CULTURE, LANGUAGES AND MEDIA
Degree Project in English Studies and Education
15 Credits, Advanced Level
A Study Regarding Upper Secondary Teachers’ Beliefs on
the Use of Google Docs in the English Classroom
- En studie om gymnasielärares synvinklar kring användning av Google Docs i
ämnet engelska i klassrummet
Lana Srur Examiner: Chrysogonus Siddha Malilang Ämneslärarexamen, 300 hp Supervisor: Vi Thanh Son
Forward
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the teachers that allowed me to interview them for this study. Thank you for sharing your perspectives, opinions, and thoughts with me! I would also like to thank my former supervisor Damian Finnegan and examiner Anna Wärnsby for guiding me, for their insights and for helping me refine and write earlier works that lead me towards this study and helped form it. Lastly, I would also like to thank my supervisor, Vi Thanh Son for guiding me along the way and providing helpful comments.
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Aim and Research Questions ... 3
3. Background and Earlier Research ... 4
3.1 Key terminology ... 4
3.1.1 Google Classroom and Google Docs ... 4
3.1.2 Collaborative Writing ... 5
3.1.3 Formative Assessment: Feedback ... 7
3.1.4 What does the curriculum address about digital tools? ... 8
3.2 Theoretical background ... 9 3.2.1 Collaborative Learning ... 9 3.3 Earlier research ... 11 4. Methodology ... 13 4.1 Participants ... 13 4.2 Ethical Considerations... 14 4.3 The procedure ... 15 4.4 The interviews ... 15
4.5 The instruments used for data collection ... 16
5. Results ... 18
5.1 Teacher 1 ... 18
5.1.1 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of the feedback process, according to the teachers of English? ... 19
5.1.2 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of students’ collaborative work, according to the teachers of English? ... 19
5.2 Teacher 2 ... 20
5.2.1 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of the feedback process, according to the teachers of English? ... 21
5.2.2 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in
terms of students’ collaborative work, according to the teachers of English? ... 22
5.2.3 The curriculum ... 24
6. Discussion ... 25
6.1 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of the feedback process, according to the teachers of English? ... 25
6.2 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of students’ collaborative work, according to the teachers of English? ... 27
7. Conclusion ... 30
7.1 Summary ... 30
7.2 Teaching implications ... 31
7.3 Limitations ... 32
7.4 Suggestions for further research ... 32
8. References ... 33
Abstract
As part of the increasing use of technology in society, one particular school in Sweden follows the same path. The chosen school for this study has integrated digital tools such as laptops and a web service called Google Classroom. Within the service, there is an additional document creator called Google Docs which has several functions such as, storage, document creation, editing and commenting on texts and allowing instructors and peers to view the process in real-time (Slavkov, 2015; Wiles, 2015). The integration of Google Docs is of interest in this paper and the aim is to investigate its advantages for the feedback process and students’ collaborative work, and the possible disadvantages. The methodology in this study is a qualitative semi-structured interview with two upper secondary teachers in one school in Sweden. Both participants are experienced in using digital tools in their EFL teaching. Therefore, they help create further understanding and the pedagogical values of Google Docs. On the one hand, earlier studies promote Google Docs as an effective tool when it comes to managing and monitoring students’ work (Chu & Kennedy, 2010; Kessler et al. 2012), and the potential to improve student collaboration (Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015). Results show both teachers express that Google Docs is flexible and easy to use and share similar views regarding the facilitation of the writing process and feedback process. Likewise, in terms of students’ collaborative work. On the other hand, both teachers express similar concerns regarding the feedback process. The students would often rather know the final grade for their assignment rather than follow up on the formative feedback. Also, there are concerns that during collaborative work the students with higher L2 proficiency tend to have more workload than the others and end up teaching the lower proficiency level students’ important information that they should have listened to. The results imply that teachers need further guidance on teaching methodology, strategies for formative assessment follow up and organization of groups within classes when working with Google Docs.
Keywords: Collaborative Writing, EFL, Google Docs, Formative Assessment, Feedback,
1
1. Introduction
As technology progresses in society, it also finds its way into the classrooms. The integration of digital tools such as Google Classroom and Google Docs are increasing in the Swedish classrooms and are used more frequently. I first noticed the increase in the use of technology during my teachers’ practicum which was at an upper secondary school in Sweden. During my practicum, I observed that the students had received their own laptops. Moreover, they used a web service called Google Classroom where they shared all information, tasks, and communication between the teachers and the students. Additionally, the students used Google Docs to write their assignments and also received formative feedback there. As a result of my observation, I wrote my independent project called “Using Google Docs as a Tool for Collaborative Writing and Formative Feedback in the Classroom”.The paper was a research synthesis which presented findings from collected studies on the features of Google Docs. Moreover, there lies an interest in conducting further research about Google Docs. Therefore, the current study will include parts and aspects of the research synthesis and will further build upon it. Since digital tools are integrated in the classrooms nowadays, it is important that students are given the opportunities to increase their digital competence. According to the Swedish curriculum for English:
Students should be given the opportunity to interact in speech, writing, and to produce spoken language and texts of different kinds, both on their own and together with others, using different aids and media. (Skolverket, 2011, p.1)
Interestingly, this is not the only instance where the Swedish National Agency for Education (2011) mentions the importance of teaching digital competence. In fact, the curriculum also states, “in an increasingly digitalized society, the school should also contribute to developing the students’ digital competence” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 3). The abovementioned statements from the Swedish National Agency for Education clearly indicate that integrating modern technology is a part of teaching nowadays. Therefore, further research on the use of digital writing tools, specifically Google Docs, may be of great value. Additionally, results in this study show that both interviewed teachers experience a lack of explicit training in digital competence at their workplaces. Interestingly, the curriculum mentions the digitalization of
2
students but not teachers (Skolverket, 2011, p. 3). Therefore, this study implies that teachers may need explicit training in digital tools as much as students do.
In terms of using digital writing tools in the classroom, findings from earlier studies suggest that Google Docs creates the opportunity for students to collaborate, share and produce texts synchronously and provides a detailed insight on students’ progress and contributions for teachers. Thus, Google Docs facilitates customized and immediate formative feedback on students’ progress and contributions in group assignments (Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015; Zheng et al, 2015). While it may be true that Google Docs has advantages and to some extent limitations in terms of lack of follow-up on feedback, lack of equal task division in group work and less social communication during collaborative tasks, it is also true that teachers are in need of digitalizing as much, if not more than students. The reason is that the teacher’s role remains as important in the digital classroom as in the traditional classroom. Along with the integration of Google Docs in the classroom, the need for the teacher to both learn and teach the skill of using Google Docs and to prepare the students to make use of them arises (Brodahl & Hansen, 2014). Therefore, in this paper, it can be of value to investigate digitally experienced teachers’ beliefs to learn more about Google Docs pedagogical values and the teachers’ own experiences with it.
3
2. Aim and Research Questions
This paper aims to investigate two interviewed teachers’ perspectives and beliefs regarding the use of Google Docs in a Swedish upper secondary school. Since both teachers are experienced in using digital tools in their EFL (English as a foreign language) teaching, it will help create an opportunity for further understanding on the use of Google Docs in the classroom and its pedagogical values. In addition, there also lies an interest in what teaching methods the interviewees apply in their classrooms to achieve positive development in students’ collaborative skills and feedback skills. The research questions are:
1. What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of the feedback process, according to the teachers of English?
2. What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of students’ collaborative work, according to the teachers of English?
4
3. Background and Earlier Research
In the following section, relevant key terms are defined, a theoretical background that underpin this study are presented and followed by an overview of earlier research regarding the use of digital writing tools in the classroom. Lastly, there is also a brief review of the steering documents in relation to digitalization and digital competence.
3.1 Key terminology
3.1.1 Google Classroom and Google Docs
In this section, both Google Classroom and Google Docs will be defined, however, the main focus of this paper is Google Docs.
To begin with, Google Classroom is an online learning platform that is used in education by teachers as a tool to share information and tasks with their students (Heggart & Yoo, 2018; Spector et al 2016). Moreover, Fenton (2017) elaborates that teachers can through Google Classroom directly create assignments and the platform can be accessed on any type of electronic devices such as a smartphone, tablet or laptop. Furthermore, Google Classroom makes all the material for a significant course accessible for both students and the teacher. According to Heggart and Yoo’s (2018) study, Google Classroom also allows the students to interact dynamically and they share that they valued the opportunity that they could access the platform any time. The results show that Google Classroom was in fact, the most accessible learning tool and it encouraged collaboration among the students. An additional function of Google Classroom is Google Docs. The function (Google Docs) is a part of Google Classroom and allows document creation which can later be published or submitted to Google Classroom. Moving on, Slavkov (2015) defines Google Docs as a service that allows integrated sharing and synchronization of texts. Further, it allows storage, document creation, and synchronous and asynchronous sharing. It is similar to other word processing programs, such as Microsoft Word and it functions as a full-featured text editor. Moreover, Slavkov (2015) points out that in Google Docs you not only edit and comment on texts, but it allows instructors and peers to view
5
the process in real-time (Slavkov, 2015; Wiles, 2015). The real-time function makes way for the writing process as opposed to the students only submitting one final draft and receiving feedback and evaluation only then. In alignment with Slavkov’s (2015) definitions, Wiles (2015) exemplifies the alternative functions as follows. Firstly, there is a social context in which the writing is shared. It can be expanded from the teacher-student interaction, which is typically held in the classroom to sharing documents, allowing dialogue in writing and voice memos. Secondly, there are revision histories provided. Revision histories show the activity within and around the document. To clarify, it shows the activities around everyone involved in the writing process and the writing that is produced. Thirdly, a peer and teacher feedback function which serves as additional tools will be presented in the coming section ‘Formative assessment: feedback’. Lastly and as mentioned earlier, Google Docs supports holding conversations in the document in real-time, which becomes a part of the literary discourse in the classroom. The students can draw from the conversations and comments shared on Google Docs, other than what is being said in class. Moreover, Wiles (2015) stresses the learning experience from peer to peer based on what is being written on Google Docs about their learning.
Worth noting, in relation to Google Docs there have been and will be two recurring key terms:
real-time interaction and synchronous sharing. Both of them imply the actual time during
which an action takes place. In this context, for example, where the students engage in their writing and when they are all online at the same time and produce their text simultaneously and thereby view the changes made by their peers in real-time (Merriam-Webster, 2019).
3.1.2 Collaborative Writing
According to Storch (2011), collaborative writing is the joint production of a text authored by two or more writers. This is a so-called learning strategy which emphasizes social and intellectual interaction in the learning process. Most importantly, the differences in knowledge, skills, and attitudes among the students become strengths rather than weaknesses when they are working collaboratively. According to Deveci (2018), unlike other types of collaborative tasks such as peer response, collaborative writing engages the students in partnership in all writing stages. The students are engaged from decision-making to the construction and editing of the text. Whilst in peer response, the students are limited to pre-writing or post-writing. Moving on, when writing collaboratively students engage in a process of using language to make meaning i.e. languaging about language. The term was first introduced by Swain (2006) and
6
defined as, “the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language” (p.89). Likewise, according to Storch (2011), languaging:
Is the process of using language in an attempt to make meaning; that is, it is a means through which thinking is articulated and thus brought into existence. When engaged in writing, learners language about language; that is, they deliberate about how to best express their intended meaning. (Storch, 2011, p.276).
Moreover, languaging occurs when students engage in collaborative dialogue, meaning when students partake in a problem-solving activity. The goal is to use language to make meaning. With this in mind, languaging about language is part of the collaborative writing process and one of the ways for students to gain new knowledge about language and to develop their existing EFL knowledge. As Swain (1995) underlines, the function of producing the target language, in the sense of practicing it, may enhance fluency even though it may not necessarily improve accuracy. According to Storch (2011) when students language about language, they ‘deliberate’ about how to express their intended meaning in the best way. Moreover, it invokes feedback which leads to students modifying and reprocessing their output (producing language). As part of the collaborative work process, the reprocessing and modifying help the students to control and internalize their linguistic knowledge (Swain 1995). By the same token, Storch (2011) emphasizes the role of negotiations in collaborative work. She states, “when learners work in small groups (and more commonly in pairs), they engage in negotiations of meaning with the goal of making their output comprehensible and more target-like. These negotiations are said to facilitate L2 learning” (Storch, 2011, p. 276). Moreover, Swain (1995) argues that students are more likely to be encouraged by the need to produce output and will process language more deeply and reflect on language use. In terms of producing a unified text, the written output may provide great opportunities for receiving and noticing feedback as writing is less ephemeral than speaking. In other words, written feedback is timeless and can be accessed at any time unlike verbal feedback. There is an opportunity to notice corrective feedback and it is likely to encourage learners to reflect on their language use (Storch, 2011).
Moving on, when students use Google Docs in the classroom, their online collaborative environment should not be assessed by what they learn independently, but by what they learn when they collaborate with their peers. Storch (2011) further argues that tasks integrating both speaking and writing may be more conducive to language learning as opposed to solitary
7
writing. Collaborative writing provides learners with multiple roles, that of coauthors, tutors and critical readers which are usually not available during solitary writing (Storch, 2011).
3.1.3 Formative Assessment: Feedback
Generally speaking, Dixson and Worrell (2016) define the concept of formative assessment as activities undertaken by teachers and students in assessing themselves and where the information that was attained is used as feedback. The same information can then be applied to modify teaching and learning activities. Ultimately, the aim of formative assessment is to educate and to improve students’ performance. Moreover, it has the purpose of improving learning and diagnosing the students’ difficulties. However, Barker (2011) stresses the importance of providing feedback at a time and in a context when it is still meaningful to the learners. Most importantly, it helps establish a clear understanding of where the students are going i.e. learning objectives. Formative assessment occurs through self-evaluation, reflections on one’s own performance, or homework (Dixon & Worrell, 2016; Demirbilek, 2015; Huang, 2016). According to Dixon and Worrell (2016), there are a number of so-called typical characteristic focusing points of formative assessment. Namely, what is working, what needs to be improved and how they can be improved.
Conversely, when giving a summative assessment, the main focus is on the final assessment of how much learning has occurred or how much the student knows. With this in mind, summative assessments are always graded, less frequent and they usually take place at the end of segments of instructions namely, final exams, papers or in-class examinations. To clarify, the role of summative assessment is to determine a student’s proficiency level or success at a particular time (Dixon & Worrell, 2016). Although the abovementioned statements may be true, the authors insist that both types of assessment should complement each other providing that they serve related purposes. That is to say, formative assessment should be used during instruction to help students learn the material throughout the process and summative assessment should be used at the end to assess and evaluate how much the students have learned and retained in the process (Dixon and Worrell, 2016). Moreover, Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) define feedback as “anything that might strengthen the students’ capacity to self-regulate their own performance” (p. 205). Likewise, Demirbilek (2015) argues that feedback is essential for effective learning and offers a chance for self-evaluation in relation to the objectives and outcomes of a course. Overall, feedback provides information for two main audiences, the
8
teacher and the student. Moreover, feedback is a “catalyst” for successful learning because it provides students with information that will help them identify areas they could improve as it can be helpful for recognizing the student’s strengths and weaknesses and set task goals (Sadler, 1989).
On one hand, there is peer feedback which is defined as the process where learners work together, comment, critique and offer advice about each other’s texts or performance (Yu & Hu, 2017; Demirbilek, 2015). Interestingly, Yu and Hu (2017) view peer feedback from a sociocultural perspective and underline that it provides students with learning opportunities within the zone of proximal development which will be looked into more in the section: ‘theoretical background’. Surely, sociocultural learning is achieved through collaboration with more proficient peers and through problem-solving under adult guidance. More importantly, Demirbilek (2015) underlines that students may benefit from both giving and receiving peer feedback and it may also encourage students to pursue reflective and engaged roles in learning. This, in turn, promotes higher order and critical thinking skills.
On the other hand, there is teacher feedback which, according to Huang (2016), exists in the form of numerical/ alphabetical grades, written comments or both combined. In this context, teacher feedback is perceived as a customized instruction of the students’ performance. Furthermore, Sadler (1989) defines feedback as a key element in formative assessment. However, he points out that giving feedback, “[…] usually includes a teacher who knows which skills are to be learned, and who can recognize and describe a fine performance, demonstrate a fine performance, and indicate how poor performance can be improved” (Sadler, 1989, p.120). With this in mind, feedback provision requires practice in a supportive environment where feedback loops are incorporated. In contrast with peer feedback, teachers use feedback to make programmatic decisions with respect to readiness, remediation, and diagnosis. Whereas, students use it to monitor their strengths and weaknesses of performances including their own so that they may improve particular areas. Similarly, Chu and Kennedy (2011) claim that Google Docs facilitates teacher feedback as it allows for close monitoring of students’ textual progression. In turn, teachers can provide direct and detailed formative assessment in written text simultaneously.
9
According to the curriculum, students should be given the opportunity to be digitalized in school. As mentioned earlier, since we live in an increasingly digitalized society, schools need to contribute to the development of students’ digital competence (Skolverket, 2011). Interestingly, the Swedish National Agency for Education (2011) further emphasizes that “students should be given the opportunity to interact in speech and writing, and to produce spoken language and texts of different kinds, both on their own and together with others, using different aids and media” (p. 1). This certainly indicates how the integration of digital tools has affected teaching in the classroom nowadays. Moreover, the Swedish National Agency for Education (2011) underlines how schools should give students the opportunity to be digitalized and to be able to work with digital tools in different ways, both individually and in collaboration with their peers. However, one important factor to note is that the curriculum does not mention the digitalization of teachers and its significance for the teaching profession. To clarify, digitalization in this context implies the development of one’s digital competence i.e. technology-related skills. In this case, it is digital competence in Google Classroom and Google Docs.
3.2 Theoretical background
This section covers the theories that underpin this study. Firstly, there is a discussion of theories regarding collaborative learning. Secondly, there is a review of earlier studies on Google Docs and lastly, a discussion of the curriculum documents in relation to digitalization and digital tools.
3.2.1 Collaborative Learning
To begin with, one of the key terms in relation to collaborative writing and Google Docs is collaborative learning. Moreover, collaborative learning is enabled by Google Docs when students interact via the chat function whilst at the same time being able to write and share documents with each other. Furthermore, Rutherford (2014) claims that there is no single definition of collaborative learning as a pedagogical concept. However, there are cornerstones of collaborative learning worth mentioning, such as the importance of dialogue and interaction between learners (Deveci, 2018). Moreover, the dialogue is especially important because it is essential to the process where learners share their experiences, expertise or their thoughts and
10
feelings with each other. Further, the essential collaborative learning theory is the sociocultural theory and the theory of Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotskij, 1978).
Firstly, in terms of the sociocultural theory, the relationship between humans and their environment is what stimulates learning and language development (Vygotskij, 1978). According to Vygotskij (1978), learning is a socially situated activity. In other words, he claims that language primarily develops from interaction with other individuals, for example, in a conversation between the student and other individuals about the production of a task. In any case, the teachers’ role remains just as important or as Deveci (2018) puts it, “in these learning environments, teachers’ role shifts from transferring their own knowledge to students to facilitating the learning process through active engagement of students in all stages of the lesson” (p. 722). When the students are in a supportive interactive environment, they are able to advance their knowledge to higher levels. When they collaborate with more capable peers, in this case, students who have a higher L2 proficiency and writing skills, the learners develop and construct knowledge. In alignment with Vygotskij’s (1978) sociocultural learning theory, Dobao (2012) argues that collaborative writing pushes learners to work together with their group members and reflect on their language when solving language-related problems. Furthermore, Dobau (2012) adds that since no two learners have the same proficiencies, they can provide support for each other and reach a high level of performance.
Secondly, the Zone of Proximal Development is that which includes the social aspect of learning. Even though students are capable of learning alone, they can only do so beyond a certain level. They need to become engaged in a level of activity with the assistance of a more knowledgeable person (Vygotskij, 1978). In the context of using Google Docs, students’ online collaborative environment should not be assessed based on what they can learn independently using Google Docs, but by what they can learn when they collaborate with other peers. Moreover, the sociocultural theory can be compared to other theories which view thinking and speaking related to independent processes. Lightbown and Spada (2013) point out that the sociocultural theory views spoken language and thinking as interwoven, that is, writing or speaking mediates thinking. This indicates that people gain control over their mental processes as a result of subconsciously incorporating what other people have said to them and what they have said to others. This occurs when learners partake in interaction with other individuals within the same Zone of Proximal Development. Lightbown and Spada (2013) conclude that
11
the learner can perform at a higher level in such interaction because of the support that may be offered by the other interlocutor/-s.
3.3 Earlier research
When using Google Docs, Wiles (2015) emphasizes the related peer and teacher feedback which serves as additional tools. There is an opportunity for the students to draw from what is written and shared on Google Docs. With this in mind, a study conducted by Zheng, Lawrence, Warschauer, and Lin (2015) showed the students improved their writing as a result of the feedback process. The researchers aimed to examine how students used Google Docs to exchange feedback with each other. By providing feedback to others on how to improve and think more deeply about the content and structure of their written texts, the students developed and improved their own literacy when taking the role of both writers and readers when exchanging feedback (Zheng et al, 2015). Similarly, several other studies confirmed the benefits of peer feedback and that this type of collaborative learning through the use of Google Docs was useful for their success in writing, that is, collaborative learning through feedback exchange (Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015).
Moreover, in their study, Seyyedrezaie, Ghonsooly, Shariari, and Fatemi (2016) aimed to investigate students’ perceptions towards the effects of Google Docs and whether it would cause success or failure in their writing performance. Ishtaiwa and Aburezeq (2015) aimed to study the impact of Google Docs and to identify the limiting factor when students engaged in collaborative writing. Suwanthatathip and Wichadee (2014) examined the differences in the development of writing abilities of students who collaborated on writing assignments using Google Docs versus those groups working face-to-face in the classroom. Moving on, Google Docs proved to be beneficial in terms of collaborative learning among the students. To clarify, in several studies, the participants experienced that through collaborative writing and the provision of peer feedback they had been successful in developing their writing skills (Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015; Zheng et al, 2015, Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014). More interestingly, when using Google Docs, students report that the tool provided them with the opportunity to share their ideas and work collaboratively with their peers. The different functions, such as editing features and the chat function had the potentiality to improve student collaboration (Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015). In the study conducted by Ishtaiwa and Aburezeq (2015), results for student interaction using Google
12
Docs received a rate of 3.92 out of 5.00 and the opportunity to exchange ideas and information easily received a 3.98 out of 5.00 in total. Students’ attitudes towards collaborative writing using Google Docs proved to be positive and they experienced improvement in their writing skills (Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014).
In contrast, Brodahl and Hansens’ (2014) study showed a rather different perspective. Results showed, only 43 students out of 154 considered Google Docs to be an effective tool to use in group work. Moreover, no more than 22 out of 154 students expressed that they were motivated to use Google Docs as a tool for collaboration. The students overall experienced issues in organizing and producing a unified text. Further, the students’ concerns were different writing styles. Additionally, there were problems with putting the individual contributions together since they were not familiar with the other group member’s work and writing styles. However, there were also positive results. For example, 76 students out of 154 agreed that they liked that other students commented and edited their work in their respective groups. Likewise, in Brodahl, Hadjerrouit and Hansens’ (2011) case study where 109 out of 166 students expressed similar comments that they like to comment or receive comments on their produced texts. The case study investigated whether Google Docs was easy to use and effective in collaborative work. However, 46 students disagreed that the tool influenced the quality of collaborative work and only 23 students expressed motivation towards using the tool for collaborative work (Brodahl et al, 2011).
To summarize, several of the abovementioned studies showed that Google Docs helped improve students’ writing. Moreover, by taking on the role of both writers and readers and providing feedback to their peers, the students developed and improved their own literacy. Other studies confirmed that peer feedback exchange and collaborative work through Google Docs was useful for successful writing. However, some studies showed that the majority of the students were not motivated to use Google Docs as a tool for collaborative work. Further, results showed issues with the group members not being familiar with each other’s work and writing styles. Additionally, they experienced issues in organizing and producing a unified text.
13
4. Methodology
This section describes the methodological process and considerations for this study. Firstly, there is an introduction to the participants and the context where the study was conducted. Secondly, the section reviews the ethical considerations. Thirdly, it presents the procedure for the data collection and lastly, the interviews.
4.1 Participants
For this interview, two teachers from the same school were selected to participate. To begin with, there were some basic criteria for the participants to fulfill in order to participate in the interview. Firstly, they had to be upper secondary teachers and English teachers. The second criterion was that the interviewees currently use or has used Google Docs in their teaching. This criterion was also the most important as this study aims to investigate experienced teachers’ perspectives and beliefs. Most importantly, by investigating teachers’ beliefs, one may learn more about its pedagogical values and it obtains ideas for teaching methods, not to mention useful information regarding the affects of Google Docs in the classroom.
Table 1: The participants of the study
Participants Profession Teaching years
Using/ has used Google Docs in their teaching Years of experience in digital tools Date of interview
Teacher 1 Upper secondary school teacher, English subject
13 years Yes 13 years May 3,
2018
Teacher 2 Upper secondary school teacher, English subject
7,5 years Yes 4,5 years May 2,
2019
14
4.2 Ethical Considerations
The interview, interview data, and participants’ personal information were all managed in accordance with the ethical considerations stated by “Vetenskapsrådet” (2002) and GDPR (the General Data Protection Regulation) which was endorsed in 2018. Moreover, GDPR applies throughout the EU and the aim is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, especially their right to protection of personal data. When applying the rules of GDPR, there were several requirements that should be followed such as, using consent forms before collecting data, registration of any form of personal data collected, anonymization of any personal information, keeping collected data from unauthorized people and any cloud service, lastly, destruction of any data used in the degree project when the final draft is passed. For both interviews, the same procedures according to the GDPR rules were followed. In Teacher 1’s case, she was asked whether the recorded interview could be used for this study. Additionally, there were careful considerations regarding how to keep the data from unauthorized individuals and a date was set for the destruction of it.
In relation to the ethical aspects stated by “Vetenskapsrådet” (2002), there were four main concepts that were followed to conduct the interviews and collect data, the information requirement, the consents requirement, the confidentiality requirement and the requirement of use. First, the information requirement was fulfilled as each of the teachers were contacted via e-mail beforehand. The e-mail included a brief summary of the study, the aim and whether they were willing to participate. Second, the consent requirement was handled in accordance with GDPR requirements. Before conducting the interviews, the teachers received a consent form with all the information about their participation and that they had the right to end their participation whenever they wished to do so (see appendix). Third, in terms of the confidentiality requirements, all personal information was kept confidential and from unauthorized individuals. The names and gender of the participants are not used in their true forms in this text, they are altered for the sake of confidentiality. Therefore, the participants are referred to as Teacher 1 and Teacher 2. Finally, the requirement of usage was also met as the collected data has only been used for this degree project.
15
4.3 The procedure
In the data collection process, the teachers were first contacted via email, they were informed of the study and their role as participants, after agreeing to participate, a time, place and date were set for the interviews to take place. The interviews were held on different days but at the same location, which was the teachers’ workplaces. Upon meeting the participants, they were asked to fill in a consent form and whether recording the interview was permitted by them. On both occasions, the interviews were held in English for the sake of accuracy and clarity in the conversation and, to avoid translation. The reason being that the message may not always come forth in the same manner and might be altered during the translation process. The words may not always have an exact equivalent translation and may not be maintained in quotes. On the other hand, it is important to consider the limitations of using English to communicate during the interviews as well. The limitations might be that one needs to simultaneously translate thoughts and the exchange of words and work around inevitable deficiencies of vocabulary. However, both teachers where fluent and had no complications with communicating in English as both had been English teachers and speakers for several years.
Before ending the interviews, the teachers were asked if they wished to clarify or add any further information. Afterwards, the files would be saved on the laptop and transferred to the USB flash drive and deleted from the laptop for the sake of confidentiality. As a final step of the procedure, the interviews would be transcribed and used in the paper. However, not all parts were necessary to transcribe as this would take many hours to do. Instead, there would be a compromise of relevant and important information to be used. For example, the results would be divided, collected and transcribed according to three categories, the research questions, the disadvantages of Google Docs and lastly, the curriculum.
4.4 The interviews
This study uses a qualitative approach in the form of interviews. According to Burton and Bartlett (2005) and Bryman (2004), a researcher with a qualitative approach in their study seeks to understand the participants’ perceptions and understandings of a particular situation. The researcher does not aim to prove or disprove a hypothesis even though they may have an idea of the results in possible directions. Instead, the theory comes from the data collected from their
16
research. Qualitative research aims to gain an in-depth understanding and detailed description of a particular aspect of an individual. Further, it also explores the complexity and specific processes taking place in a particular social context (Burton & Bartlett, 2005)
To be more specific, a qualitative semi-structured interview was chosen as a method to attain answers to the research questions. Similar to Burton and Bartlett (2005), Kvale (2007) defines this type of qualitative method like an interview with the purpose of exploring ways in which the subjects experience and understand their own world. Hence, this provides unique access to the interviewee’s own experiences, opinions, and activities described in her own words. In this light, the answers to the research questions would be best attained through direct communication with the participants that fulfill the criteria for the semi-structured interview. Another key point with a semi-structured interview is that it has an overall structured framework that allows for flexibility. With this in mind, it creates the opportunity to use follow-up questions for example. In terms of context, the interviews were both held at an upper secondary school in Sweden where both teachers worked. The interviews were held privately from unauthorized people and no information was given to anyone other than the participants themselves.
However, using only qualitative interviews with two teachers may not have provided enough data. It may have been fruitful to include several teachers and having a mixed method approach. Qualitative interviews rely on respondents and their ability to accurately and honestly recall details about their thoughts, opinions, behaviours or their circumstances. Therefore, according to Esterberg (2002), one should use observation to know about what people actually do. Therefore, the results from the interviews may be fragmented.
4.5 The instruments used for data collection
First and foremost, the data for the interview with Teacher 1 was conducted was collected using a laptop. The interview was recorded, saved in the form of a file and was kept on a USB flash drive. Likewise, the interview with Teacher 2 was also recorded using a laptop without access to the internet. By using an application on the laptop, the interview was recorded, saved and transferred to a USB flash drive.
17
The interview questions were open-ended to encourage full and meaningful answers from the interviewees. Further, they were based on three themes: the teacher’s beliefs, the functions of
Google Docs and the curriculum. First, the questions began with the teacher’s experience of
Google Docs to develop an understanding of their previous knowledge and experience with the digital tool. Second, the questions were about whether using Google Docs was obligatory and if the teachers had received any education, guidance or training before using Google Docs in their classrooms. Moving on to the next theme, the questions concerned the teachers’ beliefs regarding the use of Google Docs, for example to what extent they would use it and why. Thereafter, the questions concerned the overall functions of Google Docs and how the teachers believed it was useful in developing students’ writing skills. Worth noting, when using the term writing skills both in the interview and in this study, it refers to the surface-level features of writing i.e. grammar, punctuation, and deep-level features, such as the structure of a text, topic sentences, and revision skills. Finally, for the last theme, there was one question regarding how the teacher would motivate their use of Google Docs in relation to the curriculum for English. The reason that a division of themes was applied was for the sake of clarification and a better understanding of the different aspects of the teachers’ perspectives.
18
5. Results
In this section, the results are presented according to each interviewee except for the final subsection about the curriculum where both teachers are presented together. For each teacher, there is a brief summary of their experience in teaching and using digital tools, whether it is an obligation to use Google Docs in their teaching, if they have received any education, guidance or training prior to using Google Docs in their teaching and how they as teachers believe they would benefit from such training. The summary is then followed by results for the two research questions:
1. What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of the feedback process, according to the teachers of English?
2. What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary classrooms in terms of students’ collaborative work, according to the teachers of English?
5.1 Teacher 1
To begin with, Teacher 1 has thirteen years of experience in teaching and shares that she has used digital tools since the beginning of her career as a teacher. She recalls working with Google Docs as well as Microsoft Office such as Word. Moreover, she expresses that she is self-taught in using digital tools and the main motivation for that is her own interest in learning about such things. Unfortunately, when she first started working at her current school, she did not receive any guidance, education or information about Google Docs prior to using it in her teaching. She has had similar experience from her former workplaces as well. In any case, she expresses that she has been interested in Google Classroom and Google App overall for quite a while. Even though she knows how to use digital tools, she still would not mind if the teachers in her school could collaborate on how to use it.
19
5.1.1 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary
classrooms in terms of the feedback process, according to the teachers of English?
To begin with, Teacher 1 expresses the fact that Google Docs is very easy to use, and it makes the writing process easier. The tool is very “hands-on” and concretely shows what the writing process is all about. Further, she emphasizes that “it is very helpful that you can follow up on everything they (the students) do, every time we use it […] we can go back and track the development of a text [..]” (Teacher 1, personal communication, May 3, 2018). Most importantly, she underlines that it is very easy to share texts which make the learning process visible and she emphasizes what the collaborative element can actually give us in the form of commenting, “both from fellow students but also from me […] especially from a formative point of view” (Teacher 1, personal communication, May 3, 2018). In terms of any specific methods that Teacher 1 uses in her writing assignments, she emphasizes collaborative writing with peer response and argues, “I think peer response is key […] I would say that the fact that peer response is so easy to use and adapt to the situation is one of the most beneficial aspects of it” (Teacher 1, personal communication, May 3, 2018).
5.1.2 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary
classrooms in terms of students’ collaborative work, according to the teachers of
English?
Worth noting, this question is mainly answered in relation to the function of formative feedback on Google Docs. They are more or less intertwined. With this in mind, Teacher 1 acknowledges the fact that Google Docs is collaborative and easy to use. The main method that she applies in her classroom when letting the students work in groups is collaborative writing. She further points out that as much as the students can collaborate with each other they can also collaborate with her. As mentioned earlier, the teacher expresses that because of the sharing function, the collaborative work would incorporate formative assessment from fellow peers as well. As for the disadvantages, the teacher expresses her concerns in regards to students’ follow up of formative assessment on Google Docs. She expresses that:
20
The only problem is that students tend not to be so interested in following up on the formative assessment. So sometimes it feels like we do a lot of work as teachers, commenting on things that are good and that should be continued to be used but also focusing on things that they need to change and if they don’t read my comments and actually act upon what I say then it’s pointless, almost […] we need to install it into their mindset that this is the way to go. (Teacher1, personal communication, May 3, 2018)
Moreover, she also addresses the issue of distraction in an open digital environment and points out that:
It is easy to start up your Twitter account or your Facebook […] but that also goes back to motivation. If you’re motivated, you probably tend to be better at actually focusing on the assignment but we know from what research says that it is pretty much impossible for them to actually be able to focus in an open digital environment […] that’s also, of course, fear, or problem. (Teacher1, personal communication, May 3, 2018)
Finally, Teacher 1 notes that when they have final assignments or if she will do a summative assessment of their writing skills, then she uses other types of testing tools such as DigiExam and test them on what they have actually learned. The reason is that the students have access to the internet when using Google Docs but when they use other tools that are specifically designed for exams then they are restricted to only using that particular tool on their computers. However, during the process as a practice tool, Google Docs is quite useful, according to Teacher 1.
5.2 Teacher 2
First and foremost, Teacher 2 has seven and a half years of teaching experience. She has three years of teaching experience back in Germany and four and a half years in Sweden. Further, ever since she started working in Sweden, she has been using Google Docs as her main platform and according to her, it is obligatory to use it in their classrooms at her school. This obligation includes her former workplaces in Sweden as well. Furthermore, she expresses that she did not receive any guidance, education or training on how to use Google Docs when she started working at her current school. But that did not become an issue since she was good at using computers herself. However, she thinks it would be beneficial to receive training and guidance,
21
because there are a lot of colleagues that struggle, specifically the older ones. She recalls that the previous school she worked at offered a small introduction where they showed the teachers the different functions of Google Docs.
5.2.1 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary
classrooms in terms of the feedback process, according to the teachers of English?
Teacher 2 acknowledges the fact that when she starts a writing task with smaller classes, she can go into the document while the students are writing and highlight different parts of the text or comment what they could think about or improve. She expresses that Google Docs is good for formative assessment when working with a text, editing a text and going back and checking the textual progression. Most importantly, she adds that being able to access such information or partake in such a process gives us an idea of where the students are in the process. She elaborates that if she asks them to produce a text, she can then look at what they are writing and follow the process. If she sees that they are not progressing as they should be, she can then follow up and inform them about it immediately instead of waiting to have an examination and then work out that they cannot produce a well-written text. In this light, she claims that “it is definitely really handy to have something that is so flexible” (Teacher 2, personal communication, May 2, 2019). When asked if she notices any differences in her feedback provision compared to when not using Google Docs she replies:
The feedback that I give now is definitely more formative and more like showing them that the text they produce, the things they do are editable. You can change this, and you can be better whilst paper and pen are more like, lost forever. You cannot edit the text and there is less development. I think mentally it is a big difference to see how you can change a text. (Teacher2, personal communication, May 2, 2019)
Furthermore, Teacher 2 exemplifies that when she is preparing the students for the national test in English, they share one document and write a text together as a way of practicing. As opposed to when she worked in Germany, where she would have used an overhead projector in front of the class instead and written the text by hand. However, she addresses that it would not be the same as writing a text together on Google Docs. For one thing, the students would not be as included in producing the text and they would not have been able to provide feedback to each other. With Google Docs, however, the students can correct each other and ask each other
22
questions and it becomes more likely that everyone learns something. Ultimately, Teacher 2 admits, “I think we just have to embrace the future” (Teacher 2, personal communication, May 2, 2019).
5.2.2 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper secondary
classrooms in terms of students’ collaborative work, according to the teachers of
English?
One method that Teacher 2 uses is producing texts together as a class. As has been noted, she often uses the method when it is before the exams. Although she admits that it is harder when doing it with larger classes, it is still possible to work in groups and write together. She underlines that it is useful especially in foreign languages, in German and in English where:
The text is going to have specific content, or the form is much more important or the language. That they need to have a clear introduction or that they have to use specific words or phrases and they have to work together as a group. (Teacher2, personal communication, May 2, 2019)
Moreover, she argues that when working together as a group, it makes the students think a lot more about language and makes them think more actively. Because Google Docs is so interactive, it is helpful when the teacher can practice writing text and go through the structure of a particular text together with the students. Teacher 2 expresses that, “it is a way for getting all of them to learn because it is more interactive” (Teacher 2, personal communication, May 2, 2019).
When asked how she usually forms the groups for collaborative writing, she admits that she would prefer to have them in groups according to proficiency levels. According to Teacher 2, the issue with mixing groups is that the students in higher proficiency levels tend to have more workload than the students in the lower proficiency level. As a result, some students do more work than others and end up teaching group members:
But I think also, sometimes with mixing groups within a class and I think, okay this student is better than this one so I put them together. The smarter student either does all the work or has to teach the other one and of course, we learn things by teaching, but the smarter student is not being
23
challenged. He or she is just repeating the things that the other student should listen to. (Teacher 2, personal communication, May 2, 2019)
In one instance when she had a presentation about literature history, the students shared a document to take notes together in class and one student ended up writing everything down. However, that is not the idea.But she quickly addresses that she knows it is not acceptable as the sociocultural theory by Vygotsky is the trend for language learning. She adds:
I think in theory it is wonderful, but I do not think theory works in reality […] I think maybe psychologically, socially and emotionally everyone feels better about it but on a level of learning and development, I do not know whether it is the most effective way to teach. (Teacher 2, personal communication, May 2, 2019)
In any case, she admits that she tries to mix groups but that it is important to find the balance since it is individual. Finally, the main and most helpful function for learning is the sharing function and the fact that the students and the whole class can work together, “if it is done right”, she adds. Another disadvantage with Google Docs is that the students are in an open digital environment which means that there are many other things that they can do other than their assignments. She points out that suddenly they are watching Netflix, they are on Facebook or they play games. She further adds, “I think you just have to learn how to deal with these distractions or you just have to make more interesting lessons” (Teacher 2, personal communication, May 2, 2019).
The final disadvantage of Google Docs, according to Teacher 2 is that students do not always follow up with the formative feedback. She addresses her concerns that “it (formative feedback provision) takes a lot of time and I do not know whether it is worth the time” (Teacher 2, personal communication, May 2, 2019). According to her, the students do not understand that when they have produced a text they need to go back and edit and look over it again. The issue lies in the fact that it has become like a transactional act where the students expect a grade back when they submit a production. For this reason, they do not understand that writing is a process because they are used to the system of transaction. In addition to the limitations of Google Docs, Teacher 2 underlines that, if the students are to have an examination then Google Docs will not be used for such activity since they can access the internet easily. However, when using a digital tool such as DigiExam, the students are restricted to only using the digital tool on their computers for their exams.
24
5.2.3 The curriculum
In terms of the curriculum, Teacher 1 underlines the writing process which can be related to the rhetorical process that is referred to in the curriculum. She argues that it would be strange not to work in accordance with the steering documents because of the fact that the aims are stressed so clearly. She further adds:
It is also very clear from the curriculum and from the people in power as it were, that we need to work on perfecting their (the students’) digital skills. We live in a digital world, alas. So, you know, it makes sense to try to teach them a thing or two about this. (Teacher 2, personal communication, May 2, 2019).
When Teacher 2 is asked to motivate the use of Google Docs with support from the curriculum, she expresses that:
It is all over. It is in every part of the curriculum, digitalization and that we have to prepare them for the digital world. It is in every single part of the curriculum […] I do not have to motivate why I use the computers; it is more like I have to motivate why I would not use the computers so they (the students) would rather use the computers than not.
In conclusion, it seems that both teachers are fully aware of what the curriculum addresses regarding digitalization. Both teachers have come to terms with the fact that we live in a digital world nowadays and therefore, need to work towards helping students develop their digital competence. Interestingly, Teacher 2 further admits that she does not need to motivate why she uses computers. She would rather need to argue why she would not use it in her teaching as that would be a rare situation.
25
6. Discussion
This section is divided according to the two research questions. Each question is discussed following both teachers’ perspectives in terms of similarities and differences and are then discussed in connection with the theories and earlier research that were presented in the background section.
6.1 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper
secondary classrooms in terms of the feedback process,
according to the teachers of English?
Both of the teachers agree that Google Docs is flexible and easy to use. They share similar views regarding the fact that it facilitates the writing process and feedback process. Both Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 emphasize that Google Docs allows them to access the students’ documents and follow the writing process as well as give comments on how the students can improve or areas where the students have done a good job. Furthermore, it makes learning visible and both teachers agree that the feedback provision both from peers and teacher is easy to use and is one of the most beneficial aspects of Google Docs. Similarly, Chu and Kennedy (2010) agree that Google Docs serves as an effective tool when it comes to the teachers managing and monitoring students’ work. Moreover, Chu and Kennedy (2010) claim that Google Docs facilitates the teacher provision of formative assessment because it allows to closely monitor the students’ progress, and they can provide formative feedback directly in the students’ texts. Hence, Teacher 2’s claim that she does not have to wait until a final exam to see areas of improvement in students’ texts. This consequently results in an immediate and detailed formative assessment from the teacher. Additionally, both teachers underline that peer feedback is important and that when working collaboratively, the students can offer each other feedback and learn actively which aligns with several of the mentioned earlier studies (Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015; Zheng et al, 2015, Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014).
26
Interestingly, both teachers agree that they would choose a different platform or digital tool for exams if they were to give a summative assessment. Furthermore, their reasons are that when using Google Docs, the students can access the internet which would be problematic if they were taking an exam. Both teachers also came across the issue that students easily became distracted because they would access social media and games when using their laptops in class. Given that social media is easily accessed on the students’ laptops, it is important that the teachers become aware of the reasons behind their actions. Teacher 2 suggests providing more interesting tasks for the students to work with. Could the reason that the students access social media be that they lack interest in the assignments given to them?
Moving on, the teachers’ opinions on the matter of formative and summative assessment align with Dixon and Worrells’ (2016) view that the authors insist both types of assessment should complement each other given that they serve related purposes. Both teachers express that they shift their form of assessment according to the assignment goal. If they are to only practice writing, then there is mostly formative assessments provided. However, if they wish to give the students an examination then they shift to another digital tool that restricts internet access. Or, as Dixon and Worrell (2016) put it, formative assessment is to be used during instruction to help students learn the material throughout the process and summative assessment should be used at the end to assess and evaluate how much the students have learned and retained in the process.
Even though the function of feedback provision has its advantages, both teachers express similar issues and concerns regarding the feedback process. To clarify, they both claim that the students would not follow up on the formative feedback and that the students would often rather know the final grade for their assignment. Teacher 2 even expresses that it might not be worth the time since the students only wish to know the final grade. However, written teacher feedback plays an important role in the improvement of students’ writing skills (Zhan, 2016; Zheng et al, 2015; Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015). With this in mind, it is crucial for teachers to follow up on such a situation. One may ask the question: in what way could the teacher handle such a situation if he or she notices that the students do not follow up on formative feedback? It is a valuable resource for students because it provides individualized, contextualized and text-based instruction from teachers. According to Dixon and Worrell (2016), the information that the teacher collects can later be used in the feedback process and improve teaching and learning activities. In alignment with Dixon and Worrell’s statement
27
(2016), both of the teachers agree that being able to partake in the students’ writing process is an advantage and helps them see what they need to work with. However, feedback requires engagement and evaluating one’s own work and the work of others in order to achieve successful results in writing development.
6.2 What are the affects of using Google Docs in Swedish upper
secondary classrooms in terms of students’ collaborative work,
according to the teachers of English?
To begin with, both teachers agree that Google Docs certainly facilitates collaborative work. Thanks to the functions of real-time sharing, editing features, leaving comments and writing together, the students can both work and learn together. Both teachers’ experiences align with earlier studies regarding the different functions of Google Docs and how it has the potential to improve student collaboration (Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015). One method that both Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 use is collaborative writing where the students produce a unified textual production whilst simultaneously partaking in the peer feedback process. By the same token, several of the earlier studies confirm that peer feedback and collaborative work of the teachers’ type can be successful for students’ writing and collaborative learning (Seyyedrezaie et al, 2016; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015). Another method that Teacher 2 uses is collaborative writing in a whole class where the teacher is also engaged in the writing process. The teachers express that such a method helps engage all the students in the learning process and allows for the students to partake in writing. They have the opportunity to receive immediate feedback and to provide it as well. Indeed, when students engage in collaborative dialogue they partake in problem-solving activities and the students use language to make meaning (Storch, 2011). The teachers’ methods certainly align with what the curriculum states that:
Students should be given the opportunity to interact in speech and writing, and to produce spoken language and texts of different kinds, both on their own and together with others, using different aids and media. (Skolverket, 2011 p.1).
Moreover, Teacher 1 argues that the rhetorical process is referred to in the curriculum and that it would be peculiar not to work in accordance with the steering documents because of the fact
28
that the aims are stressed so clearly. Similarly, Teacher 2 acknowledges that when working together as a group, it makes the students think a lot more about language and makes them think more actively. This aligns with Dobao’s (2012) claim that collaborative writing pushes learners to reflect on both their language and work together with their group members in the solution of language-related problems. In relation to Swain’s (2006) term languaging, the students have the opportunity to make meaning and shape their knowledge through language. As a result, they reach a high level of performance. Similarly, Rutherford (2014) states that when learners engage in such dialogues, they share their experiences, expertise, and thoughts with each other. Moreover, the collaborative writing process provides the students with multiple roles that of tutors, coauthors and critical readers which would not be available during solitary writing. Collaborative writing invokes feedback which leads to students modifying and reprocessing their output. As part of the collaborative work process, the reprocessing and modifying help the students to control and internalize their linguistic knowledge (Storch, 2011). Interestingly, both teachers also admit that whilst the students can collaborate with each other they also collaborate with them.
Although it may be true that students can learn when collaborating, it may not always be successful for all students and groups. One must keep in mind that students are individuals and learn differently. Teacher 1 does not express any concerns regarding the students’ collaborative work. However, Teacher 2 admits that mixing groups within classes does not always turn out successfully. According to the sociocultural learning theory, when placing students with lower proficiency levels in groups with more students who have higher L2 proficiency and writing skills, the learners develop and construct knowledge. The students are in a supportive interactive environment and they are then able to advance their knowledge to higher levels (Vygotsky, 1978). As much as this could apply to the situation where the whole class writes together along with the teacher, it may not always be as true when the students work in smaller groups without the teacher’s guidance. For instance, Teacher 2 expresses concerns that the students with higher L2 proficiency tend to have more workload than the others and they end up teaching the lower proficiency level students’ important information that they should have listened to. This aligns with Deveci’s (2018) claim that weaker students may be overpowered by stronger students, and some group member may take too much responsibility. According to Lightbown and Spada (2013), such a situation where the higher proficiency students tutor the lower proficiency students would be an interaction where the lower proficiency learner can perform at a higher level because of the support that may be offered by the other learner.
