions: A Review of the Literature Adam Kampia University of Maryland University College

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

Abstract This paper highlights current literature on the effects of collaborative Web 2.0 and document sharing tools on student writing. Studies span nearly all grade levels, from K-12 to higher education. While the focus of using Web 2.0 tools in writing instruction is often on content and inspiration rather than mechanics, evidence exists that student writing can be improved grammatically through collaboration and publishing to a wider audience. Not all literature espouses the benefits of Web 2.0 publishing specifically regarding writing conventions. Some authors warn against the blurring of net slang and formal grammar. Nevertheless, the vast majority of work confirms the benefits of Web 2.0 tools in writing instruction when it comes to motivating and engaging student writers. Furthermore, no empirical evidence could be found to prove Web 2.0 authoring has a detrimental effect on budding student writers, while data does exist to confirm positive effects.

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

Introduction The explosion of cloud computing and Web 2.0 resources in recent years has provided educators with an entirely new toolbox for implementing learning activities and assessment. Language arts teachers, in particular, are seizing the power of document sharing resources like Google Apps for Education, collaborative platforms like wikis, and publishing tools such as blogs. A myriad of other Web 2.0 and collaborative tools lie in-between for teaching student writing in the 21st Century. Regardless of the chosen tool, the general idea is that students can become better writers when they 1) publish to a wider audience, 2) collaborate with peers, 3) have access to user-friendly vehicle for peer feedback. Writing instructors often adhere to Spandels six-trait model when teaching the writing process, which includes the traits of ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions (as cited in Grisham & Wolsey, 2005). Quite a bit of the literature on using Web 2.0 tools for formative assessment centers around the first three traits in an assumption that the primary goal is to help young writers organize content. This is particularly true in the younger grades. In a study of elementary student bloggers, McGrail and Davis (2011) found that as a result of blog writing, ...their writer voices developed distinctive features, becoming engaging and personal, filled with opinions, humor, expression, and playfulness. They point out that writing conventions were intentionally left out as criteria: It needs to be noted that the students writing was not perfect, for it included many spelling and grammatical errors typical of the early stages of writing development. The teachers and respondents to student writing in this research kept their comments on grammar, spelling, and style to the necessary minimum, keeping the focus on helping these bloggers communicate their ideas to their readers (p. 433).

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

This sentiment is echoed in another analysis of adolescent blogs in a nod to the unique nature of Web 2.0 communication. Adolescents like to present themselves through writing various topics and some confusing net language, which may seem nonsense or meaningless to many of us, but meaningful to the adolescents. Readers from other generations should bear an open mind when reading their articles (Eric Zhi-Feng, Chun-Hung, Feng-Yi, & Ping-Chuan, 2012, p. 76). Other studies, however, suggest that students are quite capable of switching language and literacy practices according to context (Jacobs, 2008, p. 208). The Jacobs case study of a student classified as a hardcore IM user states, When given time to write, Lisa demonstrated facility with not only the mechanics of writing but also with rhetorical structure, diction, tone, and voice (p. 207). It was with this idea in mind that current literature was combed for evidence that collaborative Web 2.0 tools can assist in the development of those latter three writing traits. After all, correct word choice, coherent sentences, and decipherable grammar and spelling conventions cannot be totally compartmentalized or separated from student writing assessment. They are essential elements in getting ones point across using the written word.

Publishing to a wider audience A common assertion among the literature about writing and use of the internet in general is that students will produce higher quality work when motivated by a wider audience. Penrod (2007) observed that, Writing suddenly had a purpose and meaning other than to please the teacher or earn a grade, when referring to student blogging (as cited in McGrail and Davis, 2011, p. 433). In a study of learning design and assessment, Armellini and Aiyegbayo (2010) suggest that e-tivities shift the learners focus from assessment outcome to true self-directed learning. If the benefit of completing an e-tivity is clear to the learner (in formative or

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

summative terms) and the tutor provides effective e-moderation, learners will respond and engage (p. 934). Even younger children seem to benefit from a peer audience, as evidenced by the findings of Boyle and Charles (2011). The introduction of a peer (Liz) enabled the redening of Janes role as a writer; in short she wrote with more enthusiasm (affective domain) and purpose (p. 16). Thus, the consensus is clear that the wider audience provided by Web 2.0 publishing can increase motivation and enthusiasm for writing. Yet can it help students become better writers in terms of mechanics and conventions? Boling et al. (2008) seem to think this occurred in a study of online collaborative literacy: Writing for an audience of their peers motivated both classes to extensively revise and edit. In contrast to pencil-and-paper writing activities, students enthusiastically reworked their ideas to help their virtual partners grasp the ideas they wanted to communicate (p. 505). Furthermore, some studies suggest that electronic media that is more public not only motivates students to take more care in their writing, but it gives students an opportunity to learn from each others mistakes and strengths. Moreover, it is just plain easier to proofread and edit ones work in an electronic format: (1) students writing responses through blogging constituted an enjoyable and different experience: students were able to learn how to appreciate others articles, give feedback and understand the editing process; (2) correcting or rewriting paragraphs on the blog was considered more convenient than on sheets of paper; (3) with word processing software, typing on the blog was found to be much faster, time-saving and more productive than writing by hand (Chen, Liu, Shih, Wu, and Yuan, 2011, p. E3).

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

One counterpoint to the theory that a wider WWW audience can motivate students to take more care in their writing is proposed in a paper on 21st Century writing instruction strategies. Vassalo (2012) worries that Web 2.0 is fundamentally transforming writing so that traditional conventions are deteriorating. Indeed, Web 2.0 has given the world an attitude that screams 'I don't need anyone's approval to write the way I see fit.' In turn, this attitude has fashioned new approaches to written expression (p. 118). However, Eric Zhi Feng et al. (2012) acknowledge this possibility, but use it to affirm the importance of a good writing instructor to help students be more conscientious writers as well as more ethical internet publishers. When teachers use blogs as an instructional or learning media, teachers should teach their students how to use this media, and how to use the information online appropriately (p. 77).

Peer Collaboration Web 2.0 technologies have certainly made collaboration and group work more accessible. No longer are students limited by time and place when completing collaborative writing projects. The benefits of collaborative learning projects in general have been widely studied, with positive results. Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, and Hansen (2011) use terms such as a community of practice and collective learning in a shared domain to describe the collaborative learning process. They go on to state that, understanding and experience are in constant interaction and mutually constitutive (p. 76). This suggests that in collaborative writing, all stages of the writing process are open to students mutually benefitting from each other. This would, of course, include the revision and editing phases where writing conventions are most scrutinized. Currently, one of the most popular collaborative writing tools is the wiki. A study on using wikis for collaborative writing in the 5th grade showed that the teamwork involved yielded

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

a number of benefits to student attitudes and quality of work. The students enjoyed using the wiki and commented how it helped them to work better as a team and write better, encouraged peer-to-peer interaction, and facilitated online group work (Woo, Chu, Ho, and Xuanxi, 2011, p. 52). An added benefit cited in the same study points to the technological affordances that help teachers in writing instruction: Wikis tracking system gives in-depth information about the types of edits the students are making and helps teachers assess their collaboration and the development of their group writing process, a task that may be difficult to monitor in traditional group work. This can help teachers decide on the kind of support to be given, and provide immediate feedback when necessary to scaffold the writers during the course of writing and not at the end when the product is finished (p. 53). The study also claims that the collaboration led to higher writing scores, which could indicate improvements in writing mechanics (p. 53). Of course, a wiki is not the only available method for Web 2.0 collaboration. The affordances of Google Apps for Education (GAFE), in particular Google Docs (now part of the Google Drive interface), are extremely popular among writing teachers. Denton (2012) cites the obstacles that cloud technologies like GAFE eliminate, such as logistical planning, frequent paper exchanges, and so forth. Denton attributes the shared editing capabilities, revision history, and comment features to a streamline process that eliminates the need to manage separate drafts (p. 38). It would stand to reason that by reducing the logistical challenges of collaborative writing, more attention can be paid to writing conventions, themselves.

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

Peer Feedback The use of peer feedback to improve and polish writing at the revision and editing stages goes hand-in-hand with the concept of peer collaboration. Therefore, it makes sense that if peer collaboration is enhanced by Web 2.0 and cloud technologies, then so would the ability to selfedit ones work. Grisham and Wolsey (2005) conducted a collaborative online study in which they allowed teams of eighth-graders, preservice teachers, and graduate teachers to create their own holistic scoring rubrics based on the six-trait writing model The teams then scored a collection of eighth grade writing samples, and the results showed striking similarities in the way the three groups judged writing. Although samples were assigned scores for slightly differing reasons by the three groups of participants, the scores remained amazingly homogenous (p. 323). This suggests that peer feedback can potentially be as valuable as instructor feedback in improving writing. The data from the Grisham and Wolsey study also suggests that students are more likely to learn to be better writers from peer feedback through peer evaluation: Data from our study suggest that writing instruction that incorporates meaningful evaluation of writing can support both developmental and struggling writers. Because the evaluation task stems from students own expertise with language and genre, the task was more authentic and engaging for them and provided the necessary and important scaffolding for their own writing. We propose that the use of evaluation provides students with a unique window on their own writing and the writing of others (p. 327). The implication here is not that instructor feedback is unnecessary, but rather that peer feedback can be an essential element in the growth of young writers. Cloud and Web 2.0 technologies can facilitate this sort of peer feedback. Davies, Pantzopoulos, & Gray (2011) looked at the peer feedback, revision, and editing process in wiki

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

writing. They concluded that assessment as learning was achieved through the online interaction between students. In other words, students identified areas of improvement in each others work, and through the give-and-take, were better equipped to improve their own writing through personal assessment (pp. 803-804). Again, it is worth noting that collaborative technologies make the peer feedback and editing processes easier and less cumbersome for young learners. In the 5th grade study by Chen et al. (2011), they concluded that, (6) all interviewed students agreed that peer feedback improved their writing; and (7) students could write and offer feedback freely thanks to the anonymity of the process (p. E3). This anonymity, or at least the ability to comment freely on a peers work in a way other than a potentially confrontational, face-to-face method, should not be overlooked. Writing teachers are experiencing similar successes with the use of cloud based Google Apps. With the use of Google Docs, it is expected that students not only can have stronger motivation to write collaboratively, but also that their higher-order thinking skills, such as evaluating and commenting on peers written work, can be enhanced (Using Google Docs, 2012, p.7). The Woo et al. (2011) study bolsters this perception that students are more likely to benefit from the unique feedback tools available through Web 2.0. Both the students and their teacher perceived the exchange of comments through a wiki platform as beneficial to their collaboration and construction of their group writing (p. 52).

Conclusion As usual in the field of instructional technology, it was difficult to find articles that directly address such a narrow topic as Web 2.0 tools to improve writing mechanics. No articles were discovered bearing titles like, Improving Grammar, Punctuation, and Sentence Structure

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

10

through the use of Google Docs, Blogger, and Wikispaces: An Empirical Study, or anything of such a Deus Ex Machina nature. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence among the broader research on collaborative writing and Web 2.0 teaching tools to support the idea that writing conventions can be improved through the affordances of these technologies. If the research suggests that student writing composition in terms of content, voice, and organization can be improved through online collaborative technologies, then it stands to reason that the more mundane writing conventions would follow. Students who have a solid grasp of what they are writing will have more time to focus on how they are writing. Moreover, if the prospect of a wider WWW audience motivates student creativity and self-expression, then students would most likely be motivated to take pride in said expression by producing clearer writing with fewer errors. With a little reading between the lines one can discover in current literature that this is indeed happening.

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

11

References Armellini, A., & Aiyegbayo, O. (2010). Learning design and assessment with e-tivities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 922-935. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2009.01013.x Boling, E., Castek, J., Zawlinski, L., Barton, K., & Nierlich, T. (2008). Collaborative literacy: blogs and internet projects. Reading Teacher , 6(61), 504-506. Retrieved October 5, 2012 from Education Research Complete database. Boyle, B., & Charles, M. (2011). the three hags and pocohontas: how collaboration develops early years writing skills. Literacy , 45(1), 10-18. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2011.00576.x Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies: education students' perceptions. Journal Of Information Technology Education , (10), IIP73-IIP103. Retrieved October 6, 2012 from Education Research Complete database. Chen, Y., Liu, E., Shih, R., Wu, C., & Yuan, S. (2011). Use of peer feedback to enhance elementary students' writing through blogging. British Journal Of Educational Technology , 42(1), E1-E4. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01139.x Davies, A., Pantzopoulos, K., & Gray, K. (2011). Emphasising assessment as learning by assessing wiki writing assignments collaboratively and publicly online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 27(5), 798-812. Retrieved October 6, 2012 from Education Research Complete database. Denton, D. (2012). Enhancing instruction through constructivism, cooperative learning, and cloud computing.. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning , 56(4), 34-41. doi:10.1007/s11528-012-0585-1 Eric Zhi-Feng, L., Chun-Hung, L., Feng-Yi, C., & Ping-Chuan, P. (2012). Cluster analysis of adolescent blogs. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology , 11(2), 69-79. Retrieved October 5, 2012 from Education Research Complete database. Grisham, D., & Wolsey, T. (2005). Improving writing: Comparing the responses of eighthgraders, preservice teachers and experienced teachers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(4), 315-330. doi:10.1080/10573560591002259. Jacobs, G. (2008). We learn what we do: developing a repertoire of writing practices in an instant messaging world. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 52(3), 203-211. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.3.3 McGrail, E., & Davis, A. (2011). The influence of classroom blogging on elementary student writing.. Journal Of Research In Childhood Education , 25(4), 415-437. doi:10.1080/02568543.2011.605205

USING WEB 2.0 TO IMPROVE WRITING CONVENTIONS

12

Using google docs to facilitate collaborative writing in an english language classroom practice. (2010). ESL-EJ , 14(3), 1-8. Retrieved October 6, 2012 from Education Research Complete database. Vassallo, P. (2012). Reflections on writing in the twenty-first century and GS strategies for teaching it. ETC: A Review Of General Semantics , 69(2), 115-122. Retrieved October 6, 2012 Education Research Complete database. Woo, M., Chu, S., Ho, A., & Xuanxi, L. (2011). Using a wiki to scaffold primary-school students' collaborative writing. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society , 14(1), 4354. Retrieved October 6, 2012 from Education Research Complete database.