Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (2011) 6:397–419

DOI 10.1007/s11412-011-9117-9

Scaffolding collaborative technical writing

with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion

Shiou-Wen Yeh & Jia-Jiunn Lo & Jeng-Jia Huang

Received: 3 December 2010 / Accepted: 11 April 2011 /

Published online: 30 April 2011
# International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract With the advent of computer technology, researchers and instructors are
attempting to devise computer support for effective collaborative technical writing. In this
study, a computer-supported environment for collaborative technical writing was
developed. This system (Process-Writing Wizard) provides process-oriented scaffolds and
a synchronous online chat room to facilitate real-time collaborative writing practice. It
allows multiple students to work synchronously on collaborative writing tasks via the
Internet. It also helps develop collaborative writing strategies, such as creating team
agendas, brainstorming, creating team outlines, and generating team articles. An experiment
was conducted to examine the effect of the system on EFL (English as a Foreign Language)
students’ collaborative writing experiences. First, an attitude questionnaire was used to
evaluate learners’ perceptions, acceptance, attitudes, and continuing motivation toward the
functionalities and guidance provided by the system. Second, students’ writing products
were examined to evaluate the effect of the system on EFL students’ collaborative writing
quality, especially on content and organization. Finally, this study analyzed and coded
students’ synchronous chats with three categories (article-related interactions, social
interactions, and system operation-related interactions) to evaluate the effect of the system
on students’ interactions. The results of the experiment showed: (1) the students had
positive attitudes toward the system and continuing motivation to use the system in future
writing tasks; (2) analysis of writing products suggested that students produced better
content and organization with the support of the system; (3) the procedural facilitation
provided by the system successfully scaffolded students to converse more in the category of
article-related interactions. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

S.-W. Yeh
Institute of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu,
Taiwan, Republic of China
e-mail: shiouwen@[Link]

J.-J. Lo (*) : J.-J. Huang

Department of Information Management, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China
e-mail: jlo@[Link]
J.-J. Huang
e-mail: mi89065@[Link]
398 S.-W. Yeh et al.

Keywords Collaborative technical writing . Process writing . Synchronous online

discussions . Computer-supported writing

Introduction

Background of the study

In the globally linked world, international exchanges are becoming increasingly frequent,
and more and more technical experts are collaborating to write reports, proposals, articles,
and other technical documents (Nelson 2000; Rice 2009; Stratton 1989). As defined by
researchers, technical writing deals with precise information that is often presented in a
sequential format and is designed to satisfy an audience’s understanding, particularly
regarding how things work (Kelly 2003). It has a specific audience and is purposeful,
usually intended to solve a problem for that audience or convey technical information and
ideas accurately and efficiently (Reis 1997). Most importantly, the area separating technical
writing from other forms of writing is it is often collaborative, that written works are
created by many people collaboratively rather than individually (Duin 1991). In the age of
information, since writing has become part of the job in all technical careers (Reis 1997),
technical writers not only need to be highly skilled in information manipulation and
abstraction (Johnson-Eilola 1996), they also need to possess abilities as defined by OECD
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) as “key competencies” for
individuals to survive in the interconnected world. The key competencies include: (1) using
tools interactively (both language and technology), (2) interacting in heterogeneous groups,
and (3) acting autonomously (OECD 2001).
In today’s workplace, collaborative teams often require people to use real-time
communication tools (such as message boards, videoconferencing) to provide immediate
feedback of various kinds or to make decisions. However, traditional technical writing
instruction often operates in isolation from other components of students’ communication
education (Carter et al. 2003), and students often lack the interaction and dialogue with others
(Nagelhout 1999). Another challenge comes from the systematic nature or processes of
technical writing that is particularly demanding for novice writers (Kelly 2003). For instance,
for EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students who have diverse English proficiency
levels, using English to produce collaborative technical writing can be even more challenging
for those who do not have opportunities to be exposed to the target language (English) in
everyday situations. Therefore, as Rice (2009) suggested, the primary challenge the
information-economy presents is how researchers and educators will create new teaching
strategies that “address the coordinative, polycontextual, crossdisciplinary work that link
together activities separated by time, space, organizations, and objectives” (p. 303). In the
context of EFL instruction, there is a great need for researchers and educators to construct an
interactive, multi-task, and multi-user learning environment where EFL students can practice
co-composition and real-time collaboration effectively and efficiently.
Online discussions are now a widespread medium for learning (Palmer et al. 2007). With
the advancement of computer technology, researchers and instructors are attempting to
provide computer supports for collaborative writing to promote a more social view of the
writing process (e.g., Elola and Oskoz 2010; Parker and Chao 2007; Rice 2009). For
instance, Rice (2009) proposed the “social and recursive” collaborative writing methods
found in Web 2.0 practices help reconsider collaborative writing to better address the
contexts and methods of the information economy. Each tool is not only a practical tool, but
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 399

also a “fluid, dialogical situation” existing among writers (Rice 2009, p. 306). Specifically,
technical writing instruction can move away from models based in individual knowledge
and toward a more collective knowledge production. The use of these tools also allows
researchers to observe how writers deal with writing challenges through a novel medium
(Elola and Oskoz 2010). However, as Gorsky and Caspi (2005) cautioned, simply
encouraging learners to get more involved in online discussions and Web-based tools may
not necessarily lead to better learning results. There is a need to find out the prominent
factors in online interaction that might enhance learning.
In the context of L2 (second language) learning, Larsen-Freeman (2000) contended “it is
not the group configuration that makes collaborative learning distinctive; it is the way
students and students or students and teachers work together that is important” (p. 164).
Nunan (1993, p. 4) also suggested an important question to be considered: In collaborative
language learning, “what patterns of classroom organisation and types of classroom tasks
are most beneficial for language acquisition?” It has been argued, “those tasks in which
learners are required to negotiate meaning among themselves in the course of completing an
interactive task are particularly suited to language development” (cited in Nunan 1993, p. 4).
Pata et al. (2005) further proposed collaborative writing teams could be enhanced by applying
collaborative supports in a synchronous environment. Englert et al. (2007) also noted a
technology providing “procedural facilitators and prompts” is likely to be influential in
eliciting writing strategies that need to be developed. To expand the research in computer-
supported collaborative writing, this study proposes collaborative technical writing in the
EFL context can be enhanced by providing computer-supported procedural facilitators and
online synchronous discussions.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, the researchers developed a process-oriented
collaborative writing system (Process-Writing Wizard) which includes a step-by-step
mechanism to scaffold teams of students to complete the collaborative writing tasks. A
synchronous chat room is also embedded to stimulate collaborative parallel writing
(Sharples et al. 1993) in that synchronous communications are commonly required skills in
many professional careers. Second, an experiment is conducted to examine the effect of the
system on EFL students’ collaborative writing experiences. In the experiment, three
instruments were used to evaluate Process-Writing Wizard from different perspectives. An
attitude questionnaire was used to evaluate learners’ perceptions, acceptance, attitudes, and
continuing motivation toward the functionalities and guidance provided by the system.
Students’ writing products were also examined to evaluate the effect of the system on EFL
students’ collaborative writing quality, especially on content and organization. Finally, this
study analyzed and coded students’ synchronous online chats into three categories (article-
related interactions, social interactions, and system operation-related interactions) to
evaluate the effect of the system on students’ interactions.

Literature review

Collaborative writing

The term collaborative writing is defined as: activities involved in the production of a
document by more than one author (Dillon 1993) with group responsibility for the end
400 S.-W. Yeh et al.

product (Elola and Oskoz 2010). In fact, the collaborative approach to writing, editing, and
producing technical documents has been utilized in professional settings for decades
(Bradney and Courbat 1998; Stratton 1989). Lunsford and Ede (1986) conducted a survey
study on collaborative writing in on-the-job contexts and found, “87% [of their 530
respondents] reported they sometimes wrote as part of a team or group” (cited in Stratton
1989, p. 178). Research into collaborative writing also revealed this pedagogical approach
has significant potential in both the first language and second language instruction (Elola
and Oskoz 2010).
The components of collaborative writing include pre-draft discussions and arguments
as well as post-draft analyses and debate (Dillon 1993). Collaboration supports include
social interaction support among co-authors and commenters, and cognitive support for
co-authoring and external commenting (Spring 1997). As elaborated by Spring (1997),
the communication requirements of the collaborative writing task include: task division,
brainstorming, editing, general discussion, and goal setting. Task division is related to
assigning tasks and communicating the related requirements and deadlines. Brainstorming
means generating and recording ideas to be used in producing the text. Editing involves
members indicating their comments about and enhancements for the text. These
comments and suggestions will be used to revise the existing text. General discussions
can include formal team meeting as well as casual, impromptu conversation. Based on the
writing tasks, Sharples et al. (1993) summarized three main strategies for collaborative
writing: sequential, reciprocal, and parallel. In sequential group writing, jobs are passed
from one individual to another for further refinement. In reciprocal group writing, all
group members work together on all writing tasks. In parallel group writing, jobs are
divided into individual tasks.
Collaborative technical writing is also a methodological innovation for second language
teaching. In collaborative technical writing, students work together to achieve shared
learning goals (Nunan 1993), and language acquisition is facilitated by students interacting
in the target language (Larsen-Freeman 2000). According to Nunan (1993), through
collaborative learning, learners themselves are important resources for their own learning.
Besides, collaborative learning can help students use their own prerequisite knowledge to
go beyond what they currently think. Collaborative technical writing indeed accommodates
the principles of social constructivism as proposed by Vygotsky (1978). As Vygotsky’s
zone of proximal development suggests, individual learning is mediated through either
adult guidance or collaboration with a more capable peer. Moreover, collaborative technical
writing is consistent with communicative language learning and Krashen’s (1985)
assumption of second language acquisition, emphasizing while learning a second language,
learners need to interact with the external environment actively, and such a learning
environment is worth investigating.
As Nagelhout (1999) advocated, one of the most important benefits of collaborative
writing instruction is that it makes students aware that writing is a recursive process,
allowing them to focus on each phase of the writing process. Semones (2001) also
explained, the process of writing builds on the action-reaction responses. Through this
evolving communicative process, unskilled writers are pushed to achieve higher levels of
writing as they learn from others, and skilled writers have the opportunity to exchange ideas
and think critically about their writing before a teacher evaluates it. In the situation of
collaborative technical writing, “…students demonstrate a tendency toward scaffolding”
(Semones 2001, p.308). That is, each member of the group contributes a particular skill in
his or her area of expertise to help complete a task. In this way, students simplify the task
and keep one another motivated and in constant pursuit of a goal.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 401

However, implementing collaborative writing is not without challenges. Although

“collaboration stimulates students to do their best work, or at least better work” (Chisholm
1990, p. 106), Chisholm identified four common problems in collaborative writing, namely,
“resistance, inexperience, friction, and fairness”. He further suggested strategies for coping
with the problems. For students’ resistance to invest the time and effort that a group project
requires, he suggested breaking the project into phases and working on a specific aspect of
the task during each phase. For coping with the problem of inexperience, Chisholm
suggested instructors devise methods for groups to develop a unified plan, including the
main idea, outline, and content. In addition, it is important to provide a way for teams to
reconsider, revise, and redraft the specifications and outline as their project matures.
Facilitating support at every stage of the writing process is also helpful for students to get
together in groups to review the work of others. Some strategies to cope with interpersonal
conflict and fairness include: Students participate in brainstorming and discussion sessions,
train them how to discuss problems openly, and help them devise strategies for coping with
the problems for implementing the strategies.
In addition to the above strategies, in the information age, collaborative writing on a
computer network is a type of communicative process that can be especially valuable for
writers. Many researchers who have studied the impacts of social Web technologies, such as
wikis, blogs, and chats on L2 collaborative writing (e.g., Boulos et al. 2006; Elola and
Oskoz 2010; Palmer et al. 2007; Parker and Chao 2007; Rice 2009; Wang and Turner
2004), have generally agreed that these Web-based applications facilitate “authoring
flexibility, content creation, and the generation of new knowledge” (Elola and Oskoz 2010,
p. 51). In Elola and Oskoz’s (2010) study examining eight Spanish majors’ learning
approaches to the writing task in the wikis, the results showed that when working
collaboratively, the overall quality of their work improved. Analysis of drafts also showed
that learners focused primarily on “content and organization”, either when working
collaboratively or individually. The analysis of the chats revealed “content of the essay”
obtained most of the negotiations occurring in the chats (51.94%), followed by suggesting
methods of structuring (15.55%). Other components included sources (14.84%), grammar
(7.77%), organization (6.71%), vocabulary (2.12%), and editing (1.07%). The researchers
also examined students’ perceptions of writing individually and collaboratively and the
usefulness of technology for collaborative writing. They concluded that learners’ positive
perceptions about the use of technologies confirmed previous findings supporting the use of
social tools, especially for content development (e.g., Lee 2010). The authors further
suggested the need for more research in the area of collaborative writing and its possible
benefits for L2 development; such research needs to be based on theoretical models that
illuminate social interaction with the support of social technologies.

Online discussion

Online discussion has been defined as a hybrid with elements of both written and spoken
language. As explained by Black (2005), such discussion may be in real time, as in a chat
room where students engage in synchronous discussion, or it may be through the use of a
bulletin board as in asynchronous discussion where students are able to “read and respond
at any time and create a text of talk or a written product of their discussion” (p. 9). In the
age of information, social Web technologies such as chats and teleconferencing are
considered real-time synchronous environments. Within synchronous environments,
learners can participate in one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many conversations (Zoran
2006). Online discussion is also considered a crucial element of learning and
402 S.-W. Yeh et al.

understanding, particularly for distance education (Gorsky and Caspi 2005). The idea that
peer interaction fosters learning has been widely accepted (Veerman et al. 2000; Black
2005; Palmer et al. 2007; Rovai 2007).
Although there are advantages of online discussions, researchers have raised some
concerns. For instance, how do learners’ interaction patterns change through using
computer mediation? Researchers (e.g. Hew and Cheung 2010; Orvis et al. 2002) claimed
that online interactions between learners follow certain patterns. With the purpose of
developing higher-order cognitive skills (such as knowledge synthesis, decision-making,
and collaborative problem solving), Orvis et al. (2002) conducted a study to analyze the
communication patterns during a synchronous Web-based military training course in
problem solving. A total of 6,601 acts of chat were coded into one of three interaction
categories (on-task, social, or technology-related) and analyzed the frequency and relative
change over time. The results of the study showed there were clear patterns of collaborative
interactions in synchronous problem solving. Overall, student chats were categorized as on-
task 55%, social 30%, and technology-related 15%. The authors suggested, “student
performance can be enhanced through the scaffolding afforded through collaboration”
(Orvis et al. 2002, p. 785). In addition, for tasks requiring some degree of problem solving,
especially when performed in collaborative learning, the benefits of online synchronous
instruction need to be considered (p. 794).
While the above literature suggests using synchronous online instruction to enhance
collaborative writing, currently, there is a shortage of such scaffolding tools and
environments for L2 learners. To expand research in the area of collaborative writing and
examine its possible benefits for L2 development, one of the goals of this current study was
to develop a computer-supported system with procedural facilitators and a synchronous
chat room to scaffold EFL students in writing collaboratively with peers.

Design parameters and research questions of the study

The current study developed a multi-user online system–-Process-Writing Wizard,

providing a procedural facilitator and a synchronous chat room to scaffold students’
collaborative writing. The design parameters are based on the theoretical underpinnings of
Collaborative Writing and Online Discussion as discussed in the Literature Review section.
They are summarized as follows: (1) realizing the step-by-step nature of technical writing
which is demanding for novice writers (Kelly 2003; Spring 1997); (2) realizing
collaborative learning in peers (Carter et al. 2003; Kelly 2003; Nagelhout 1999); (3)
providing opportunities for students to engage in discipline-specific practices to develop
effective strategies for exploration (Nagelhout 1999), such as creating team agendas and
plans, team brainstorming, creating shared team outlines, and creating team articles; (4)
supporting communication about comments to increase interaction between writers; (5)
examining and managing the writing processes, so students can understand the act of
technical writing (Glendinning and Howard 2003); (6) providing multi-user functionality to
let multiple students work synchronously and help students feel comfortable in multi-task,
multi-user environments (Nagelhout 1999); and (7) supporting collaborative parallel writing
(Sharples et al. 1993).
An experiment was also conducted to examine the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What are students’ perceptions and attitudes towards using the
Process-Writing Wizard in collaborative technical writing? Although the system provides
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 403

procedural facilitators and a synchronous chat room to scaffold teams of students to

complete collaborative writing tasks, it is necessary to examine users’ perceptions,
acceptance, attitudes, and continuing motivation towards the functionalities and guidance
provided by the system. The attitude questionnaire used in this study is based on Davis’
(1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which has been widely applied in the areas
of information systems (Lee et al. 2003) and online consumer behavior (Bruner and Kumar
2005). It has received empirical support from numerous studies (Porter and Donthu 2006).
The constructs of the questionnaire include: (1) perceived ease of use, (2) perceived
usefulness, (3) attitude to use, (4) intention to use, and (5) perceived response time from
peers.

Research Question 2: What is the effect of the Process-Writing Wizard on the content and
organization of students’ writing product? Past research categorized factors influencing
students’ knowledge construction into three divisions: (1) students’ learning styles, (b)
design of the discussion task, and (c) facilitation of roles or techniques (cited in Hew and
Cheung 2010). In an online discussion forum, student facilitation may be viewed as a
plausible factor, possibly affecting students’ knowledge construction. Some of the useful
facilitation techniques include: seeking to reach consensus, encouraging, reinforcing
student contributions, and focusing the discussion on specific issues (Lu and Jeng 2006).
The Process-Writing Wizard developed in this study is a collaborative writing system
combining the process writing approach (procedural facilitation) and social interactive
approaches (synchronous chat room) to support EFL writing development. In this regard,
our study examined the effect of the system on EFL students’ collaborative writing,
especially on “content and organization” of the writing product.

Research Question 3: What is the effect of the Process-Writing Wizard on students’

synchronous chats in collaborative technical writing? As defined by Orvis et al. (2002, p.
789), “an act of chat is a single, uninterrupted verbalization, typed in the message box”.
Past research has found students’ chats in online discussions are often limited. For example,
Hew and Cheung (2010) found that students were more interested in merely “voicing their
opinions to their classmates’ queries (sharing of information)…rather than moving onto
higher-level knowledge construction”. To cope with this challenge, researchers (e.g., Hew
and Cheung 2010; Schellens et al. 2005) proposed the task or assignment should be
“matched” to the available knowledge and skills of students. In addition, it is important to
design tasks leaving enough room for discussion. Our study also examined the effect of the
Process-Writing Wizard on students’ synchronous chats. In this study, we adopted Orvis’ et
al. (2002) coding scheme and categorized synchronous chats into three categories: (1)
article-related interactions, (2) social interactions, and (3) system operation-related
interactions. As facilitators are instrumental in shaping or influencing the chats, it is
assumed that the procedural facilitation provided by the system will scaffold students into
producing more chats in the category of article-related interactions.

Design and development of process-writing wizard

The system was developed using a Client/Server architecture (Fig. 1), in which the client
end includes Create Article, Wizard Interface, Writing Interface, and Article List. The
server end consists of an Article Database and a Log Database (Yeh et al. 2007). The
404 S.-W. Yeh et al.

Fig. 1 System Architecture of Client Server

the Process-Writing Wizard

Create Article Article Database

Wizard Interface

Article List
Log Database
Writing Interface

prototype structure of the wizard presented in this paper is based on the rhetorical form of
comparison and contrast, as suggested by Gillie et al. (2001, Chapter 6). To reduce the
verbalization demands for EFL learners, the interface of the prototype system was presented
in Chinese.
The team interaction at each stage of the collaborative writing process is supported by a
synchronous chat room and a framework presented in an outline form. It provides the
collaborative teams with a sequence of dialog boxes that lead the learners through a series
of well-defined steps. To begin the system, all team members login to the system, and each
team assigns a student to be the team leader to coordinate the writing process. In this study,
the process to create a collaborative comparison and contrast article consists of four steps
(Gillie et al. 2001, Chapter 6): Step 1: Brainstorming a topic and subjects for comparison
and contrast; Step 2: Brainstorming for similarities and differences; Step 3: Selecting an
organization style for comparison and contrast writing; and Step 4: Outlining the
paragraphs and assigning authors.

Step 1: Brainstorming a topic and subjects for comparison and contrast A topic is the
general focus of the article, such as “cultural differences”. Subjects are any objects or
instances that can be compared and contrasted within the topic, such as “eastern culture and
western culture”. Students use the online synchronous chat room to discuss the topic and
two subjects for comparison and contrast. The team leader then inputs the results from the
synchronous chat room into the system (Fig. 2). In this study, students were advised to
create a topic suitable for the rhetorical form of comparison and contrast, i.e., a topic with

Topic
Subject A

Subject B Next step

Send
Synchronous
chat room

Fig. 2 Screenshot of Step 1: Brainstorming a topic and subjects for comparison and contrast
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 405

enough similarities and differences. For better descriptions of the system, English
translations of the Chinese words on the screenshots are provided in white labels.

Step 2: Brainstorming for similarities and differences In this step, the students use the chat
room to brainstorm the similarities and differences between the two subjects. The team
leader then enters the results into the corresponding spaces (Fig. 3). Users can freely add or
delete any similarity and/or difference items during the discussion processes using the Add
and Delete buttons. By using the Preview buttons, users can preview the entered similarities
and differences before proceeding to the next step (Fig. 4).

Step 3: Selecting the organization style in comparison and contrast writing In this step,
students decide on the organization style of their comparison and contrast writing.
According to Gillie et al. (2001), comparison and contrast writing can be organized in two
common ways: All A/All B style and AB/AB/AB style (Fig. 5).
Style 1: All A, All B. In this style, the article begins by introducing the two subjects, A
and B, which will be compared or contrasted. In the following paragraphs, subject A is
completely described and a complete description of subject B follows. Usually, four
paragraphs are used and the article ends with a conclusion in the fourth paragraph.
Style 2: AB/AB/AB. In this style, the article also begins by introducing the two subjects,
A and B. It differs from style 1 in that each supporting paragraph discusses a different
aspect of both subjects. Within each paragraph, the details of comparison or contrast
are limited to the particular focus of the paragraph. The number of paragraphs depends
on the number of items to be compared or contrasted. The article ends with a
conclusion in the last paragraph.

Step 4: Outlining the paragraphs and assigning authors An outline usually lists the main
points discussed in an article. It helps ensure the article is unified and has plenty of support.
In Step 4, users create an outline collaboratively through synchronous discussions (Fig. 6).
The pull-down menu is provided for users to assign author(s) for each paragraph. The
buttons Add Heading, Add Subheading, and Delete Heading allow users to modify or
expand the outline. The paragraph structure is subject to the organization style selected in
Step 3. The Process-Writing Wizard is a structured but flexible system. Although the

Similarities between A/B Differences between A/B

Clear all Add

Preview Delete

Synchronous
Chat room Send

Fig. 3 Screenshot of Step 2(a): Brainstorming for similarities and differences

406 S.-W. Yeh et al.

Item Similarities between A/B Differences between A/B

Previous Step Next Step

Send
Continue
Synchronous
Chat room

Fig. 4 Screenshot of Step 2(b): Previewing entered similarities and differences

organization style has been determined in Step 3, the lists of the similarity and difference
items obtained in Step 2 can be retrieved to help users modify the outline. As a paragraph is
added or deleted, the numbering of corresponding paragraphs will be updated accordingly.
As the four-step procedure is completed, the system presents the paragraph structure
with the corresponding outlines and authors. The responsible authors then start writing their
paragraphs using the Document Maker (Fig. 7). The system combines all paragraphs (with
paragraph titles) written by all authors (Fig. 8). Finally, the system summarizes and presents
the tasks of each step as illustrated in Fig. 9.

Subject A Subject B

Organization Style

Style 1: Style 2:
All A, All B AB/AB/AB

Select Organization Style

Next Step
Previous Step
Synchronous
Chat Room

Fig. 5 Screenshot of Step 3: Selecting the organization style in comparison/contrast writing

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 407

Paragraphs Add Heading Add Subheading Delete

Assigning Authors Preview

Clear All

Fig. 6 Screenshot of Step 4: Outlining the paragraphs and assigning authors

Evaluation of the process-writing wizard

An experimental study with a control group design was conducted to examine the effect of
the system on learners’ attitudes, the article quality (content and organization), and
synchronous chats.

Experimental settings

This study was conducted at a university located in northern Taiwan, where the official
language is Mandarin Chinese. Forty-eight EFL college students, who enrolled in English
Writing II, were randomly assigned to one of two classes (with 24 students in each class).
All the subjects were familiar with basic computer operations and Web page browsing.
Students in Class A belonged to the experimental group and Class B to the control group.
During the experiment, students in the experimental group used the Process-Writing Wizard

Outline
Author

Renew Time

Preview

Heading

Paragraph Content

Save
Close Window

Fig. 7 Screenshot of Document Maker

408 S.-W. Yeh et al.

Author Name

Submit

Fig. 8 Screenshot of collaborative article combining the works of a team of authors

to complete their collaborative articles. Each student had a password to access the course
site on the Internet. When collaborating, students were seated at individual computers and
worked on team projects using the Process-Writing Wizard. On the other hand, students in
the control group did not use the Process-Writing Wizard to complete their collaborative
articles. Instead, the control group students used a regular synchronous chat room–-
Messenger, without the “step-by-step guidance mechanism” as provided in the experimental
group.

(Step 1) Topic and Subjects

for comparison and contrast
Summary of the writing processes

(Step 2) Similarities and

Differences
Content of discussions
Author Names

(Step 3) Organization style

in comparison and contrast
writing

(Step 4) Outlines of the

paragraphs and Assigned
authors

Fig. 9 Screenshot of the summary of the writing processes and the content of discussions
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 409

During the experiment, the students conducted their online discussion in Chinese. They
were put in teams of four or five to complete an article. Each team selected a writing topic
of their interest. Both groups were scheduled to meet for 2 h in a computer laboratory. The
teacher’s role in the experiment was to monitor the collaborative progress and help solve
the problems that students might encounter during the writing process. At the end of the
experiment, five teams from both the experimental and control groups respectively
completed their articles during the experiment.
In the control group, before the writing task, students were given printed instructions
from the instructor explaining how to complete the collaborative writing task. Students then
had to login to the Messenger (Fig. 10), assign a team leader, decide on the writing topic,
brainstorm the details, select the organization style, discuss the outline and paragraph
assignment, and finally start to write paragraph(s) using the Document Maker (Fig. 11) and
send the paragraph(s) to the team leader for combining.

Instrumentation and data collection

This study adopted Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to design the
attitude questionnaire. The constructs of the questionnaire include: (1) perceived ease of
use, (2) perceived usefulness, (3) attitude to use, (4) intention to use, and (5) perceived
response time from peers. Perceived ease of use refers to the extent to which a person
believes using a system will be free of mental effort. Perceived usefulness refers to the
extent to which a person believes the functionality and information provided by a system
will be useful. Attitude to use refers to the appraisal and extent of satisfaction in using a
target system. Intention to use is the subjective possibility users will use the system (Lo et
al. 2009). Perceived response time from peers refers to the extent a person will wait for
another peer to respond to his or her opinion.
Based on the above five constructs, the hypotheses to be tested included: (1) H1: There is
no significant difference in perceived ease of use between the experimental and control
groups; (2) H2: There is no significant difference in perceived usefulness between the
experimental and control groups; (3) H3: There is no significant difference in attitude to use

Fig. 10 Screenshot of Messenger

for the control group students
Enter Name

Enter Password

Register

Edit User Info

Delete User

Select Chat Room

Enter Chat Room

410 S.-W. Yeh et al.

Fig. 11 Screenshot of Document

Maker for the control group Create Article
students

Enter Title

between the experimental and control groups; (4) H4: There is no significant difference in
intention to use between the experimental and control groups; and (5) H5: There is no
significant difference in perceived response time from peers between the experimental and
control groups. To evaluate the above hypotheses, a seventeen-item questionnaire based on
a 5-point Likert scale was developed (Appendix).
A grading rubric was developed to examine whether there were any differences in
content and organization between the experimental and control groups. For content quality,
each article was evaluated to see whether it was on topic, interesting, logical, and of
appropriate length. The grading criteria included: “Is the content on topic?”, “Is the content
interesting?”, “Is the content logical?”, and “Is the content of appropriate length?” For
organization quality, each article was evaluated in terms of the comparison and contrast
method, thesis, supports, conclusion, and transitions. The grading criteria included: “Is the
method of comparison/contrast development used consistently?”, “Is there one main
thesis?”, “Are there adequate supports for the thesis?”, “Is there a conclusion?”, and “Are
there transitions?” For each criterion, the scale of points ranged from 1 to 10 points. In the
experiment, all articles were blindly graded by a trained English instructor with the grading
rubric.
The synchronous chats from both the experimental and control groups were analyzed to
examine how using the Process-Writing Wizard affects interactions among team members.
In the past, researchers developed different coding schemes to understand how team
members interact with one another. For instance, Lebie et al. (1996) constructed a four-
category coding system to analyze chat data: (1) planning activity, (2) interactive
composing activity, (3) the mechanics of the production process, and (4) interpersonal
and social activity. Cooney (1998) coded synchronous chats as: (1) discourse about the
content, (2) discourse about the task, and (3) off-task talk (Cited in Orvis et al. 2002). Based
on Cooney’s (1998) scheme, Orvis et al. (2002) constructed a three-category coding system
to analyze synchronous chats: (1) on task, (2) social interaction, and (3) mechanics. In this
study, the synchronous chats of both the experimental and control groups were coded with
an augmented version of the above coding schemes. The coding scheme included three
categories: article-related interactions, social interactions, and system operation-related
interactions. The article-related interactions are any chats focusing on the writing task at
hand, for instance, discussions on the article organization, article content, and how many
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 411

paragraphs will be included. The social interactions included chats about team work that is
not related to the writing task, such as discussions to ensure some team members are still
online. The system operation-related interactions are discussions about operations of the
system, such as how to post messages, problems with the system, etc. In this research,
synchronous chats were analyzed in quantitative terms, namely, the occurrence of chats in
each category. Besides frequency counts, percentages were utilized in order to standardize
the results between the experimental and control groups.

Results and discussion

Analysis of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude to use, intention to use,
and perceived response time from peers

The questionnaire was analyzed with SPSS. The descriptive statistics and the MANOVA
results of the questionnaire are reported in Tables 1 and 2. As Table 2 revealed, hypotheses
H1 and H5 were supported, suggesting that there were no significant differences for
perceived ease of use and perceived response time from peers for the experimental and
control groups. The experimental results suggested even though extra tasks were required,
the proposed synchronous scaffolding environment with the Process-Writing Wizard was
still user-friendly and it did not impede the communication processes among peers. Table 2
also showed hypotheses H2, H3, and H4 were not supported. The results indicated there
were significant differences between the experimental and control groups for perceived
usefulness, attitude to use, and intention to use. In other words, the experimental group
revealed more positive responses than the control group did. Specifically, the significant
positive effects on perceived usefulness suggested students believed the functionalities and
guidance provided by the synchronous scaffolding environment were useful. The positive
effects on attitude to use indicated students gave higher appraisal and were satisfied with
the proposed synchronous scaffolding environment. Finally, for continuing motivation, the
positive effects on intention to use suggested the students were willing to use the proposed
system for collaborative writing in the future. The research results provided evidence of the
effect of the Process-Writing Wizard during collaborative writing.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the experimental questionnaire

Construct Group No. of subjects No. of items Mean S.D.

Ease of use Experimental 24 5 16.9167 1.4116

Control 24 5 16.2500 1.9393
Usefulness Experimental 24 4 13.9167 1.7425
Control 24 4 13.0417 1.1602
Attitude to use Experimental 24 3 10.7083 1.3345
Control 24 3 9.8333 1.2740
Intention to use Experimental 24 4 14.7500 1.8238
Control 24 4 13.5417 1.7688
Response time from peers Experimental 24 1 3.7083 .8587
Control 24 1 3.8750 .9470
412 S.-W. Yeh et al.

Table 2 MANOVA results of the experimental questionnaire

Source Dependent Var. Type III S.S. df M.S. F P

Corrected Model Ease of use 10.083a 1 10.083 3.868 .055

Usefulness 9.188b 1 9.188 4.193 .046*
Attitude to use 10.083c 1 10.083 5.878 .019*
d
Intention to use 17.521 1 17.521 5.429 .024*
Response time from peers .333e 1 .333 .408 .526
Intercept Ease of use 13068.000 1 13068.000 5012.881 .000
Usefulness 8721.021 1 8721.021 3980.160 .000
Attitude to use 5043.000 1 5043.000 2939.531 .000
Intention to use 9605.021 1 9605.021 2976.128 .000
Response time from peers 690.083 1 690.083 844.625 .000
Group Ease of use 10.083 1 10.083 3.868 .055
Usefulness 9.188 1 9.188 4.193 .046*
Attitude to use 10.083 1 10.083 5.878 .019*
Intention to use 17.521 1 17.521 5.429 .024*
Response time from peers .333 1 .333 .408 .526
Error Ease of use 119.917 46 2.607
Usefulness 100.792 46 2.191
Attitude to use 78.917 46 1.716
Intention to use 148.458 46 3.227
Response time from peers 37.583 46 .817
Total Ease of use 13198.000 48
Usefulness 8831.000 48
Attitude to use 5132.000 48
Intention to use 9771.000 48
Response time from peers 728.000 48
Corrected Total Ease of use 130.000 47
Usefulness 109.979 47
Attitude to use 89.000 47
Intention to use 165.979 47
Response time from peers 37.917 47
a
R2 =.078 (Adjusted R2 =.058)
b
R2 =.084 (Adjusted R2 =.064)
c
R2 =.113 (Adjusted R2 =.094)
d
R2 =.106 (Adjusted R2 =.086)
e
R2 =.009 (Adjusted R2 =−.013)
*
P<=.05

Analysis of writing

The results in Table 3 show that the experimental group, using the Process-Writing Wizard,
had better outcomes compared to the control group in overall performance [E_G=7.78;
C_G=6.80], article content [E_G=8.15; C_G=7.20] and article organization [E_G=7.48;
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 413

Table 3 Average grading results

Grading criteria Experimental group (E_G) Control group (C_G)

Article Content 8.15 7.20

Is the content on topic? 9.0 9.2
Is the content interesting? 7.6 6.8
Is the content logical? 7.6 6.4
Is the content of appropriate length? 8.4 6.4
Article Organization 7.48 6.48
Is the method of comparison/contrast development 8.6 7.2
used consistently?
Is there one main thesis? 8.2 6.6
Is there adequate support for the thesis? 7.0 6.2
Is there a conclusion? 6.6 6.6
Are there transitions? 7.0 5.8
Total 7.78 6.80

C_G=6.48]. Although both groups had similar scores in items, “Is the content on topic?”
[E_G=9.0; C_G=9.2] and “Is there a conclusion?” [E_G=6.6; C_G=6.6], the experimental
group outperformed the control groups in other items, such as “Is the content interesting?”
[E_G=7.6; C_G=6.8], “Is the content logical?” [E_G=7.6; C_G=6.4], “Is the content of
appropriate length?” [E_G=8.4; C_G=6.4], “Is the method of comparison/contrast
development used consistently?” [E_G=8.6; C_G=7.2], “Is there one main thesis?”
[E_G=8.2; C_G=6.6], “Are there adequate supports for the thesis?” [E_G=7.0; C_G=6.2],
and “Are there transitions?” [E_G=7.0; C_G=5.8] (see Table 3). The results suggested the
students produced higher quality articles in most grading criteria for both the article content
and organization with the Process-Writing Wizard.
For EFL learners, writing is not simply a cognitive process that is highly individualistic
and private (Hyland 2003). It is a much more complicated process involving “knowing not
only one’s own writing process…but also the purpose and the context of writing” (Zeng
2005, p. 70). In the collaborative writing process, students work jointly on the same task
with shared goals. Learners construct knowledge that goes beyond what they already know.
Therefore, the clearest advantage of collaborative writing can be recapitulated in the old
Chinese saying, “Three cobblers with their wits combined equal Zhuge Liang the master
mind”, namely, “Two heads are better than one”. The Process-Writing Wizard is a real-time
communication environment with procedural facilitation, wherein team members receive
process-oriented supports to write articles collaboratively. If utilized properly, the Process-
Writing Wizard can be a powerful system to support EFL collaborative technical writing
instruction.

Analysis of synchronous chat coding

In this study, text-messaging data were drawn from both the experimental and control
groups. The content of dialogues were further coded and categorized into three categories
(article-related, social, and system operation-related), as illustrated in Table 4 and Figs. 12
and 13. The results showed in the experimental group, 61% of the chats were in the article-
414 S.-W. Yeh et al.

Table 4 Average number of dialogue categories

Category Article-related Social System operation-related Total

Group

Experimental group 280.4 (61%) 158.2 (34%) 22.4 (5%) 461.0 (100%)
Control group 254.0 (38%) 371.2 (56%) 38.8 (6%) 664.0 (100%)

related category, 34% of the chats were related to social interactions, and 5% of chats were
in the system operation-related category. In the control group, 38% of the chats were in the
article-related category, 56% of the chats were related to social interactions, and 6% of
chats were in the system operation-related category.
Among these three dialogue categories, article-related dialogues are regarded as
meaningful and contributive for article writing, whereas, social and system operation-
related dialogues do not directly contribute to article writing. The results showed the
dialogues of students in the experimental group were mostly related to discussions about
writing the article (61%). On the other hand, students in the control group had almost one-
third more dialogues in total, yet, they spent much less time on writing the article. Only
38% belonged to the article-related dialogues for the control group. They spent most of
their time in social interactions. This implied the proposed synchronous scaffolding
environment can effectively and efficiently help students focus their interactions on writing
an article. The results can partly explain why the articles written by the experimental group
were of higher quality. The lower total number of synchronous chats in the experimental
group (461 vs. 664) might have been from the time spent on the Process-Writing Wizard.

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Article-related Social System operation-related

Experimental group Control group

Fig. 12 Average number of dialogue categories

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 415

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Article-related Social System operation-related

Experimental group Control group

Fig. 13 Average percentage of dialogue categories

The results suggested the Process-Writing Wizard helped the students focus more on the
writing tasks instead of social interactions.
Incorporating scaffolds into writing process is an instructional challenge. However,
technologies can be designed to offer scaffolds that “lead cognitive functions that are
newly emerging, and to prompt routines and processes in a timely way” (Englert et al.
2007, p.11). This study offers supporting evidence that the Process-Writing Wizard can be
effective for EFL students to develop skills needed for the dynamics of the interconnected
world. This is the case because such a system has a few clear advantages for collaborative
writing instruction. First, it provides a systematic yet dynamic, rhetorical engagement
with technical writing in English. It also helps students understand the systematic nature
of technical writing, which is demanding for student writers. We believe this system can
help scaffold the necessary writing skills that most students will use in their professional
careers. Second, the real-time chat room allows students to collectively and synchro-
nously compose or edit their writings. The Process-Writing Wizard can provide an
environment conducive to, as Ede and Lunsford (1992, p. 15) stated, “social engagement
in intellectual pursuits, and promotes the understanding that all writing is collaborative
because all writing is social”. Third, it provides opportunities for students to engage in
collaborative writing, such as creating team agendas and plans, team brainstorming,
devising shared team outlines, and writing team articles. By examining and managing the
writing processes, the students can understand the act of collaborative writing. Finally, it
provides multi-user functionality to allow multiple students to work synchronously and to
help students feel comfortable in multi-task, multi-user environments. These advantages
are in accordance with the L2 learning theories, such as communicative language learning
and Krashen’s (1985) assumption of second language acquisition, emphasizing while
learning a second language, learners need to interact with the external environment
actively.
416 S.-W. Yeh et al.

There are several limitations to this study that need to be addressed in future
research. First, the prototype structure of the wizard presented in this paper is based on
the rhetorical form of comparison and contrast. Further research is needed to expand
the system to include other rhetorical forms, such as cause-effect and argumentative,
etc. Second, in the experiment, all the writing was blindly graded by an English
instructor. Although the rater was trained in the proper use of the rubric, it would have
been beneficial to have two graders to ensure consistency. Third, the experiment
investigated the effect of the system on students’ writing quality and online chats.
Further research is needed to monitor and analyze students’ collaboration and
interaction behavior, rather than looking at overall effectiveness of the system.
Notwithstanding the above limitations, the researchers believe this system contributes
to the practical need for a computer-supported environment of training collaborative
technical communicators. This study also provided a better understanding of what
support computers can offer in collaborative technical writing instruction. Finally, the
current study is significant because it empirically examined the effect of the system on
EFL students’ learning.

Conclusions

In different parts of the world, researchers and teachers search for proper methods to
provide computer supports to students in developing their collaborative writing competen-
cies. This study developed a synchronous scaffolding environment named the Process-
Writing Wizard for collaborative technical writing instruction. Process-Writing Wizard is a
real-time communication environment with procedural facilitation, wherein team members
receive process-oriented supports to work synchronously to collaborate on their writing. It
provides procedural scaffolds to help a team of students develop collaborative writing
strategies, such as creating team agendas, brainstorming, creating team outlines, and
generating a team article.
The experimental results are encouraging in that they are consistent with the research
propositions. The proposed synchronous scaffolding environment is friendly to users
and does not impede the communication process among peers, even though extra tasks
are required. The results also suggested that students who used the Process-Writing
Wizard had improved outcomes compared with the control group in terms of article
content and article organization. Moreover, the analyzed results of team dialogues
suggested the system can effectively and efficiently help students focus their interactions
on writing an article. In the context of EFL learning, a good level of English writing
ability is of paramount importance. In addition, a motivating learning environment is
essential for EFL learners who have limited opportunities to be exposed to the target
language in everyday situations. By creating and implementing the Process-Writing
Wizard, the researchers hope this study will be useful to other educators and researchers
engaged in efforts to apply computer technology to facilitate EFL learners’ writing
processes and interactions.

Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the research support of the National Science Council of
Taiwan (NSC 94-2411-H-033-010). We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for insightful
comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 417

Appendix

Table 5 The experimental questionnaire

Item Descriptions

E1 The functions of the system are easy to use.

E2 I can understand the procedures to use the system.
E3 This system has a well-designed design interface.
E4 There is no burden from operating this system.
E5a The online communication processes may impede collaborative writing.
U1 This system is helpful for collaborative writing.
U2 The functions of this system help enhance my collaborative writing ability.
U3 Through using this system, I can reach the goal of communication.
U4a I think too much communication of ideas may impede the fluency of collaborative writing.
A1 I have a positive evaluation of this system.
A2 I am interested in using this system to facilitate collaborative writing.
A3 I feel using this system is a joyful learning experience.
I1 I will continue using this system in the future.
I2 I have a good recall of the content of discussions from the collaborative writing processes.
I3 I will recommend this system to others.
I4 I am willing to use this system as a tool for collaborative technical writing.
R1 I’m satisfied with the reply speed of team members during the discussions.
a
negative items
E1-E5: perceived ease of use; U1-U4: perceived usefulness; A1-A3: attitude to use; I1-I4: intention to use;
and R1: perceived response time from peers

References

Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5–24.
Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of Web-
based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(41).
Retrieved Oct. 10, 2010 from World Wide Web: [Link]
[Link]
Bradney, D. D., & Courbat, M. D. (1998). Technical writing: Higher education’s self-inflicted wound. Tech
Directions, 57(6), 33–37.
Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices. Journal
of Business Research, 58, 553–558.
Carter, M., Anson, C. M., & Miller, C. (2003). Assessing technical writing in institutional contexts: Using
outcomes-based assessment for programmatic thinking. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(1),
101–114.
Chisholm, R. M. (1990). Coping with the problems of collaborative writing. Writing Across the Curriculum,
2, 90–108.
Cooney, D. H. (1998). Sharing aspects within aspects: real-time collaboration within the high school English
classroom. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: learner-centered technologies
for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 263–287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
418 S.-W. Yeh et al.

Dillon, A. (1993). How collaborative is collaborative writing? An analysis of the production of two
technical reports. In M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative writing (pp. 69–85).
London: Springer.
Duin, A. H. (1991). Computer-supported collaborative writing: The workplace and the writing classroom.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5, 123–150.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1992). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. U.S.A:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Englert, C. S., Zhao, Y., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N. Y., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of
students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve
performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 9–29.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions
development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.
Gillie, J. W., Ingle, S., & Mumford, H. (2001). Ready to write: An integrated course for nonnative speakers
of English. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glendinning, E., & Howard, R. (2003). Lotus ScreenCam as an aid to investigating student writing.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 31–46.
Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). Dialogue: A theoretical framework for distance education instructional
systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 137–144.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online
discussions: An analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques.
Instructional Science, Online First™, 14 March 2010.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.
Johnson-Eilola, J. (1996). Relocating the value of work: Technical communication in a post-industrial age.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3), 245–270.
Kelly, J. (2003). “What’s with the musty, old tent?” Using technical writing to promote peer- and self-
evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(4), 363–376.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lebie, L., Rhoades, J. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1996). Interaction process in computer-mediated and face-to-
face groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4(2–3), 127–152.
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-media collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course.
CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–276.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future.
Communications of the Association for Information System, 12, 752–780.
Lo, J. J., Chang, C. J., Tu, H. H., & Yeh, S. W. (2009). Applying GIS to develop a Web-based spatial-person-
temporal history educational system. Computers & Education, 53(1), 155–168.
Lu, L. L., & Jeng, I. (2006). Knowledge construction in inservice teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor
roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 183–202.
Lunsford, A., & Ede, L. (1986). Why write together: A research update. Rhetoric Review, 5, 71–84.
Nagelhout, E. (1999). Pre-professional practices in the technical writing classroom: Promoting multiple
literacies through research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 285–299.
Nelson, S. (2000). Teaching collaborative writing and peer review techniques to engineering and technology
undergraduates. Proceedings of 30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, S2B1-S2B5.
Kansas City, MO: U.S.A.: October 18–21. Retrieved Oct. 16, 2010 from World Wide Web: http://
[Link]/viewdoc/download?doi=[Link].85&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Nunan, D. (1993). Collaborative language learning and teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development)(2001). Defining and selecting key
competencies. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2010 from World Wide Web: [Link]
en_2649_39263238_2669073_1_1_1_1,[Link]
Orvis, K. L., Wisher, R. A., Bonk, C. J., & Olson, T. M. (2002). Communication patterns during synchronous
Web-based military training in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 783–795.
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and
Learning Objects, 3, 57–72.
Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2007). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online
discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 847–858.
Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Archee, R. (2005). Collaborative scaffolding in synchronous environment:
Congruity and antagonism of tutor/student facilitation acts. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on
Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (CSCL'05), 557–
566. Taipei, Taiwan.: May 30-June 4.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 419

Porter, C. E., & Donthu, E. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes
determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business
Research, 59, 999–1007.
Reis, R. (1997). Bite-size morsels introduce technical writing the easy way. Tech Directions, 57(2), 43–45.
Rice, J. A. (2009). Devising collective knowledges for the technical writing classroom: A course-based
approach to using Web 2.0 writing technologies in collaborative work tutorial. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 52(3), 303–315.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 77–88.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2005). The impact of role assignment as scripting
tool on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference
on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (CSCL'05), 557–
566. Taipei, Taiwan: May 30-June 4.
Semones, L. (2001). Collaboration, computer mediation, and the foreign language writer. Clearing House, 74
(6), 308–312.
Sharples, M., Goodlet, J., Beck, E., Wood, C., Easterbrook, S., & Plowman, L. (1993). Research issues in the
study of computer supported collaborative writing. In M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer supported
collaborative writing (pp. 9–28). London: Springer.
Spring, M. (1997). Computer support of collaborative authoring. Software to Aid Collaboration: Focus on
Collaborative Authoring. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2010 from World Wide Web: [Link]
cas/[Link]
Stratton, C. R. (1989). Collaborative writing in the workplace. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 32(3), 178–182.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic
discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269–290.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge:
Harvard University.
Wang, C., & Turner, D. (2004). Extending the wiki paradigm for use in the classroom. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing (ITCC’04), 255–259. Las
Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.: April 5–7.
Yeh, S.-W., Lo, J.-J., Huang, J.-J., & Fang, Z.-Y. (2007). A Synchronous Scaffolding Environment for
Collaborative Technical Writing. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on E-learning and
Games (Edutainment 2007), 829–840. Hong Kong: June 11-June 13.
Zeng, D. (2005). The process-oriented approach to ESL/EFL writing Instruction and research. CELEA
Journal, 28(5), 66–77.
Zoran, A. G. (2006). CALLing all learners: An explanatory integrative research study of EFL learner-
learner corrective feedback patterns within online synchronous environments. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of South Florida, U.S.A.