Synchronous and Asynchronous

Collaborative Writing

Montserrat Castelló, Otto Kruse , Christian Rapp , and Mike Sharples

Abstract Collaborative writing has been greatly stimulated by digital technologies,

particularly by word processors that have made it easy for co-authors to exchange
and edit texts and also led to the development of many experimental tools for collab-
orative, synchronous writing. When the world wide web was established, the arrival
of wikis was hailed with great enthusiasm as an opportunity for joint knowledge
creation and publishing. Later, cloud-based computer systems provided another
powerful access to collaborative text production. The breakthrough for synchronous
collaborative writing was the release of Google Docs in 2006, a browser-based word
processor offering full rights to up to a hundred users for synchronous access to a
virtual writing space. Next to its easy accessibility, it was the free offer of Google
Docs that opened this new chapter of writing technology to a broader audience. When
Microsoft and Apple followed with their own online versions, collaborative writing
became an established standard of text production. In this chapter, we trace back what
collaboration through writing means and then look at the new opportunities and affor-
dances of collaborative writing software. Finally, we briefly recount the impact of
early technologies before we settle on the current generation of collaborative writing
tools.

Keywords Collaborative Writing · Synchronous Writing · Writing technology

M. Castelló (B)
Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: montserratcb@[Link]
O. Kruse
School of Applid Linguistics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]; xkso@[Link]
C. Rapp
School of Management and Law, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning, Zurich University
of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]
M. Sharples
The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]

© The Author(s) 2023 121

O. Kruse et al. (eds.), Digital Writing Technologies in Higher Education,
[Link]
122 M. Castelló et al.

1 Background

For centuries, scholars have collaborated through writing. Charles Darwin, for
example, was at the hub of an extensive network of intellectuals; his collected letters
fill seven volumes. However, despite some imaginative solutions to write collabora-
tively (via letter, fax, and later email), until the 1920s academic papers were generally
written by lone authors (Greene, 2007), and it was only in the 1990s, with the devel-
opment of networked computers, that international multi-author academic writing
became commonplace. Thus, the major developments in collaborative writing have
arisen in the past 30 years, and this certainly is a result of various innovations in
digital writing.
“Collaborative writing” is a term with many synonymous alternatives, as Lowry
et al. (2004) showed, such as coauthoring, collaborative authoring, collaborative
composing, collaborative editing, cooperative writing, group writing, group author-
ship, joint authoring, joint authorship, shared document collaboration, and team
writing. We follow Lowry et al.’s (2004) suggestion to use collaborative writing as the
generic term with the additional implication that today it is technologically supported
collaboration. Though we mostly refer to academic and professional writing, the
considerations we discuss throughout the chapter can also apply to other types of
collaborative writing (e.g., school writing or writing to learn).
Theoretical foundations for research into academic collaborative writing were
laid in the early 1990s, with papers on design of computer support for co-authoring
and collaboration (Neuwirth et al., 1990; Sharples et al., 1993), studies on how
people write together (Ede & Lunsford, 1990; Posner & Baecker, 1992), and an
edited book on Computer Supported Collaborative Writing (Sharples, 1993). Taken
together, these and later studies (see Olsen et al., 2017) highlight the variety and
complexity of collaborative academic writing which may refer to student assign-
ments, grant proposals, project reports, academic and scientific papers, and edited
books. Academic writers (students or researchers) may start from scratch, begin
with an outline, work from a prepared template, or merge and revise previous texts.
Contributors may add comments, links, and suggestions but also alter or delete
existing text. Participation may be balanced, or there may be a clear leader.
Some general principles and guidelines for collaborative digital writing have been
extracted from this heterogeneity. Sharples et al. (1993) identified three general
methods of coordinating collaborative writing: parallel, sequential and reciprocal
(Fig. 1).
Parallel coordination divides the task among the writers, who each write a different
part of the text according to skills or knowledge. An academic lead may then revise
these into a consistent work. This is the typical coordination for an edited book or
conference proceedings.
Sequential coordination is a production line. The first person in the line takes the
writing task to the initial stage of production. That person hands the part-completed
product on to the second person who works on it to the second stage and so on
down the line. Sequential working fits a “plan—draft—revise” approach to writing,
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 123

Fig. 1 Methods of coordinating collaborative writing (Sharples et al., 1993)

with the first person creating a plan, the second composing the first draft of the text,
the third revising or extending the text, and so on through as many revisions and
extensions as there are writers. With two or three authors, the draft can be handed
back and forward, or round in a circle.
In Reciprocal coordination all the partners work together on a shared document,
watching and mutually adjusting their activities to take account of each other’s
contributions. Reciprocal working can be used to compose or to revise. It can be
synchronous, with all the writers suggesting ideas and revisions while one or more
individuals type, or asynchronous with a shared computer file that everyone can
write to or amend. Synchronous tools usually make all writing and editing activities
of the participants visible to all others, and record them to be traced back. Web-based
storage of shared documents has now blurred the former clear distinction between
synchronous and asynchronous writing.
Some early collaborative writing tools imposed roles on contributors such as “co-
writer” and “commenter” (Leland et al., 1988; Posner & Baecker, 1992). Contem-
porary tools such as Google Docs or Office 365, however, leave it to the partici-
pants to negotiate roles. Leadership is another general principle for collaborative
writing. A participant can take over the lead and coordinate the writing activities (for
example, through exchange of emails or a shared calendar), allowing contributors to
add comments and suggestions, leaving formatting to a late stage so that authors can
set down thoughts without worrying about visual appearance, and keeping a clear
record of revisions so that credit can be given to contributors and changes can be
undone (Sharples, 1992).
While in individual writing, the working habits of a single person determine the
course of the writing process, in collaborative writing a collective writing process
has to be developed. Beck (1993) explored the experiences of collaborating writers,
with a focus on how they discuss content and structure of the document during
writing. She found that the writing teams she studied had a range of leadership
styles, fluctuations in membership, and a dynamic group process whereby tasks,
leadership and responsibilities were negotiated as the writing progressed.
Posner and Baecker (1992) suggested a taxonomy to explain joint writing
processes, which they derived from interview descriptions of project work. The
taxonomy combines four different categories, each providing a different perspective
124 M. Castelló et al.

of the joint writing process: roles (who is doing what), activities (actions performed
while writing), document control methods (how the process is coordinated). It also
describes five collaborative writing strategies that experienced writers deploy for text
creation:
• Single Writer Strategy: One team member is writing the document while the others
assist.
• Separate Writers Strategy: The document is divided into separate units and each
is written by a different team member.
• Scribe Strategy: Group members work together and one of them writes down the
results of the discussion.
• Joint Writing Strategy: Group members decide jointly on every aspect of the text,
word by word.
• Consulted Strategy: A consultant for whom a writer or team works is involved;
this strategy can be combined with any of the former constellations.
Based on their findings about how writers produce collaborative texts, Posner and
Baecker (1992) elaborated a set of design requirements that collaborative writing
systems should support, which focused on the need for flexible and permissive tools,
allowing groups to transition smoothly among different strategies and processes,
technologies, and between synchronous and asynchronous work by group members.
As we will specify, many of these requirements have been addressed by digital tools
designed to support collaborative writing in the past two decades.

2 Collaborative Writing Software: Core Idea

Software for collaborative writing was developed first in the 1980s. Posner and
Baecker (1992) referred to seven different tools: Aspects, ForCom, GROVE, PREP,
Quilt, SASSE, and ShrEdit, all of them released between 1986 and 1992. A decade
later, Noël and Robert (2003) reported on 19 web-based systems for collaborative
writing, most of them already abandoned by the time their report was written. Those
systems were research projects and not designed or marketed for commercial use,
with all that entailed such as integration with pre-existing writing tools.
Most of these early collaborative writing systems were limited in their support for
coordination, annotation and versioning. Noël and Robert refer to the coordination
methods shown in Fig. 1 and indicate that only one system, REDUCE, supported
synchronous reciprocal writing. Some systems provided no facilities for commenting,
others failed to let users save and restore different versions of a document. As the
authors indicated, in 2003, “since none of the presently available systems offer even
a majority of the features and properties that an ideal collaborative writing system
should offer, there is at the least an obvious need for improvement” (Noël & Robert,
2003, p. 260). Clearly, the idea of collaborative, synchronous writing had a fairly
long incubation time until it was channeled into the technologies of today’s major
writing platforms.
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 125

The modern version of collaborative writing started in 2006 with Google Docs
allowing co-writers to work together on a shared web document, thus offering
completely new opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous collaboration in
writing. In 2005, Google had bought Sam Schillace’s web-based word processor
“Writely” from which Google Docs was developed, also by Schillace. A first version
of Google Docs was soon released in a beta version. The similarity to the Microsoft
Office Suite was clearly visible, but the functionality of a browser-based word
processor along with document sharing and collaboration differed considerably from
it. All that users needed were a Gmail account, a browser and an internet connection
to start writing collaboratively. The key innovation of this software was its ability to
let several writers work in the same document and at the same time. A cloud-based
file sharing system was also included. In the last decade, Google Docs has become
the default tool for collaborative writing and co-authoring (Krishnan et al., 2019),
though in the current post-pandemic scenario co-writing practices have moved across
multiple artifact ecologies (Larsen-Ledet et al., 2020). Alternatives are considered
in the next section of this contribution.
Traditionally, collaborative writing software refers to at least three aspects of co-
authoring: (1) joint production of text which provides several writers with access to
a document and equal rights in its creation and handling, (2) revision of text, which
may consist in changing any part of the text and inserting corrections and (3) shared
commenting and annotation of the text which establishes a metacommunicative level
for the writers to negotiate plans and intentions. The three elements can, but need not,
coincide in actual writing processes but still form a standard in the latest versions
of word processing software such as Google Docs and Office 365. Additionally,
collaborative writing software usually contains what most sophisticated single-author
writing software offers, such as functionalities to track changes and to restore former
versions. The server-side storage of text, as introduced by Google Docs, made it
possible to track the text development, including all changes, and make it accessible
to all users.
Synchronicity of writing, along with access to the same writing space, adds a
layer of complexity to writing since it implies managing not only different writers’
schedules experiences, and disciplinary backgrounds but also their intentions. It may
be necessary to make these different dimensions explicit, as shown by recurrent find-
ings regarding the benefits of using oral chats and discussions during collaborative
writing, especially in synchronous writing (Li, 2018; Storch, 2019; Talib & Cheung,
2017).
Google Docs was not the end of the development but a beginning that added
a dimension to literacy by coordinating collective text production in new ways
with intellectual and professional activities. Since Google Docs now allows live
synchronous as well as asynchronous ways of working, groups of writers have a wide
and heterogeneous range of options which may need to be coordinated. Consequently,
former asynchronous technologies like MS Word or LaTeX are still used for collab-
orative writing (Larsen-Ledet et al., 2020) making it a heterogeneous technological
field.
126 M. Castelló et al.

3 Main Digital Products to Support Collaborative Writing

By far the most widespread tools for collaborative writing are Google Docs and Word
365 which provide similar functions to synchronously create and edit documents,
make comments and track revisions (Larsen-Ledet, 2020). Wikis enable collaborative
authoring and editing of hypertext web documents—the most popular of these is
probably Wikipedia—but, in many cases, require authors to learn a markup language.
Microsoft followed Google with a cloud-based version of Office in about 2013 under
the name “Office 365”. In a next step, Microsoft created MS Teams (launched in
2017), a collaboration platform into which the Office suite was integrated. It then
changed the name of Office 365 to Microsoft 365. MS Teams is modeled as business
software to organize communication within organizations. Integrated into the Teams
platform, in addition to text communication, were Sharepoint (to share documents),
a streaming functionality (to replace Skype), a phone service, and the former office
software, all with collaboration functionality.
Different from Google Docs, MS Word can still be used locally but then needs
synchronization with the cloud-based version of the text via Onedrive if several
authors want to work on the document. Google, in turn, included a local version of
its cloud-based word processor to enable offline writing. MS Teams allows to create
“teams”: groups of users who can share a large palette of documents and services
both within an organization and externally. The number of such services is exploding
and so is the number of still projected apps as is shown in the Microsoft roadmap at:
[Link]
Google countered MS Teams with an expansion of its G Suite to an office package
called “G Business” (launched in 2020) offered commercially to companies. It
includes Gmail, Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Forms, Calendar, Google + , Sites,
Hangouts, and Keep.
Both MS Teams and G Business have reached a new level of complexity in which
writing covers only a small fraction of a much larger kind of collaboration in business,
science, or education. The focus of the technologies has shifted from the tool level
to the organizational level and from text management to project management. It has
yet to be discussed, what the integration of visual, oral, and textual communication
devices in one platform means and to what kind of mode-crossing interactions it leads.
The use of these collaborative organizational tools exploded during the pandemic
when face to face collaboration became extremely limited. The level of adoption and
also experimentation with a range of technologies offering very different affordances
for users may have far-reaching consequences if their use persists.
Alongside Microsoft and Google, the following tools have been developed and
are still available:
• EtherPad is one of the oldest publicly available, free collaboration tools in which
the contributions and changes of each writer are highlighted in a different color.
Limited functionality and basic design make it easy to use but restrict more
complex editing activities. It is designed to be provided as Software as a Service.
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 127

• Quip is a complex business platform maintained by Salesforce to optimize sales

processes. It connects documents, data, and collaboration.
• Dropbox Paper is a newly created collaborative software from the Dropbox
company which so far has been known for its document-sharing services.
• Tracer is a tool to measure and visualize student engagement in writing activities
by analyzing the behavioral patterns of students as they write (Liu et al., 2013).
• ShareLaTeX (now part of Overleaf) is for scientific collaborative writing of LaTex
documents.
• Final Draft is a collaborative tool for screenwriting.
• Evernote supports shared note-taking.
• ClickHelp is designed for technical writers.
• GitHub provides a shared tool and repository for coders. The functionality of
GitHub to facilitate incremental development (repositories with branching and
version control), feedback (pull requests and annotation) and collaboration (access
control and sharing) offers many opportunities for writers of other things besides
code. Within GitHub individual writers can avail of affordances to structure text
and manage iterative versions of their writing with the built-in version control
but they can also avail of the collaborative opportunities afforded by the plat-
form. Collaboration can be controlled or restricted through sharing permissions
with other users and using pull requests for others to review and comment on
their writing. It can also be much more open by making writing public or “open
source” in the sense that others can contribute and modify the writing. One crucial
difference of writing with GitHub from other tools is in text formatting. GitHub is
not a word processor and typically text is written in plaintext and uses MarkDown
“code” to indicate formatting requirements such as italics or headings. This can
then be rendered according to the style guides or requirements of the publishing
medium (e.g. pdf, xml, etc.) effectively separating the formatting process from
the writing. The version control, permissions and annotation functions which are
so critical to software development are equally valuable tools for writers of text
rather than writers of code.
• MediaWiki is the leading platform for creating and editing wikis, including
Wikipedia.
Looking at this long list, it becomes obvious that collaboration ability is not only
a quality of specialized writing tools but a standard that more and more applies
to all platform-based tools. Overviews and comparisons of collaborative writing
software can be found at [Link]
tools/ and at [Link]
128 M. Castelló et al.

4 Collaborative Software Functional Specifications

Functionalities that can be found in collaborative software include the following:

• Simultaneous access to a word processor: Writers can access independently (or
by invitation) a shared, virtual writing space and write, comment, or revise text.
They can see what others write, and change it in real time.1
• Comment function: Writers can make comments, answer comments, or delete
them.
• Visualization: Means of highlighting changes in texts, individual contributions,
and document history.
• Roles for users: The roles may be specified by the software like “read”, “write”,
“edit”, “comment” with the respective functions available or restricted. It is usually
the document owner who decides on the roles.
• Security and privacy measures: Selective access to defined members or groups.
• Version control and revision history: Most recent tools record all changes, usually
including time stamps, and allow users to go back into the text’s history to restore
former versions.
• Integrated communication channels: Chat or video streaming for a better coor-
dination of writing have become standard. Writers need coordination beyond the
text fields and the comment functions.
• Export functions: Export of documents to various formats and operating systems
is necessary to allow for an exchange with different systems.
A particular challenge to collaboration software development is connected to the
visualization of individual contributions. Arguably, seeing what every co-author has
contributed is a prerequisite to understand collaboration but even more so to under-
stand text development (what has been added, what changed, what deleted?). In this
respect, Microsoft relied on its traditional way of tracking changes by highlighting
contributions in different colours. As this may get confusing, changes may be hidden
so that writers can read or write in a clean text version. Text markups can be accepted
or deleted locally or for the whole document. Google Docs also uses colours to mark
individual contributions but later introduced comment-like text fields at the margin
which appear automatically when something is added or deleted. They contain name,
date and kind of change. Additionally, Google developed a functionality called “ver-
sion history” opening on a side panel on request, which offers a list of all former
versions and allows to restore any of them. Although version history functionality
has been present in many tools, what is new in Google and also Microsoft Sharepoint
is the dynamic and ongoing versioning that does not require writers to lock them, as
well as the relatively easy way to come back and restore previous versions.

1Changes may not be available in real-time to other authors when writers work in an MS Word
document that is synchronized via OneDrive.
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 129

These visualization solutions do not live up to what technology today could offer.
Southavilay et al. (2013) developed and tested three visualization approaches:
• a revision map, which summarizes the text edits made at the paragraph level, over
the time of writing;
• a topic evolution chart, which uses probabilistic topic models, to extract topics
and follow their evolution during the writing process; and
• a topic-based collaboration network, which allows a deeper analysis of topics in
relation to author contribution and collaboration.
Another way of visualizing text progress in collaborative writing is DocuViz
(Wang et al., 2015). The primary aim of this software was to develop a research tool
to investigate the patterns of collaborative creation of documents and their correlation
to text quality. Additionally, the tool is expected to enhance authors’ awareness and
knowledge of their own group writing processes, and thus, may serve pedagogical
purposes (Wang et al., 2015). The current version, DocuViz 3.8, is a free productivity
extension to Google Chrome. It has been used in several studies to assess its func-
tionalities and efficacy both as a research tool to know more about how collaborative
writing processes unfold and as an educational tool for raising awareness about these
processes among co-writers. In both cases, the tool has been mainly used retrospec-
tively as a way to evaluate writer’s contributions, texts’ evolution and characteristics
of different composition processes through time (Krishnan et al., 2019; Sundgren &
Jaldemark, 2020; Yim et al., 2017).

5 Research on Collaborative Writing Software

Successful collaborative writing depends on a highly complex cluster of individual

and socially-shared regulatory movements (Castelló, 2022; Sala-Bubaré & Castelló,
2018). Research, so far, has only slowly begun to move beyond the study of asyn-
chronous collaboration such as in feedback, peer reviews, and cooperative text
production (cf. Olson et al., 2017; Storch, 2019). And we can assume that techno-
logical development of collaborative software has not come to a halt as Wang et al.
(2017) predict. Still, today there are standard solutions to which writers are habitu-
ated and which can be studied in naturalistic settings (e.g., Google Docs documents’
history or extensions) without prototype or bespoke technology and complicated
experimental designs (Yim et al., 2017). Regarding methodology, qualitative retro-
spective tools (e.g., interviews or self-reports) have been predominant together with
quantitative analysis of writers’ interactions (e.g., comments, chats, discussions),
and text evolution (e.g., number and type of edits, inclusions, revisions in successive
drafts) (Larsen-Ledet, 2020; Yim & Warschauer, 2017).
When the first specialized software for collaborative writing was developed in
the 1980s and 1990s (see Posner & Baecker, 1992, and Noël & Robert, 2003, for
overviews), research focused primarily on comparisons with cooperation in conven-
tional writing technology (paper and pencil, word processors). Olson et al. (1993)
130 M. Castelló et al.

used an experimental collaborative text editor called ShrEdit to facilitate cooperation

among three-person workgroups of designers. They found that they produced fewer
but better ideas. They suggested that this may be credited to a more efficient way
of focusing on core issues and a decrease in wasting time when trying to get an
understanding of what was going on when deciding together what should be written
down and how.
A subsequent set of studies looked for affordances of different tools and tech-
nology supporting collaborative writing. One of the first attempts was conducted
by Cerratto (1999), who compared collaborative writing between two groups of
eight students working over 15 days. One of them used MS Word plus E-Mail, the
other used Aspects, a collaboration software with synchronous writing and a chat
function. They found that the group using Aspects produced lower-quality text and
needed more time. They assumed that it was the group’s higher coordination effort
and their inexperience with collaborative software that was responsible for this result.
The success of the MS Word group seemed to result from their familiarity with the
tools used. In a second study of Cerratto and Rodriguez (2002), one group using MS
Word to write a report sitting together in a room (so that they could talk things over)
was compared with a remotely working group using Aspects. The results repeated
the outcome of the first study. They conclude that not all kinds of writing tasks are
equally well suited for collaborative writing tools.
Lowry and Nunamaker (2003) compared their collaborative synchronous writing
tool, Collaboratus, with MS Word in a study with two collaborative writing condi-
tions. Results indicated that the writers in the synchronous condition fared better,
i.e. produced longer and better documents. The authors credited those results to
some characteristics of their writing tool which provided a better basis for planning,
an easier coordination, and an increased collaboration awareness. Besides differ-
ences in the training conditions (longer in the Lowry and Nunamaker’s study),
contrasting results for Aspects and Collaboratus can probably explained by some
advanced features of Collaboratus such as the Asynchronous and web-based support
and the tool orientation to parallel-partitioned work, which has been shown to greatly
increase CW productivity.
Another focus of early research was the dynamics of collaboration and the related
use of the tools’ functionalities. Erkens et al. (2005) studied pairs of students in
secondary education when writing three argumentative essays using the TC3 (Text
Composer, Computer supported and Collaborative) collaborative environment. Their
focus was on task-related planning activities by analyzing the chat entries. One target
was collaborative coordination under various conditions, which were defined by the
additional tools offered: an outline generator, a diagram tool (similar to concept
mapping), a personal note pad (invisible to the others), and a tutorial on the technology
use. The control group used TC3 without the additional features. Results showed little
connection between the additional technologies offered and the text quality. They
found that 55% of the interactions were devoted to coordination between task related
strategies, cooperative intentions and communication processes during collaboration.
It was the quality of these complex interactions that were responsible in large part
for the text quality.
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 131

Interesting as the results of these early studies may be, it is difficult to generalize
from them for two reasons. First, the tools were less developed than today, hardly
comparable among each other, and of unclear quality. Second, the participants in the
studies were not familiar with the new tools. Students were usually instructed in how
to work with the software, but it is hard to claim this is familiarization since their
level of expertise with the tools was not formally reported or assessed.
The next generation of studies used the commercialized tools from Google,
Microsoft, or Apple to which academic users are usually acquainted. Today, the
problem seems to be that even the best writing software will not find acceptance
from all writers. Surveys about collaborative writing show at least some reservation
if not resistance against the new collaborative technology or some of its functions
(Wang et al., 2017). By now, however, users have had enough time to familiarize
themselves with the basic appearance and functionality of the new technology such
that newer studies can look at differential reactions and work patterns without asking
the users into the computer lab. In practice, there are still a variety of synchronous
and asynchronous tools in use (Larsen-Ledet et al., 2020) and the associated variety
in practices adds a layer of complexity to research on collaborative writing in situated
scenarios.
In recent years, the research focus has shifted from proving the tools’ benefits
or affordances to exploring and assessing the variation of writers’ processes and
products when writing collaboratively using digital tools. At the undergraduate level,
Yim et al. (2017) explored the different strategies of synchronous collaboration by
82 students in 45 Google Docs documents and evaluated the influence of these
strategies on the emerging texts. They classified the general interaction along the
model of Posner and Baecker (1992, see Introduction) using DocuViz visualizations
and confirmed the four distinctive strategies:
• Main Writer (called Scribe in Posner & Baecker): One participant dominates
while the others remain in the background and add little;
• Divide and Conquer (called Separate Writers Strategy in Posner & Baecker):
Writers divide the text into parts and work independently on them;
• Cooperative Revision: Parts are written separately but then revised by others;
• Synchronous Hands-on (called Joint Writing Strategy in Posner & Baecker):
Sentences are created together by simultaneously extending each other’s text.
Posner & Baecker’s Consulted strategy did not apply as there were no consulting
relationships among the students. The Cooperative Revision style was most common
(40%), followed by the Main Writer style (31%), the Divide and Conquer style
(20%), and the Synchronous Hands-on style (9%). Contrasting to frequency, the
Divide and Conquer style tended to produce better quality text whereas Main Writer
had the lowest quality scores. Moreover, balanced participation and amount of peer
editing led to longer texts with higher quality scores for content, evidence, but not
organization or mechanics. Out of the 15 groups, only six of them maintained the
same style across the three documents. So, as reported previously by Beck (1993),
change seems to be natural and not confined to certain group structures.
132 M. Castelló et al.

Still at the undergraduate level, Olson et al. (2017) studied 96 documents written
by students in Google Docs in groups (mostly groups of four). The documents were
recorded for all group members at a granularity down to single keystrokes with times-
tamps. Measures were developed to quantify the amount each student had contributed
to the text and to determine the extent to which collaboration was synchronous
or asynchronous. The data were further visualized using DocuViz and correlations
were finally calculated between type of use, text collaboration and assessment of
credit. The results showed that students produced text both synchronously and asyn-
chronously. Some students even produced text exclusively synchronously. Only five
documents showed no evidence of synchronous collaboration. In 77% of the docu-
ments, all members participated in writing the document, while for the remaining 23%
some of them were not seen in the document history (“slackers”). For the majority,
the participation rate was fairly even and only one group had a writer who usurped the
writing process. A more balanced participation was correlated to document quality.
In 81% of the documents, there was clear leadership, however, the leaders often
changed when a new paper was written. Clear leadership contributed substantially
to the writing quality. Only in 37% of the documents was the commenting function
of Google Docs used. Often, comments were written into the document. Surprising
for the authors was the fact that a high rate of collaborative writing took place and
the participants did not distribute work to write privately, then upload their text.
Moving to graduate level and professional writing, Larsen-Ledet et al. (2020)
looked at how and why a group of 32 co-authors (13 master students and 19
researchers) use collaborative writing tools working in long term projects. Through
qualitative analysis, they identified three kinds of technology related to the kinds of
media used in their sample:
• Collaborative home, when writers share an online platform which documents and
synchronizes their work (e.g., Google Docs);
• Repository, when collaborators decide on a common service for storing and
exchanging documents (e.g., Dropbox or Google Drive); and
• Hand-over, when co-writers decide on a file format and then share the text via
email.
It would be wrong, therefore, to identify collaborative writing fully with tools
like Google Docs. Collaboration also involves sharing materials and interim text
as objects of work, thus collaborating on the joint understanding of the text-to-be.
Those results may enrich the original discussion of methods of writing collaboratively
(Sharples et al., 1993) by adding the continuum of synchronous/asynchronous modes
of writing to the methods of coordinating collaborative writing. Thus, nowadays
collaborative writing requires attending to and taking decisions on these two planes:
synchronicity and coordination. Co-writers’ decisions and actions on these planes
may result in diverse processes: (a) synchronous but uncoordinated (everyone writing
at the same time but in their own way); (b) synchronous and coordinated (writing
together in a collaborative way at the same time); (c) asynchronous and uncoordinated
(leaving a document in a shared space so that people work on it in their own time and
way); or (d) asynchronous and coordinated (handing over document to another writer
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 133

to achieve a particular goal with it). To what extent these processes relate to different
outcomes and text quality in real contexts is still a pending issue for research in the
field (Larsen-Ledet, 2020).
Moreover, in their review Talib and Cheung (2017) conclude that the regular and
frequent use of collaborative tools (both synchronous and asynchronous) in peda-
gogical settings helps students to redefine writers’ ideas of ownership, and provides
new insights into sharing ideas and clarifying thoughts throughout communication
at all educational levels (schools and universities). They make three general claims
which they see supported by an analysis of 68 empirical studies published between
2006 and 2016:
1. Technology has facilitated collaborative writing tasks.
2. Most students are motivated by an improvement in their writing competencies
in collaborative writing tasks.
3. Collaborative writing is effective in improving accuracy of student writing and
critical thinking.
Accepting these general claims, it seems justified to claim that not only our under-
standing of writing competences has to be remodeled but also that completely new
opportunities of teaching academic writing have emerged. Collaborative writing,
obviously, is not an add-on to writing but has changed its substance and nature by
making it a new field of interaction that feels natural in a digital world.
The educational impact of collaborative writing technology has also been specif-
ically explored by research on L2, ESL or EFL writing. In their reviews, Li (2018)
and Storch (2019) highlight how synchronous tools such as wikis and Google Docs
impact on three main strands. First, tools impact on the ways interaction unfolds
during the writing process that can range from cooperative and collaborative to
directive/defensive ones. Besides, digital interaction during writing is complex and
includes a variety of channels (textual but also oral through synchronous chats) to
discuss and comment on the writing processes and text evolution. Second, impact
is also observed on the characteristics of the writing products, which tend to reach
higher scores when produced using Web 2.0 tools such as Google Docs. Third, the
students’ satisfaction and implication were also higher when writing collaboratively
using those tools.
Still in the ESL field, a recent review (Yee & Yunus, 2021) has looked at the
most widely used tools in enhancing collaborative writing during COVID-19, when
virtual learning and writing was not a choice. The results revealed that Google Docs,
besides being the most significant collaborative tool, enable students to improve
writing processes and content when writing is combined with the co-authors’ online
discussion. This is an interesting point considering previous research results on coor-
dination being the critical factor for text quality in collaboratively writing. It is plau-
sible to assume the online discussions facilitate co-writers’ coordination actions in
the absence of any face-to-face options.
134 M. Castelló et al.

6 Future Directions for Research

Current challenges for research on collaborative writing relate to understanding how

writers navigate through different technologies and why they prefer some tools above
others at certain points in the writing process. Larsen-Ledet (2020) applied the notion
of artifacts ecologies to explain writers’ motivation to transition among tools. She
distinguished four types of motivation based on functional, communicative, aesthetic
and personal reasons to alternate tools when writing collaboratively. Still, relevant
issues remain unexplored regarding: how those transitions help co-writers to progress
in their collaborative endeavour; to what extent authorship is changing depending on
the type of co-writer dynamics supported, or enhanced by, technology; and how the
cognitive, social and emotional regulation unfolds when technology mediates collab-
orative writing processes. All of these are crucial both for technology development
and theoretical integration when it comes to collaborative writing.

7 Conclusions

Collaborative writing has increased rapidly in academic and professional settings

in the last three decades, in parallel with the development and popularity of asyn-
chronous writing tools that facilitate flexibility and awareness of the co-writers’
activity during the whole writing process. The lockdowns and restrictions derived
from the COVID-19 pandemic have clearly accelerated this already existing trend.
Technology has allowed for the creation of joint mental digital spaces when writing
collaboratively, either synchronously or asynchronously. Moreover, international
networked computing, the worldwide web and additional services such as auto-
matic translation have opened new possibilities for collaboration in writing, by large
multinational teams, with rapid development of documents.
Despite the increasing practices of collaborative writing and the related use of
digital writing tools, research on collaborative digital writing is still scarce and mainly
focused on undergraduate students. The research evidence that is available would
strongly suggest that using digital tools can contribute to co-writers’ efficacy and
text quality. However, there is a lack of studies focusing on analyzing how tools
impact on collaborative writing processes and to what extent that impact might
contribute to writers’ awareness and effective regulation of those processes. Issues
such as to what extent collaborative writing processes and products are mediated by
particular technologies or how co-writers’ reflection, knowledge transformation or
critical thinking unfold through digital collaborative writing are still open.
While collaborative software certainly provides opportunities to facilitate truly
collaborative thinking, it seems clear that in order to avail themselves of these
opportunities, users need certain competencies and abilities. Based on the available
evidence, among the most urgent ones to facilitate processes and improve products
are: knowing how technology works (e.g., how it is used, set up); working together
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 135

and accepting others’ writing processes and logics; extending feedback rules for
collaborative writing; and becoming sensitive to different roles co-writers may have
in text production.
Issues such authorship and writer identity in digital collaborative writing condi-
tions also deserve a deep attention of research, especially in professional contexts.
While in the early phase of collaborative writing (in the 1990s) there were attempts
to impose author roles and identities (e.g., “co-writer”, “commenter”), it was soon
realized that for most writing these identities need to be fluid and managed by the
writers, not imposed in advance. Current writing tools offer “lightweight” roles, such
as “editing”, “suggesting”, “viewing” that can be changed as the writing progresses.
What does this mean for the self-identity of a writer? Has this collaborative process
changed the nature of identity and authorship either by expanding or contracting
it? Moreover, synchronous tools facilitate writers to position themselves differently
during writing and adopt a variety of roles (readers, reviewers and writers) when
writing. That means writers need to coordinate and regulate the writing process
(e.g., assign reviewers, set schedules) in some cases outside the writing tool and in
an explicit way (Larsen-Ledet, 2020). Depending on the strategy followed during
the writing process, it may be difficult for co-writers to have a sense of authorship.
In sum, a fascinating agenda for IT developers and writing researchers is emerging
that might drive integration of existing evidence and formulation of new, relevant
questions to build joint empirical and theoretical knowledge on collaborative digital
writing. It is also possible that research on digital collaborative writing should not
try to understand incremental change but account for the emergence of completely
new phenomena. Success in such endeavor requires interdisciplinary dialogue and
joint efforts of usually dispersed involved collectives such as researchers, trainers
and developers. This book represents a sound initiative to move towards this
interdisciplinary and integrative dialogue.

8 Tool List

Tool Description Reference

and/or URL
ClickHelp Designed for technical writers [Link]
[Link]/
Dropbox A newly created collaborative software from the Dropbox company https://
Paper which so far has been known for its document-sharing services [Link]
[Link]/
paper/start
(continued)
136 M. Castelló et al.

(continued)
Tool Description Reference
and/or URL
EtherPad One of the oldest publicly available, free collaboration tools in [Link]
which the contributions and changes of each writer are highlighted [Link]
in a different color. Limited functionality and basic design make it
easy to use but restrict more complex editing activities. It is
designed to be provided as Software as a Service
Evernote Supports shared note-taking [Link]
[Link]/
intl/en
Final Draft A collaborative tool for screenwriting https://
[Link]
[Link]/
GitHub Provides a shared tool and repository for coders [Link]
[Link]/
MediaWiki The leading platform for creating and editing wikis, including https://
Wikipedia [Link]
[Link]/
wiki/Med
iaWiki
Quip A complex business platform maintained by Salesforce to optimize https://
sales processes. It connects documents, data, and collaboration [Link]
[Link]/
products/
quip/ove
rview/
ShareLaTeX Now part of Overleaf, is for scientific collaborative writing of https://
LaTex documents [Link]
[Link]
Tracer A tool to measure and visualize student engagement in writing Liu et al.
activities by analyzing the behavioral patterns of students as they (2013)
write

Acknowledgements The research of Christian Rapp was financially supported by the ZHAW
DIZH Fellowship Call 2020.

References

Beck, E. E. (1993). A survey of experiences of collaborative writing. In M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer

supported collaborative writing (pp. 87–112). Springer-Verlag.
Castelló, M. (2022). Research writing, what do we know and how to move forward. In M.
Gustafsson & A. Eriksson (Eds.), Negotiating the intersections of writing and writing instruc-
tion (pp. 89–122). The WAC Clearinghouse, University Press of Colorado. [Link]
37514/INT-B.2022.1466.2.04
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 137

Cerratto, T. I. (1999). Instrumenting collaborative writing and its cognitive tools. In P. Lenca
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Human Centered Processes (HCP’99). Human Centred
Processes.
Cerratto, T. I., & Rodriguez, H. (2002). Studies of computer supported collaborative writing. Impli-
cations for system design. In M. Blay-Fornarino, A. Pinna-Dery, K. Schmidt, & P. Zaraté (Eds.),
Cooperative systems design (pp. 139–154). IOS Press.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular Text/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative
Writing. Southern Illinois University Press.
Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer
supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463–486. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2004.10.038
Greene, M. (2007). The demise of the lone author. Nature, 450(7173), 1165. [Link]
1038/4501165a
Krishnan, J., Yim, S., Wolters, A., & Cusimano, A. (2019). Supporting online synchronous collab-
orative writing in the secondary classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(2),
135–145. [Link]
Larsen-Ledet, I. (2020). More than writing text: Multiplicity in collaborative academic
writing [Doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University]. [Link]
sis_More_Than_Writing_Text._Multiplicity_in_Collaborative_Academic_Writing.pdf
Larsen-Ledet, I., Korsgaard, H., & Bødker, S. (2020). Collaborative writing across multiple artifact
ecologies. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 1–14). ACM. [Link]
Leland, M. D. P., Fish, R. S., & Kraut, R. E. (1988). Collaborative document production using
Quilt. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW-88)
(pp. 206–215). ACM. [Link]
Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical
research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904. [Link]
88221.2018.1465981
Liu, M., Calvo, R. A., & Pardo, A. (2013). Tracer: A tool to measure and visualize student engage-
ment in writing activities. In 2013 IEEE 3th International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies (pp. 421–425). IEEE. [Link]
Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collab-
orative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. The Journal of Business
Communication (1973), 41(1), 66–99. [Link]
Lowry, P. B., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (2003). Using Internet-based, distributed collaborative writing
tools to improve coordination and group awareness in writing teams. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 46(4), 277–297. [Link]
Neuwirth, C. M., Kaufer, D. S., Chandhok, R., & Morris, J. H. (1990). Issues in the design of
computer support for co-authoring and commenting. In CSCW 90: Proceedings of the 1990
ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 183–195). ACM. [Link]
org/10.1145/99332.99354
Noël, S., & Robert, J.-M. (2003). How the Web is used to support collaborative writing. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 22(4), 245–262. [Link]
Olson, J. S., Olson, G. M., Storrøsten, M., & Carter, M. (1993). Groupwork close up: A comparison
of the group design process with and without a simple group editor. ACM Transactions on
Information Systems (TOIS), 11(4), 321–348. [Link]
Olson, J. S., Wang, D., Olson, G. M., & Zhang, J. (2017). How people write together now: Begin-
ning the investigation with advanced undergraduates in a project course. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 24(1), 1–40. [Link]
Posner, I. R., & Baecker, R. M. (1992). How people write together. In Proceedings of the Twenty-
Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. IV, pp. 127–138). IEEE. https:/
/[Link]/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183420
138 M. Castelló et al.

Sala-Bubaré, A., & Castelló, M. (2018). Writing regulation processes in higher education: a review
of two decades of empirical research. Reading and Writing, 31(4), 757–777. [Link]
1007/s11145-017-9808-3
Sharples, M. (1992). Adding a little structure to collaborative writing. In D. Diaper & C. Sanger
(Eds.), CSCW in practice: An introduction and case studies (pp. 51–67). Springer-Verlag. https:/
/[Link]/10.1007/978-1-4471-2009-4_5
Sharples, M. (Ed.). (1993). Computer supported collaborative writing. Springer-Verlag.
Sharples, M., Goodlet, J. S., Beck, E. E., Wood, C. C., Easterbrook, S. M., & Plowman, L. (1993).
Research issues in the study of computer supported collaborative writing. In M. Sharples (Ed.),
Computer supported collaborative writing (pp. 9–28). Springer-Verlag.
Southavilay, V., Yacef, K., Reimann, P., & Calvo, R. A. (2013). Analysis of collaborative writing
processes using revision maps and probabilistic topic models. In D. Suthers, K. Verbert, E.
Duval & X. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceeding of the Third International Conference on Learning
Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 38–47). [Link]
Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40–59. [Link]
S0261444818000320
Sundgren, M., & Jaldemark, J. (2020), Visualizing online collaborative writing strategies in higher
education group assignments. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology,
37(5), 351–373. [Link]
Talib, T., & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Collaborative writing in classroom instruction: A synthesis
of recent research. The English Teacher, 46(2), 43–57. [Link]
downloads/tet46_02_01.pdf
Wang, D., Olson, J. S., Zhang, J., Nguyen, T., & Olson, G. M. (2015). DocuViz: visualizing collab-
orative writing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 1865–1874). ACM. [Link]
Wang, D., Tan, H., & Tun, L. (2017). Why users do not want to write together when they are
writing together: users’ rationales for today’s collaborative writing practices. In C. Lampe, J.
Nichols, K. Karahalios, G. Fitzpatrick, U. Lee, A. Monroy-Hernandez, & W. Stuerzlinger (Eds.),
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 1, CSCW, Article 107). https:/
/[Link]/10.1145/3134742
Yee, L. Y., & Yunus, M. M. (2021). Collaborative tools in enhancing ESL writing during Covid
19: A Systematic Review. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Business
Studies and Education (ICBE) (pp. 10–19). [Link]
[Link]
Yim, S., Wang, D., Olson, J., Vu, V., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Synchronous writing in the class-
room: undergraduates’ collaborative practices and their impact on text quality, quantity, and
style. In CSCW ‘17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Coop-
erative Work and Social Computing (pp. 468–479). ACM. [Link]
8356
Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological
insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146–165. [Link]
net/10125/44599

Montserrat Castelló is a full professor in educational psychology and head of the Research Insti-
tute on Psychology, Learning and Development (Re-Psy) at Universitat Ramon Llull in Barcelona,
Spain. She has been elected member of the executive committee of the European Association
of Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) (2013–2015), and of the executive committee
of the European Federation of Psychology Teachers Associations (EFPTA) (2003 - Act.). She
founded the EARLI Special Interest Group on Researcher Education and Careers (SIG-REaC)
and organised the first conference in Barcelona in 2014. Her research activity and publications
focus on academic and research writing and learning, writing regulation, and researcher identity
development.
Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing 139

Otto Kruse is a retired professor of the School of Applied Linguistics at the Zurich University
of Applied Sciences in Winterthur, Switzerland. He was the head of his department’s writing
center. A psychologist by education, he worked in clinical psychology, social work and applied
linguistics. His expertise in the field of writing is connected to the teaching of writing, intercul-
tural aspects of writing, critical thinking, and to the development of writing technologies. Together
with Christian Rapp, he created “Thesis Writer”, a writing platform supporting students with their
dissertations ([Link]).

Christian Rapp heads the Educational Technology Team at the Center for Innovative Teaching
and Learning, School of Management and Law, Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW).
He has coordinated various international R&D projects, among others “Seamless Writing:
Expanding Technologies to Support Thesis Writing” (EU-Interreg). He is a fellow of the Digi-
talization Initiative of the Zurich Higher Education Institutions (DIZH) and a board member of
the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing (EATAW). Together with Otto
Kruse, they established “Thesis Writer”, an online platform that supports students with writing
their theses and dissertations ([Link]).

Mike Sharples is Emeritus Professor of Educational Technology at The Open University, UK. His
expertise involves human-centred design and evaluation of new technologies and environments for
learning. As Academic Lead for the FutureLearn company, he led the design of its social learning
approach. He founded the Innovating Pedagogy report series and is author of over 300 papers in
the areas of educational technology, learning sciences, computers and writing, artificial intelli-
gence and cognitive science. His recent books are Practical Pedagogy: 40 New Ways to Teach
and Learn, and Story Machines: How Computers Have Become Creative Writers, both published
by Routledge.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License ([Link] which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.