1
Degree Project with Specialization in English Studies in
Education
15 Credits, Second Cycle
How Google Drive Affects Upper Secondary
English as a Second Language Collaborative
Writing
-
expressed by Teachers and Students
Hur Google Drive påverkar engelska som andra språks gemensam
skrivning på gymnasienivå
- Uttryckt enligt lärare och elever
Basir Hosseini
Mattias Jaakkonen
Master of Arts in Education, 300 Credits English Studies in Education
3 Juni 2018
Examiner: Shannon Sauro Supervisor: Björn Sundmark
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, LANGUAGES AND MEDIA
2
Preface
Throughout the process of writing this degree project we have been equally
involved. Even if we have written certain sections individually, we have
frequently revised the text together. We recorded and transcribed the interviews,
as well as analyzed our findings collaboratively.
Hereby, we have equally contributed to this work.
Basir Hosseini Mattias Jaakkonen
3
Abstract
Swedish schools are gradually becoming more digitalized, which cause more teachers to turn to Google Drive for improving students´ collaborative writing, especially ESL teachers, which this degree project focuses on. Hence, the aim of this study is to find out how using Google Drive can influence upper secondary collaborative ESL writing. This degree project is qualitative in nature and explores the personal opinions of three ESL teachers and three ESL students at an upper secondary school in Sweden. Moreover, the paper offers an insight to how well the teachers’ digital training in Google Drive corresponds with the mission of improving students´ English writing ability. Furthermore, this paper provides an overview of previous research on Google Drive as a platform for collaborative learning. Based on the findings, the participants argue that collaborative writing in Google Drive can increase students’ motivation and improve several aspects of their written English, if used ideally. However, some key factors that determine the success of the platform are awareness and prevention of plagiarism, unbalanced workload and fundamental digital training for teachers, which then could be passed on to their students.
Keywords: Google Drive, Digital Preparation, ESL Writing, Collaboration, Qualitative Research and Plagiarism
4
Table of Contents
1.Introduction………..5-6 2. Aim and Research Questions………...7 3. Theoretical Background………....8-13
3.1 Concepts of Collaboration………...8-9 3.2 The National Syllabus and Digital Collaboration………...9 3.3 Motivation………...9-10 3.4 Google Drive as a Digital Platform ……….………...10 3.4.1 Interaction Through Google Drive……….10-11 3.4.2 Implications of Implementing Google Drive………...11 3.5 Unbalanced Workload and Plagiarism………...11-12 3.6 Importance of Digital Competence………...12-13 4. Methodology………...14-17 4.1. Ethical Considerations………..…...14-15 4.2 Participants………....15-16 4.3 Semi-Structured Interviews………....16 4.3.1 Procedure for the Interviews………...16-17 5. Results and Discussion………....18-24 5.1 The Interviews……….………...18 5.2 Teachers on Successful Collaboration………..18-20 5.3 The Major Drawback of using Google Drive……….……....20 5.3.1 Unbalanced Workload………...20-21 5.3.2 Plagiarism………21 5.3.3 Poor Digital Knowledge……….21-22 5.4 Students on Writing Collaboratively in Google Drive………...22-23 5.5 Implementing Google Drive for Collaborative ESL Writing………...23-24 6. Conclusion………..25-26 6.1 Limitations of The Study………..….26 6.2 Further Research………....26 7. References………..27-29 8. Appendix……….…30
5
1. Introduction
During our VFU (teacher internship at partner schools), we experienced several classrooms where collaborative ESL writing in Google Drive was a common theme. We noticed that there are various advantages of using the platform, even though there are some challenges connected to it. Hence, we will possibly find that Google Drive is an essential part of upper secondary ESL collaborative writing in Sweden. Therefore, the popular platform and its collaborative possibilities awoke our interest in the topic and lead us to our degree project where we investigate the platform´s role for collaboration further.
Skolverket (2011) states that students should be given opportunities to use digital tools for information-seeking and collaboration. Further on, the author states that upper secondary education should be steered towards problem-solving and stimulate action awareness among students, which should be done both individually and in collaboration with peers. Finally, they require students to work collaboratively and adapt their writing to intended audience and purpose.
In addition, Google Drive seems to be at the forefront of modern collaborative writing platforms, as it can combine itself with add-ons such as Grammarly, WordCloud and DraftBack, which could arguably strengthen the platform´s features significantly (Lin, Liu and Paas, 2017). In comparison, other platforms like Microsoft Word and Pednet do not allow any add-ons; hence, such platforms are not recommended for collaborative writing, but arguably work better exclusively for individual writing. Similarly, Lightbown and Spada (2013) together with Lundahl (2013) elaborate that ESL students who write collaboratively will improve their grammar, fluidity, structure, vocabulary, and punctuation. As a result, online collaborative writing could be essential in improving ESL students’ writing.
The Soviet psychologist Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that interaction and collaboration between students and their teachers results in shared development (Zone of Proximal Development). A direct advantage in such environments could be that a student with higher knowledge of a particular subject can share it with those who have not yet developed their language skills to the same extent. In relation to this theory, digital tools like Google Drive
6
allow ESL students to interact with peers and teachers when performing writing assignments online, sharing knowledge and helping one another.
According to Slavkov (2015), there are several pedagogical challenges of collaborative digital writing, where the most prominent ones could be unbalanced workload, plagiarism and lack of digital knowledge. Thereof, it is significant for ESL teachers to be aware of how to avoid these challenges and adequately implement Google Drive for collaborative writing. Similarly, during our teacher internships we noticed that ESL students with undeveloped writing skills tend to take a back-seat, letting more skilled peers do most of the writing, which could lead teachers to interact more frequently with students to balance the workload.
Unbalanced workload can also be related to plagiarism, since weaker students in
collaborative writing situations want to appear more proficient (Gudmundsdottir, & Hatlevik, 2017). Moreover, the contemporary digital knowledge among teachers and students is highly important for successful online ESL collaboration (Albesher, 2012; Lundh & Thomasson, 2013). In conclusion, to successfully incorporate digital writing sessions into ESL teaching, teachers must be aware of the mentioned challenges in order to prevent them.
7
2. Aim and Research Questions
In this degree project, we aim to examine upper secondary ESL teachers and students’ beliefs about Google Drive as a platform for collaborative ESL writing. Moreover, the study also aims to answer how teachers can implement Google Drive into their teaching. Hence, our goal is to display the platform’s efficiency for ESL collaboration by comparing previous research to the results of this study. Thereby, we intend to highlight how Google Drive influences collaborative ESL writing and display if the participants have sufficient knowledge of its features for its incorporation.
Therefore, our purpose is to find the answers to the following research questions:
- How can Google Drive as a digital tool influence collaborative ESL writing, according to some upper secondary ESL teachers?
- How can Google Drive as a digital tool influence collaborative ESL writing, according to some upper secondary ESL students?
- How should upper secondary ESL teachers successfully implement Google Drive into their teaching?
8
3. Theoretical Background
To be able to understand how collaboration in Google Drive affects ESL writing in upper secondary level schools, we first must investigate its origins and previous research. In that way, we can hopefully provide a foundation for further discussion. For example, previous research has shown that digital learning tools, such as Google Drive, possibly can increase students’ vocabulary, grammar and fluidity through interaction with peers, as well as increase students´ motivation. However, research has also pointed to some challenges that occur when ESL students collaborate in Google Drive, such as unbalanced workload, plagiarism and lack of digital knowledge. Therefore, this section of the degree project will present various
sources stating how collaboration via digital tools, such as Google Drive, can both positively and negatively influence upper secondary ESL writing, as well as how teachers can
incorporate it in their teaching.
3.1 Concepts of Collaboration
Collaborative writing is arguably an indispensable part of English as a Second Language. The term collaborative writing includes pupils working collaboratively in divided groups on explicit writing tasks designed by the teacher. In those situations, it is important that each student contributes equally (Lundahl, 2013; Nunan, 1992). As reported by Lightbown and Spada (2013), collaborative learning environments are created when multiple students work together to achieve a common goal, and hopefully trade knowledge. Thereby, collaborative writing, can be beneficial both from a theoretical and pedagogical point of view in ESL classes.
Vygotsky (1978) pointed out that optimal learning occurs when people cooperate with each other in social and cultural processes. This concept is also known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD). He defined the concept as follows: “The distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The author further concluded that teachers must provide students with environments where their ZPD is optimally present, which could boost and develop each student´s ESL learning. Thus, digital tools like Google Drive offer
9
various ways of interaction that enables ZPD, such as several types of collaborative
commenting, which include topic suggestions and eventual spell-corrections through textual discussion with peers and teachers. Additionally, the author claims that learning processes are divided into two stages. The first level is completed when students interact with each other, while the second level consists of how each individual can integrate their shared skills into their own communicative repertoires. Consequently, pupils’ learning progress and
development consists partly of interaction and partly by their own intellect.
3.2 The National Syllabus and Digital Collaboration
Skolverket (2016) highlights that using digital tools that offer collaborative writing possibilities could lead to students improving their general English writing ability. On the other hand, teachers could find it difficult to recognize all benefits of such collaborative tools, so it is necessary for teachers to highlight the possible benefits of digital tools and share them with colleagues. Additionally, the national syllabus demands students to be digitally prepared for their future studies and working life; thereby, teachers need to prepare students´ digital knowledge. Moreover, in the curriculum for English studies, the purpose section states that teaching should essentially be conducted in different areas and situations where English is used, based on the pupils’ educational backgrounds (Skolverket, 2011). Consequently, writing collaboratively in digital environments has become a common phenomenon in upper secondary schools throughout Sweden. ESL students have varied exposure to written English; hence, writing collaboratively on Google Drive can potentially improve ESL students’
writing dramatically. In order to optimally utilize the collaboration aspects of the particular platform, teachers as well as students, need to be aware of its benefits and limitations.
3.3 Motivation
Lightbown and Spada (2013) claim that motivation to learn a target language is partly defined by the explicit need of using the language, and how learners generally perceive speakers. Moreover, motivation can also be divided into two other categories; intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Firstly, intrinsic motivation is when students feel motivated to perform an
assignment because they personally want to figure out a problem, merely since they enjoy the process. Secondly, extrinsic motivation is the educational need for students to achieve a goal or grading criteria, so that they can reach their next desired educational level. Thereby, collaborative writing is an excellent way to heighten motivation among students, as it draws
10
upon both the need to learn and being positively affected by other ESL writers. The authors proceed to argue that a great deal of writing fluidity and vocabulary can be taught to learners by pairing students with different writing skills together.
In a study conducted by Albesher (2012), he divided ESL students into two separate groups, where the first one wrote essays collaboratively, while their counterparts wrote individually. The study indicated that the group who wrote collaboratively had higher levels of motivation, which improved several aspects of their writing significantly, such as grammar, coherence, cohesion and fluidity. Comparatively, the opposite group did not develop to the same extent as their counterparts. The overall findings displayed that the collaboratively writing
participants did not only improve their writing ability, but their interaction also contributed to a higher level of motivation and language acquisition. In unison, Setyawan and
Rochsantiningsih (2012) also found how digital collaborative writing through Google Drive could result in students initially gaining motivation to learn the target language. Conclusively, Google Drive could potentially be a great tool in collaborative ESL assignments.
3.4 Google Drive as a Digital Platform
According to Griffith (2014), Google Drive is a well-known worldwide digital platform for writing, available as a free app, along with 15 gigabytes of cloud storage. However, it was not designed to be a writing station but an online sharing and storage technology. Despite this, the present version of Google Drive is multifaceted, offering several sub-programs that are designed for different purposes, such as Google Docx, Google Sheets and Google Slides; however, Google Docx is the most popular one to use for writing. In September 2014, Google Drive had approximately 240 million users worldwide, which is a rapidly growing number. Slavkov (2015) also claims that the platform should optimally be used as a part of a
collaborative writing design that consists of elements such as early, intermediate and final drafts, to encourage proof-reading and peer feedback. Despite of its possible disadvantages, Google Drive could plausibly be very beneficial in ESL learning environments, because of its collaborative aspects.
3.4.1 Interaction Through Google Drive
Choi (2008) states that the purpose of using digital tools in collaborative ESL writing is to create situations where students are monitored by peers and teachers, which could lead to
11
increased feedback opportunities. Moreover, cheating arguably increases when learners are allowed to collaborate freely without teacher supervision, which is one of the reasons why teachers´ digital presence is crucial. Furthermore, collaboration could also lead to students seeking and requesting more help from their peers, and thereby improve and increase their vocabulary, grammar, and fluidity (Lin et al., 2017). In agreement, Chenzi, Saheli and Yunus (2012) explored that web-based communication and interaction may become less time-consuming for all parties involved, since both questions and answers are received quickly, in comparison to a classroom environment. As a result, the degree of feedback and guidance from teachers and students increase and become more efficient. In addition, Wilcox, Yagelski, Yu (2013) show in their investigation that digital learning platforms can be integrated into teaching so that students can increase their general English writing
components through digital presence and interaction. They further believe in the importance of coherence between lessons in the classroom and tasks that students perform collaboratively in Google Drive or other online platforms. Thus, to what degree teachers implement
interacting collaborative writing tasks via Google Drive could be essential for students´ development.
3.4.2 Implications of Implementing Google Drive
As shown in previous research, implementing Google Drive into ESL teaching could be challenging. As mentioned below, the main disadvantages of its use found in previous research are unbalanced workload and lack of digital knowledge in collaborative purposes. All these factors affect the outcomes of its implementation, which teachers arguably should consider before using Google Drive in their ESL teaching. However, the results section of our paper indicates that teachers might perceive these challenges differently.
3.5 Unbalanced Workload and Plagiarism
Slavkov (2015) emphasizes that writing collaboratively in digital environments could create circumstances where weaker students contribute far less than high achievers, which could end in an unbalanced workload among the students. Conclusively, teachers try to find effective ways to avoid this phenomenon, since it can be time-consuming for teachers to manually detect how workload has been distributed between group-members (Ekberg & Gao, 2018). In collaborative writing environments where unbalanced workload can appear, the purpose of learning from each other must be emphasized by teachers, to enhance ESL students’
12
development. One way to recognize each student's individual contribution, is to combine the free add-on called DraftBack with Google Drive. Trautman (2018) informs that Draftback is a software that could be added to Google Drive to detect eventual plagiarism and originality of a text in collaborative writing. Consequently, teachers using the software can display the original history of students´ drafts, which is essential for successful ESL collaboration.
Similarly, Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik (2017) state that plagiarism is often a challenging part for teachers to manage in collaborative writing. They further believe that students regularly use plagiarism to complete tasks within the time-limit and to ultimately exceed the given task, even if the plan originally was to manage the task without plagiarizing. There are several reasons that cause ESL students to cheat, which include time limitation to finish tasks, believing that small plagiarized parts will be accepted, the quest for a better grade, and
underestimating the possible punishment if being caught. Furthermore, Flowerdew and Li (2007) suggest that there are a variety of programs (CatchItFirst, SafeAssignment, and CopyCatch) that can be used to discover students' plagiarism. In addition to these short-term measures, they mean that schools and teachers need to work long-term and from an anti-plagiarism pedagogy perspective, which in the long run can prevent students from
plagiarizing. Having these aspects in mind, the possibility of tracking students´ progress in Google Drive together with add-ons can help to prevent plagiarism among students, and thereby create relatively equal opportunities for them to pursue grades and create favorable collaboration conditions in upper secondary level ESL education.
3.6 Importance of Digital Competence
In their investigation, Dominizi, Simpson and Zhou (2012), found that the participating students did not show any improved assignment grades after being taught using Google Drive for collaborative writing during an extended duration. The reasons for that occurring could be because some students lacked knowledge in how to operate Google Drive, which is a sign of poor preparation by the teachers. Likewise, teachers might be unaware of all the features available, which in turn led to complications when carrying out the assignment. Moreover, some participants found Google Drive complicated to use, since the software’s text format was non-compatible with certain offline writing applications. In fact, Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik (2017) found that Scandinavian ESL teachers often lack fundamental digital competence in how to efficiently use digital platforms in their profession. Thus, teachers
13
must also be digitally trained in Google Drive before using it in their teaching, especially in collaborative writing tasks.
In relation, Rymes (2010) recommends teachers to properly prepare students in a digital collaborative writing environment, which could be done in Google Drive, with
communicative repertoires, in the form of kind remarks, like “your idea is really clever” and encouraging comments, like “we are winners, we can do this!”, as positivity is vital for language socialization in a virtual working space. Hence, all group members should provide frequent textual encouragement as well as contribute equally, which leads to a welcoming and friendly group dynamic. Doing so, the frequent use of online learning platforms, such as Google Drive, could potentially be groundbreaking when collaborating, particularly for ESL students who might lack writing fluidity and a wide vocabulary.
Additionally, Setyawan and Rochsantiningsih (2012) claim that Google Drive is yet to be completed as an optimized station for collaborative writing. The most fundamental issue currently is that preparation opportunities for teachers seem too brief to optimize their knowledge of Google Drive, as most teachers lack fundamental information about certain features. A major proficiency missing from the preparation is how to make use of add-ons, which can support students´ grammar, vocabulary and fluidity, as well as avoiding plagiarism dramatically. According to Lin et al., (2017), well-functioning spell-checkers can be vital for ESL students’ writing, which is why certain add-ons can be extremely rewarding to use if collaboration are practiced in Google Drive. Add-ons are separate softwares that can be combined with Google Drive for different purposes, for instance, Grammarly and WordCloud are used to provide writers with useful grammatical suggestions and properly detecting spell-errors. In conclusion, Google Drive is a promising digital platform for writing that is still being developed, which calls for technical updates to be made as well, before one can say whether it is a solid digital platform for learning, or not.
14
4. Methodology
Similar to the methods used by Dominizi et al., (2012); Setyawan and Rochsantiningsih (2012), we chose to do qualitative interviews to answer our research questions, as our interest was in individual upper secondary ESL teachers’ and students’ beliefs. Our interview guide was flexible, which encouraged deep reflection. In fact, Foddy (1993) claims that face-to-face interviews provide the interviewer with more information than quantitative interviews. For example, repetition and optional follow-up questions are not as apparent in quantitative interviews. The author also points out that conducting interviews via telephone is less rewarding for the interviewer in comparison to face-to-face interviews. Similarly, telephone calls fail to display body language and facial expressions that indicate an interviewee’s uncertainty which affects the quality of the interview significantly. Therefore, while being arguably more time-consuming, face-to-face interviews can reveal many aspects which affect the reliability of an interviewee’s answers that quantitative research simply does not show. In conclusion, Kvale (2007) believes that qualitative and quantitative research have different strengths and weaknesses, even if qualitative research is more personal, which we took into consideration.
4.1 Ethical Considerations
For our degree project, we chose to interview three upper secondary teachers at an upper secondary school in Malmö. Moreover, we also interviewed three students from the same school. The teachers and students were from different backgrounds and with various experiences. Alvehus (2013) emphasizes interviews as a preferable option when doing a qualitative research, as in our case. The qualitative interview format is probably the most significant option to record the respondents´ point of view, experiences, and different ideas about the specific topic.
This degree project follows the guidelines by Vetenskapsrådet (2002). The main ideas which we considered are: the consent requirement, the confidentiality requirement and the
information requirement (p. 6). Thereby, the consent requirement entails that research participants freely decide whether they want to take part in a study or not (p. 9). As a result, we did not force any of the interviewees to participate, and they would not suffer any consequences if they did not want to finish their part in the study’s empirical evidence.
15
Moreover, the confidentiality requirement states that a participant’s given information must be handled in a way that secures it from unauthorized access (p. 12). Hence, the results of the interviews were not given to any third party. The information requirement includes the importance of research participants being informed of their individual parts in a study, but also of what the study’s aim is (p. 7). So, the interviewees were first contacted via email and in person, where the aim of the study was revealed, as we provided them with an idea of what kind of questions they would be answering as well. Furthermore, we made the participants aware that they can gain full access to the degree project after its completion. Consequently, the participants were informed of all the requirements before the interviews were carried out.
4.2 Participants
To find participants for the interviews, we contacted teachers from our VFU-schools, since we knew that it was more likely that we would receive quick responses, and the short time-frame that we had to do the research (due to the first meeting with our supervisor had been pushed back because of illness). In our study, we interviewed three teachers, and three students that attend the second term of their first year at the Economics & Law Programme from the same school.
One of the teachers, who will be referred to as X, has worked as a Geography and English teacher since 2003 in various cities, both in private and municipal schools. He has lots of teaching experience and working under different circumstances. This term, he is teaching English 5, English 7, together with a Geography 1 course.
Another teacher, who we are calling Y, has been working as an upper secondary Swedish and English teacher for approximately 20 years. Lately, she has been working extensively with Google Drive, as well as using add-ons, like DraftBack, WordCloud and Grammarly; consequently, she separates herself from the other teacher interviewees in terms of
experience, since they have not been working with add-ons extensively.
The last teacher, who we call Z, has only been working at the school for two terms, but she has worked as an upper secondary school English and German teacher for four years. She has also been working with Google Drive for about two years and has lately been using DraftBack as well.
16
One of the students, referred to as A, is a first-year student at upper secondary level, the student previously went to a compulsory school where she used Google Drive since fourth grade.
Another student, who we will call B, is also a first-year student at upper secondary level and has been using Google Drive since seventh grade in his previous compulsory school.
The final student, who will be referred to as C, is also a first-year student at upper secondary level, who has not used Google Drive previously in school.
The upper secondary school where we did our research offers various programmes, such as Economics & Law, Natural Science, Social Studies, Hotel & Tourism and Business & Administration.
4.3 Semi-structured interviews
The interviews in our project were conducted and recorded with the approval of the
interviewees in a semi-structured manner with central questions followed by supplementary questions adapted to the teachers and students´ answers. In accordance with Kvale (2007), the primary purpose of this interview form is to highlight the interviewed person's expertise in the specific area, which makes it suitable for this paper. One of the main reasons for selecting a semi-structured interview form is to use open-ended questions where the participants are given the opportunity to express themselves as freely and developing as possible. Depending on their answers, follow-up questions were asked for more detailed and clarified information about issues that either were unclear or needed to be explained further. Likewise, Alvehus (2013) emphasizes that interviewers´ objective should be to responsive and attentive while collecting the answers and then formulate topic relevant follow-up questions.
4.3.1 Procedure for the Interviews
Hatch (2002) points out that one of the first and most essential parts of a qualitative research is the tension between flexibility and structure. Usually, a great number of the researchers tend to enter their research field without being prepared with adequate formulation of
17
a concrete plan before they start their research and the required interviews. Taking that into consideration, we thoroughly prepared our interview-plan prior to the interviews.
Alvehus (2013) claims that due to time limitation the interviewers should record the interviews, instead of writing down an interviewees’ answers. However, the fact that the interviews were recorded, might have affected their performances and the data we received. Therefore, this was a factor that we had considered prior to our research. In relation, Kvale (2007) highlights that qualitative interviews involve describing and finding central themes on a specific topic that an interviewee is well accustomed to. The author further mentions that the goal of a conceptual interview is to understand the meaning of what an interviewee tries to convey. In that way, one can draw well-grounded conclusions about what has been stated.
The interviews were carried out in smaller private locations in the school during the 5th, 10th, and 20th of May. Before the interviews started, we asked what language the interviewee wanted to speak during the interview, to make them feel comfortable and in charge. At times, we steered the conversations slightly, but most of the time it was not necessary. Finally, one of the most important factors we considered was how to interpret correctly. According to Alvehus (2013), the importance of interpretation in qualitative method is that the researcher should present a common understanding of the research topic and develop the already existing science further.
18
5. Results and Discussion
In this part of the degree project, we will be responding to our research questions, based on the results from the interviews, and connect these to previous research noticed in the
literature review. Firstly, we will present how the ESL teachers believe that Google Drive can influence collaborative writing. Secondly, we will discuss the students´ perception about the same topic. Finally, we will conclude this chapter by displaying how upper secondary teachers can implement Google Drive into their collaborative writing tasks.
5.1 The Interviews
All the teacher interviewees believe that Google Drive potentially can improve ESL students writing components, such as grammar, vocabulary acquisition and fluidity. However, they also express that they need more education about the platform´s features to be able to use it, to transfer the knowledge to their students. Doing so, they point out that the use of Google Drive for collaborative writing could be improved significantly. Based on the interviews we conducted with the students for this degree project, it is evident that all the interviewees believe that collaboration through Google Drive can improve their writing. However, they also express that on some occasions, collaborative tasks can be challenging and less
developing, especially when the participating students contribute unequally, or that they lack exposure and adequate training in the platform. Additionally, the findings will also be compared with other researchers´ investigations.
5.2 Teachers on Successful Collaboration
Teacher Y expresses that she is highly pleased with the collaboration possibilities in Google Drive, such as students being able to write collaboratively as well as receiving comments from teachers and peers, which in combination could improve their grammar, fluidity and broaden their vocabulary. Lundahl (2014) informs that such interactions often result in ESL students being able to adapt their language to different purposes more efficiently. Doing so, peers and teachers can steer their writing personally, generating a quicker understanding of how their writing can be improved, as well as increasing their motivation. Moreover, X compared Google Drive to another digital platform called Pednet, claiming that Google Drive is better regarding collaboration possibilities. Correspondingly, Albesher (2012) claims that Google Drive is a powerful application for enabling optimized collaboration. This application
19
contributes with efficiency and ease when creating, editing, commenting, saving and sharing files with peers. For example, the possibility of instant saving and chatting is something highly appreciated by users, and that is something not offered by Microsoft Word for
example. However, other digital platforms also have their advantages regarding collaboration choices, but these unique opportunities and features perhaps make Google Drive the premier and most preferred digital platform for many schools and teachers.
Nevertheless, Y emphasizes that students in collaborative writing tasks can comment on peers’ texts and take advantage of the chatting possibilities, which can increase knowledge sharing positively. Correspondingly, students can improve their grammar, increase
vocabulary acquisition and develop their overall language ability. Moreover, the ZPD theory is therefore relatable to the online chatting found in digital learning platforms, like Google Drive (Vygotsky, 1978). In accordance with Y, Slavkov (2015) claims that working with other students in Google Drive is beneficial for feedback purposes, where commenting is perceived as one of the most useful features for both students and teachers. In agreement, Rymes (2010) highlights that writing collaboratively online gives students and teachers an unprecedented understanding of how to follow individual-based instructions and provide necessary commenting on the students´ writing. Doing so, students can obtain instant responses from peers and teachers, which arguably results in quicker writing development. To sum up, the interviewees’ views on the collaborative features of Google Drive were generally positive, comparable to what has been presented in previous research.
Moreover, X mentions that Google Drive on a couple of occasions could be helpful and improve students´ English writing ability when collaborating with each other and their teachers. However, X does not use this possibility, instead he prefers to comment directly into texts. Thus, X believes that one of the most significant features of Google Drive is the option to comment on students´ texts directly, as it enables teachers to give instant feedback that students can apply to their writing. Similarly, Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) declare how commenting in digital platforms contributes to increased knowledge, which positively affects students’ capability in collaboration. Thereby, commenting by teachers and students is a highly valuable feature for ESL students in collaborative writing.
In addition, another motivational factor for collaborative writing in Google Drive according to the teachers, was the satisfactory overview of students' work. For example, X highlights
20
that students who write in Google Drive also tend to take the tasks more seriously and adapt to deadlines, as they feel a sense of being monitored by the teacher and the cooperating students. Likewise, Ekberg and Gao (2018) argue that teachers can check student´s documents without notice, to encourage student performance. In addition, Y claims that collaborative ESL writing in Google Drive generates motivated students. In unison with Y, Lightbown and Spada (2013) believe that motivation is one of the most significant pillars of ESL, as it can dramatically increase in collaborative situations, and impact students´ writing abilities positively.
Concluding the results regarding teachers´ beliefs about collaborative writing tasks done through Google Drive, the findings correspond with previous research (Vygotsky, 1978; Lundahl, 2013). Hence, the teachers believe that collaboration between peers and teachers will contribute to increased knowledge and writing development among ESL students.
5.3 The Major Drawbacks of using Google Drive
The teachers believe that Google Drive has various setbacks in collaborative writing environments. The major drawbacks found in the interviews were unbalanced workload, plagiarism and poor digital knowledge. Thus, this part will discuss and analyze the teacher interviewees’ answers regarding Google Drive´s negative aspects in collaborative writing tasks.
5.3.1 Unbalanced Workload
We noticed through the teacher interviews that they find unbalanced workload among students to be a common problem when using Google Drive for collaborative writing. Thereof, Z emphasizes that students could divide the workload in collaborative writing between peers unequally, which can create situations where they cannot influence each other with their previous knowledge. In addition, Y claims that students can take advantage of peers in collaborative writing tasks and contribute far less than other group-members. So, when analyzing Y and Z’s responses regarding unbalanced workload in collaborative writing, we concluded that this phenomenon should be highly prioritized if teachers aim to achieve ideal learning possibilities from collaboration. However, prior to presenting collaboration instructions for students, teachers must emphasize the importance of equal contribution, as well as how that affects writing development and improvement in the participants´
21
productions. Thus, Rymes (2010) recommends that teachers must include preparatory group-exercises that target encouragement and involvement among group-members. He further encourages teachers to explain the main purpose for using Google Drive in collaborative writing before proceeding.
To conclude, unbalanced workload is a common phenomenon that can be prevented with the right precautions, using different preparatory tasks to encourage student participation.
5.3.2 Plagiarism
Furthermore, plagiarism is unfortunately something that teachers must regulate frequently, since its outcomes affect teachers and students negatively. During our VFU (internship) and our part-time jobs at different schools in Malmö, we have experienced plagiarism to some extent. In addition, Z points out that plagiarism in collaborative writing will negatively impact students’ vocabulary, grammar knowledge and text fluidity. In fact, both Y and Z use DraftBack to prevent plagiarism. Thus, Y and Z found DraftBack as a very useful shield against plagiarism, while X does not use it at all, as mentioned before. Similarly, studies by Albesher (2012); Flowerdew and Li (2007) point out that plagiarism and unequal contribution in collaborative writing tasks can affect students’ writing development negatively.
Furthermore, Y and Z highlight that proper use of DraftBack has a positive impact on collaborative writing tasks, and makes it easier to prevent plagiarism, and thereby can create equal assessment circumstances.
Conclusively, Google Drive combined with DraftBack allows teachers to discover plagiarism in collaborative tasks, by displaying document history. This also aligns with Ekberg and Gao’s (2018) study, which shows that understanding add-ons like DraftBack could lead to fairer supervision and improvement of students’ collaborative writing.
5.3.3 Poor Digital Knowledge
Another drawback according to the teacher interviewees is poor digital knowledge of how to optimally use Google Drive for collaborative writing in ESL contexts, as well as in what areas of the platform could be improved for that purpose. For example, teacher Z emphasizes that other programs, such as Microsoft Word, offers a layout for writing that is easy to maneuver. Similarly, teacher X confirms these facts by mentioning that one of the most
22
devastating aspects of Google Drive for collaborative uses is its relatively difficult layout for providing feedback. Setyawan and Rochsantiningsih (2012); Albesher (2012) highlight that teachers must get proper education about Google Drive and how to use the platform
successfully for collaboration. Furthermore, X acknowledged that assessing and digitally comment on students’ tasks and texts is time-consuming and needs a lot of effort from teachers compared to other programs that offer more easiness and comfortability. For
example, Z and X state that they miss simplicity when using Google Drive, which arguably is due to poor digital training. Thus, teachers must be aware of various features that the
platform offers, so that students can take full advantage of the its possibilities, which could lead to improved ESL writing knowledge among peers.
To sum up, based on these perspectives and findings, it would be rewarding to conduct another form of method, for example, by doing quantitative research and asking more teachers, to measure how digital improvements in Google Drive can improve and develop ESL students´ collaborative writing.
5.4 Students on Writing Collaboratively in Google Drive
When analyzing the students’ responses regarding collaboration, student A points out that working in Google Drive provides an opportunity to highlight and comment on different areas of a text. She further expresses that such procedures could be done by both students and teachers, for example, when working with group-tasks. Moreover, Students A and B explain that receiving feedback through comments from teachers and other peers gives them a chance to instantly evaluate and eventually edit their texts. Additionally, Vygotsky (1978) informed that social interaction is crucial for learning, which corresponds well with the student
interviewees’ experiences. Furthermore, Lundahl (2012) also claims that online collaboration is essential and probably the most significant component in ESL writing environments.
On the other hand, two of the students, A and B, report that they experience Google Drive as inferior in comparison to other competing softwares, such as Microsoft Word, which
arguably has a more understandable layout. They also claim that more information about the tool and its various functions would be needed to fully incorporate its possibilities. Moreover, C, who is the most negative towards writing in Google Drive, sees Microsoft Word as far more superior as a platform for writing.
23
In addition, the interviewed students all believe that the possibility of detecting plagiarism and unbalanced workload in collaborative writing via Google Drive was excessively
appreciated, since it implements a much fairer assessment circumstance for teachers. Lundahl (2013) points out that fair and equal assessment is highly prioritized among students. He further believes that assessment must be objective, transparent and equal, which leads to the conclusion that teachers should prevent plagiarism at any cost, to create the most preferable circumstances for ESL students. As mentioned, the students experience Google Drive’s collaborative tools as very useful. They found features like commenting, e-mail notifications and highlighting especially helpful in their collaborations. In conclusion, the aspect of equal assessment in collaborative writing was one of the most satisfying features of Google Drive among the student interviewees. Hence, the responses from both the teachers and the students show that Google Drive could be perceived as incomplete for ESL collaboration.
However, if a larger study was made, the reliability of the students’ results could have been increasingly heightened. Judging from the students’ viewpoints, it is possible that they have poor knowledge of how to use Google Drive for writing. Consequently, some students seem more drawn to Microsoft Word’s for its layout; although, the students who had been working with Drive extensively were more satisfied using it.
5.5 Implementing Google Drive for Collaborative ESL
Writing
Based on our findings, there are several ways of incorporating collaborative ESL writing tasks done in Google Drive. However, teachers must be properly educated about Google Drive’s features, specifically its add-ons, which seem foreign to most of the participants, since the teacher interviewees had varied opinions on which one to use. Nevertheless, Y mentions that due to the lack of necessary features in Google Drive, add-ons should complement it. Additionally, Y also claims that she provides her students with the add-ons Grammarly and WordCloud, which offer more suggestions and detect more spelling-errors than Google Drive on its own. Moreover, she states that her students tend to be repetitive, for example, using “like” too often, which the add-ons detect for students, as well as generating useful grammatical suggestions. Thus, add-ons like Grammarly and WordCloud could be
24
vital for improving students’ spelling-mistakes and eliminating continuous writing errors. Additionally, Z presents another add-on, called SpellRight, that can enhance teachers use of Google Drive in collaborative writing purposes, which can help dyslectics with correct spelling. In relation, Lin et al., (2017) mentions that spell-checking programs can be highly beneficial for developing ESL writing.
Lundh and Thomasson´s (2013) research show that teachers must accumulate proper
education about how to flawlessly use digital tools in collaborative writing tasks. In addition, Eriksson and Olsson (2015) inform that the most common obstacle for teachers’
implementation of digital tools in collaborative situations is poor knowledge of digital platforms, such as Google Drive in our study. Thus, the biggest responsibility lies on school boards to create favorable opportunities and occasions for teachers to gain more information about the digital tools. In conclusion, incorporating digital platforms in an efficient and successful manner, while engaging in collaborative writings tasks, will create significantly simplified and optimal environments for students to develop their writing ability.
In relation to the participants’ comments above, it seems like the awareness of add-ons among teachers vary, even within the same school, which shows that teachers are arguably not properly educated in Google Drive’s features, specifically its add-ons. As a result, Google Drive usage among teachers lacks unison; consequently, the best way to implement it is highly opinionated and is determined by both individual exposure and digital training.
25
6. Conclusion
This degree project has shed light on Google Drive as a collaborative writing tool for ESL students, by sampling fresh perspectives on the topic from teachers and students, as well as connecting their answers to previous research and the curriculum. Firstly, the teachers
experience Google Drive as a great platform for collaborative ESL writing, since they can see when and how much students write. In agreement, Lin et al., (2017) state that students who are proficient in digital writing can improve their writing for its convenience and
collaboration opportunities. In fact, the social interaction in Google Drive through
commenting and chatting is highly beneficial for learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Moreover, the student interviewees believe that Google Drive displays promising features for collaborative writing; although, some students still prefer to write individually in Microsoft Word instead. Similarly, Dominizi et al., (2012) argue that digital writing does not result in increased learning levels in all ESL situations. In addition, the level of digital experience in Google Drive among the participants is varied. Hence, the teacher interviewees use separate add-ons, like DraftBack and Grammarly, to complete collaborative writing and assessment processes for their ESL students. Consequently, the lack of similar digital competence among the participants possibly affected their answers significantly (Alvehus, 2013). Furthermore, nearly all the interviewees agree that Google Drive’s layout is complex, which arguably is a sign of poor digital knowledge of its features; although, the platform is constantly being updated. In alignment, Griffith (2014) informs that Google Drive was never designed for writing purposes, which could be why its competitors may be superior in some aspects. However, the NAE wants to include digital learning in schools across Sweden, which encourages teachers to choose a proper platform for their teaching, to provide them with a digital competence equivalent to the designated platform would be ideal for proper
implementation. Presently, Google Drive seems like a promising platform for collaborative ESL writing, with possibly a few updates away from being complete for learning. In conclusion, the platform´s future in schools is arguably a question of preparatory resources made available, so that add-ons and functions can be used correctly, rather than the
platform’s features falling short of expectations.
26
6.1 Limitations of The Study
There are some limitations that affect the reliability of this degree project which should be taken into consideration. Firstly, the number of participants in the study is small, which entails that the research merely samples a situation in a particular school. Thus, if the study would have included more participants, the conclusions drawn would portray Google Drive’s implementation for collaborative ESL writing in Sweden more accurately. Secondly, if we would have added a quantitative method for collecting data as well, such as online
questionnaires, the results would have covered a bigger scale of participants. However, the main reason for not using a quantitative study instead, was that the time-span of the degree project made it to challenging to do so, especially, considering that the first meeting with our supervisor was postponed. Thirdly, as mentioned earlier, the student interviewees were ultimately interviewed by teachers, which could arguably affect their answers significantly. Moreover, the teacher interviewees had tight schedules, which could arguably have impacted the length of their answers. Finally, another factor that arguably played a role in the honesty of the participants’ answers is the fact that they might have experienced the interviews as something they just had to do because they wanted to be nice to us, rather than actually wanting to contribute to better Google Drive’s implementation in schools in the future.
6.2 Further Research
As mentioned above, it would be interesting to carry out a similar study that involves more participants, maybe even from several countries, to properly conclude how Google Drive could be used in teaching to efficiently improve ESL students’ collaborative productions. In addition, another study could be made that focuses on digital preparation for the use of Google Drive among teachers, which could lead to a better understanding of what the platform lacks. Finally, with support from previous research and the findings in this degree project, we argue that Google Drive is probably more complex than most ESL teachers and students are aware of, which makes it essential for further research to be made, so that ESL teachers can be adequately trained in Google Drive, before transferring their knowledge of the platform to their students.
27
7. References
Alvehus, J. (2013). Skriva uppsats med kvalitativ metod: en handbok. (1. uppl.) Stockholm: liber Albesher, K. (2012). Developing the writing skills of ESL students through the collaborative learning
strategy. Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Chapelle, C... & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Chenzi, C. Yunus, M.M. Salehi, H. (2012). Integrating social networking tools into ESL writing classroom: Strengths and weaknesses. English Language Teaching; Vol. 5(8). 42-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n8p42
Choi, J. W. (2008). The Role of Online Collaboration in Promoting ESL Writing. English Language Teaching, 1(1). doi:10.5539/elt.v1n1p34
Ekberg, S., & Gao, S. (2018). Understanding challenges of using ICT in secondary schools in Sweden from teachers’ perspective. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(1), 43-55. doi:10.1108/ijilt-01-2017-0007
Eriksson, A. & Olsson, E. (2015). Digitala verktyg i skolmiljön - en studie av lärares användande av digitala verktyg / Digital tools in the school environment - A study of teachers' use of digital tools. Malmö Högskola. Retrieved from http://dspace.mah.se/handle/2043/18770 (2018-05-28)
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Plagiarism And Second Language Writing In An Electronic Age. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27. doi:10.1017/s0267190508070086
Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: theory and practice in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lundh, N. & Thomasson, L. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes to digital texts and digital tools. Malmö Högskola. Retrieved from http://dspace.mah.se/handle/2043/16897 (2018-05-28)
Vetenskapsrådet (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Griffith, E. (2014). Who’s winning the consumer cloud storage wars? Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2014/11/06/dropbox-google-drive-microsoft-onedrive/ (2018-05-24) Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2017). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital
competence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214-231. doi:10.1080/02619768.2017.1416085
28
Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings [Elektronisk resurs]. State University of New York Press.Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy.mah.se/lib/malmo/reader.action?docID=543888&pp (2018-05-22)
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. (1. ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Lin, P., Liu, T., & Paas, F. (2017). Erratum to: Effects of spell checkers on English as a second language students’ incidental spelling learning: A cognitive load perspective. Reading and Writing, 30(7), 1527-1528. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-9739-z
Nunan, D., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (2015). Language learning beyond the classroom. Retrieved 2018-05-10 from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com (2018-05-25)
Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom Discourse Analysis. In Sociolinguistics and Language Education (1.st ed, Vol. 18, New Perspectives on Languages and Education). Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral-proquest
com.proxy.mah.se/lib/malmo/reader.action?docID=543888&ppg=136 (2018-05-27) Setyawan, G., & Rochsantiningsih, D. (2012). OPTIMIZING GOOGLE DOCS TO IMPROVE
STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL OF DESCRIPTIVE TEXT. 233-243. Retrieved from
https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/60919-EN-optimizing-google-docs-to-improve-studen.pdf (2018-05-22)
Skolverket. (2016). Ämne-Engelska. Retrieved from http://www.skolverket.se/laroplaner-amnen-och-kurser/gymnasieutbildning/gymnasieskola/eng?subjectCode=eng&tos=gy, 2018-05-16 Slavkov, N. (2015). Sociocultural Theory, the L2 Writing Process, and Google Drive: Strange
Bedfellows? TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 80. doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1209 Sverige. Skolverket (2011). Gymnasieskola 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket. Retrieved from
https://www.skolverket.se/om-skolverket/publikationer/visa-enskild-publikation?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww5.skolverket.se%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2Fskolbok%2
Fwpubext%2Ftrycksak%2FBlob%2Fpdf2705.pdf%3Fk%3D2705 (2018-04-03)
Trautman, S. (2018, April 05). Draftback. Retrieved from
https://www.commonsense.org/education/app/draftback (2018-04-22)
29
Wilcox, KC. Yagelski, R. & Yu. (2013). The nature of error in adolescent student writing. Reading and Writing An Interdisciplinary Journal, v27(6). 1073-1094. doi 10.1007/s11145-013-9492-x
Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google Docs In An Out-Of-Class Collaborative Activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359-375. Retrieved May 05, 2018, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1000688.pdf.
30
8. Appendix
Interview guide
Questions for teachers
- How long have you been working as an ESL teacher?
- What are your experiences of using Google Drive for ESL writing? - In what ways can Google Drive
improve collaborative writing? - Do you believe there are any
setbacks of using Google Drive for ESL writing?
- How can you optimally implement Google Drive into collaborative writing tasks for ESL students?
Depending on the answers we will have adapting follow-up questions
Questions for students
- What compulsory school did you attended and which year are you in at this school?
- Have you used Google Drive for writing collaboratively before? - Do you believe that collaboration
with peers in Google Drive has developed your writing?
- What are the possible setbacks of using Google Drive for collaborative writing purposes?
Depending on the answers we will have adapting follow-up questions
