Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Technology, Knowledge and Learning volume 20, pages 201–229 (2015)Cite this article

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, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

  • 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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Binbin Zheng & Chin-Hsi Lin

  2. 3200 Education, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA

    Joshua Lawrence & Mark Warschauer

Authors
  1. Binbin Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Lawrence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Warschauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chin-Hsi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Check for updates. 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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9239-z

Keywords

search

Navigation