Middle School Students’ Writing and Feedback in a Cloud-Based Classroom Environment

Abstract

Individual writing and collaborative writing skills are important for academic success, yet are poorly taught in K-12 classrooms. This study examines how sixth-grade students (n = 257) taught by two teachers used Google Docs to write and exchange feedback. We used longitudinal growth models to analyze a large number of student writing samples (n = 3,537) as they changed across individual writing sessions (n = 18,146), and multiple regression analyses to relate writing quantity and types of feedback to changes in students’ standardized test scores. Additionally, student survey data and content analysis of students’ writing samples were used to contextualize and interpret students’ writing patterns. Overall, students had a positive attitude towards using Google Docs for editing and for the provision and receipt of feedback. They received various types of feedback from both their teachers and peers, but most were direct in character and in the areas of mechanics and grammar errors. However, neither students’ writing quantity nor their types of feedback on Google Docs was associated with their writing achievement. Our findings suggest that cloud-based technology could be integrated into K-12 classrooms to support students’ writing and editing, and to engage students in collaborative writing and improve interactions between writers and readers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Aydin, Z., & Yildiz, S. (2014). Using Wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 160–180.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). Sharing and collaborating with Google Docs: The influence of psychlogical ownership, responsibility, and students’ attitudes on outcome quality. Paper presented at the World conference on E-learning in Corportate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Vancouver, Canada. http://www.openu.ac.il/research_center/download/Sharing_collaborating_Google_Docs.pdf

  3. Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Calvo, R. A., Stephen, T. O. R., Jones, J., Yacef, K., & Reimann, P. (2011). Collaborative writing support tools on the cloud. IEEE Transaction on Learning Technologies, 4(1), 88–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chamberlain, A. B. (2010). Synchronous computer-mediated collaborative writing in the ESL classroom. (Master of Arts), Michigan State University.

  6. Chao, Y.-C. J., & Lo, H.-C. (2009). Students’ perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for learners of English as a foreign language. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 395–411. doi:10.1080/10494820903298662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student response to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 181–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cho, K., & Cho, M.-H. (2007). Self-awareness in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. In D. Schuler (Ed.), Online communities and social computing (Vol. 4564, pp. 284–291). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Colorado Department of Education. (2011a). Automated data exchange documentation: Student data elements and definitions. Retrieved March 15th, 2011, from https://cdeapps.cde.state.co.us/appendix_sodefs.htm

  11. Colorado Department of Education. (2011b). Colorado Student Assessment Program Technical Report 2011. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/CoAssess-AdditionalResources.asp

  12. Conner, N. (2008). Google Apps: The missing manual. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Couture, B., & Rymer, J. (1991). Discourse interaction between writer and supervisor: A primary collaboration in workplace writing. In M. M. Lay & W. M. Karis (Eds.), Collaborative writing in industry: Investigations in theory and practice (pp. 87–108). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dalke, A., Cassidy, K., Grobstein, P., & Blank, D. (2007). Emergent pedagogy: Learning to enjoy the uncontrollable—and make it productive. Journal of Educational Change, 8(2), 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ede, L. S., & Lunsford, A. A. (1992). Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

  16. Educause Learning Initiative. (2008). 7 things you should know about Google Apps. Retrieved June 10, 2013, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7035.pdf

  17. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELTJ, 63(2), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fallahi, C. R., Wood, R. M., Austad, C. S., & Fallahi, H. A. (2006). A program for improving undergraduate psychology students’ basic writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 33(3), 171–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. doi:10.2307/356600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Flower, L., Hayes, J., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ge, Z.-g. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75–91. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Geoffrey, A. C. (2001). Forming the collective mind: A contextual exploration of large-scale collaborative writing in industry. New York: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and Wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language learning and technology, 7(2), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effects of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1).

  26. Graham, S., & Herbert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading, a Carnegie Corporation time to act report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence Education.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Han, Z. H. (2002). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jago, C. (2001). Cohesive writing: Why concept is not enough. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jones, J. (2008). Patterns of revision in online writing. Written Communication, 25(2), 262–289. doi:10.1177/0741088307312940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Li, X., Chu, S. K. W., & Ki, W. W. (2014). The effects of a wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy on writing ability and attitudes among upper primary school students in Mainland China. Computers & Education, 77, 151–169. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Pihlajamäki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay-writing processes? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 17–30. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.d01-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lund, A., & Smørdal, O. (2006, August). Is there a space for the teacher in Wiki? Paper presented at the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis, Odense, Denmark. http://Wikisym.org/ws2006/proceedings/p37.pdf

  35. Nagelhout, E. (1999). Pre-professional practices in the technical writing classroom: Promoting multiple literacies through research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation's report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

  37. Oishi, L. (2007). Working together: Google Apps goes to school. Technology & Learning, 27(9), 46–47.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Robb, T., Ross, S. M., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Salvatori, M. (1985). The dialogical nature of basic reading and writing. In D. Bartholomae & A. Petrosky (Eds.), Facts, artifacts and counterfacts: Theory and method for a reading and writing course (pp. 137–166). Upper Montclair: NJ: Boynton.

  42. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.

  44. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tierney, R., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading/writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In P. E. Pearson, M. Barr & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research Volume II (pp. 246-280). New York: Longman.

  47. Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26(2), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang, H.-C. (2009). Weblog-mediated peer editing and some pedagogical recommendations: A case study. The JALT CALL Journal, 5(2), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Woo, M., Chu, S., Ho, A., & Li, X. (2011). Using a wiki to scaffold primary-school students’ collaborative writing. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yeh, S.-W., Lo, J.-J., & Huang, J.-J. (2011). Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 397–419. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9117-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang, S. (2008). Assessing the impact of peer revision on English writing of tertiary EFL learners. Teaching English in China, 31(2), 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by a Google Faculty Research Award (Mark Warschauer, PI).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Binbin Zheng.

Appendix: Laptops and Learning—Collaborative Writing Survey

Appendix: Laptops and Learning—Collaborative Writing Survey

  1. 1.

    What grade are you in?

    • 6th grade

    • 7th grade

    • 8th grade

  2. 2.

    Which school do you go to?

    • Newton

    • Euclid

    • Powell

    • Goddard

  3. 3.

    Your gender

    • Male

    • Female

  4. 4.

    How many computers are there in your house?

    • 0

    • 1

    • 2

    • 3

    • 4

    • 5 or more

  5. 5.

    How would you rate your skill using computers?

    • Novice: I can turn my laptop on, but I don’t know how to use many programs.

    • Beginner: I am able to do a few simple things like browsing the Internet and some writing.

    • Intermediate: I do OK with 4 or 5 programs.

    • Advanced: I use lots of programs and sometimes help my classmates.

    • Expert: I’m often able to help others with their laptops, and generally fix computer problems quickly.

  6. 6.

    How much do you use your computer at school?

    • Never

    • Less than 1 h a day

    • 1–2 h a day

    • 2–3 h a day

    • 3–4 h a day

    • 4–5 h a day

    • 5–6 h a day

  7. 7.

    How much do you use your computer for each of these subjects at school?

      I do not take this class Less than an hour per week 1–2 h per week 3–4 h per week 5–6 h per week 7 or more hours per week
    English language arts (includes reading, writing, spelling, language)       
    Social studies/history       
    Math       
    Science       
    Writing papers (total writing time for any subject)       
  8. 8.

    How much do you use the following Google products AT SCHOOL?

      Never Less than once a week Weekly A few times a week Less than 1 h a day 1–2 h a day More than 2 h a day
    Gmail        
    Google Docs        
    Google Sites        
    Google Talk        
    Google Calendar        
    Google Reader        
    Google Video        
    Google Maps        
    EasyBib        
    Aviary        
  9. 9.

    How much do you use the following Google products AT HOME?

      Never Less than once a week Weekly A few times a week Less than 1 h a day 1–2 h a day More than 2 h a day
    Gmail        
    Google Docs        
    Google Sites        
    Google Talk        
    Google Calendar        
    Google Reader        
    Google Video        
    Google Maps        
    EasyBib        
    Aviary        
  10. 10.

    How much do you usually use Google Docs AT SCHOOL to do the following?

      Never Less than once a week Once a week A few times a week Less than 1 h a day 1–2 h a day More than 2 h a day
    Take notes        
    Write drafts as the only author        
    Write drafts that have two or more authors        
    Revise or edit something you have written        
    Give comments on other students’ writing        
    Fill in teacher templates during class activities        
    Chat with others in Google Docs        
    Make or work on spreadsheets        
    Make presentation slides        
  11. 11.

    How much do you usually use Google Docs AT HOME to do the following?

      Never Less than once a week Once a week A few times a week Less than 1 h a day 1–2 h a day More than 2 h a day
    Write drafts as the only author        
    Write drafts that have two or more authors        
    Revise or edit something you have written        
    Revise or edit other students’ writing        
    Give comments on other students’ writing        
    Chat with others in Google Docs        
    Make or work on spreadsheets        
    Make presentation slides        
  12. 12.

    Comparing writing with Google Docs to WRITING ON PAPER, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about use of Google Docs?

      Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
    Using Google Docs helps me keep better organized than using paper      
    I like writing on Google Docs more than writing on paper      
    It’s easier for me to revise/edit my work on Google Docs than on paper      
    I write higher quality drafts on Google Docs than on paper      
    I get more feedback on my writing when I write on Google Docs than on paper      
  13. 13.

    Comparing writing with Google Docs to WRITING ON WORD PROCESSING SOFTWARE (Open Office, Microsoft Word, etc.), please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about use of Google Docs?

      Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
    Using Google Docs helps me keep better organized than using a word processor      
    I like writing on Google Docs more than writing on a word processor      
    It’s easier for me to revise/edit my work on Google Docs than on a word processor      
    I write higher quality drafts on Google Docs than on a word processor      
    I get more feedback on my writing when I write on Google Docs than on a word processor      
  14. 14.

    Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about writing?

      Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
    I like writing for a real audience      
    Writing for a real audience helps improve my writing      
    I like getting feedback on my writing      
    Getting feedback helps improve my writing      
    I like giving others feedback on their writing      
    Giving feedback to others helps me improve my writing      
    I like writing with multiple authors      
    Working with multiple authors helps improve my writing      
  15. 15.

    Please describe what you like most about Google Docs:

  16. 16.

    Please indicate any challenges you have experienced with Google Docs:

  17. 17.

    Please include any other comments or suggestions regarding use of Google Docs:

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, B., Lawrence, J., Warschauer, M. et al. Middle School Students’ Writing and Feedback in a Cloud-Based Classroom Environment. Tech Know Learn 20, 201–229 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9239-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Google Docs
  • Collaborative writing
  • Feedback
  • Cloud-based technology