Google Docs as a Tool for Collaborative Writing

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The Introduction Section Critique
The Literature Review Section Critique
The Methodology Section Critique
The Findings Section Critique
The Conclusion Section Critique
Reference

The Introduction Section Critique

In the Introduction section of their study, Woodrich and Fan (2017) stated that English Language Learners (ELLs) nowadays comprise a significant portion of elementary and secondary public school students in the United States. However, research literature concludes that ELLs are still behind their monolingual classmates on such a crucial development indicator as writing. Educators often resort to online collaborative writing in such cases; even though it is considered to be a useful tool, no previous studies have explored the particular differences it makes as compared to other practices. The significance of the problem: the inability to adapt teaching practices to the needs of ELLs is likely to result in a continuing learning gap for all current and future students. The study’s setting, problem, and significance are all stated clearly and fully.

This study aims to discuss whether students’ anonymous participation in collaborative writing via the Google Docs platform can result in more successful products in a classroom of eighth-graders with different language backgrounds. Research questions intend to determine whether anonymous collaborative writing 1) leads to better results than other modalities, 2) equalizes participation of linguistically diverse students, 3) affects students’ comfort levels. The purpose of the study and the research questions are clearly and fully stated as well.

The Literature Review Section Critique

In their Literature Review section – named in the paper Learning to Write with Technology – Woodrich and Fan (2017) cited 29 different sources. The oldest studies were dated 1974 and 1978, with the next oldest ones being from 1997; apart from that, only eight were older than five years from the date of publication of this research. The authors addressed the issues of collaborative writing in stages: they explored the usefulness of the practice for language learners, impact of collaborative technologies in writing classrooms, and students’ comfort in online writing collaborations. The body of knowledge related to the topic was covered adequately: in an attempt to answer all the research questions, the authors undertook an extensive literature review. It was extensive enough that Woodrich and Fan (2017) were able to determine that there was a gap between how in-person collaborative writing sessions compared to online ones.

The Methodology Section Critique

Woodrich and Fan (2017) used a cluster sampling technique to select the students for their study. Out of selected 97 eighth-graders from diverse backgrounds in Northern California – 48 males and 49 females – 16 were classified as English Language Learners and 15 – as reclassified fluent English proficient. For 59, Spanish was the primary language; six other languages were primary for different students in the group; 18 eighth-graders came from low-income families. Considering all that, it is reasonable to say the sample adequately represents the diversity among the Californian population. Three types of data were collected: student pieces from face-to-face group writing, pieces of student writing in Google Docs, and each student’s five-point attitudinal survey. Each method of writing was collected by the study’s authors after the classes – by hand and electronically – and analyzed.

The Findings Section Critique

The data in the Findings section were presented visually, with the help of various figures and tables. Each visual was accompanied by additional remarks that could not be reflected in the figures and tables themselves. Moreover, the data was organized in such a way as to explain its relation to each research question. Therefore, one is to say that Woodrich and Fan (2017) presented their findings as clearly and understandably as possible.

The Conclusion Section Critique

Woodrich and Fan (2017) made their conclusions based on the findings of the study, but not exclusively. Having stated that ELL students participate more equally in collaborative writing practices when these are anonymous and online, the authors suggested that Google Docs are to be utilized in classrooms more in the future. Woodrich and Fan (2017) noted that their conclusions are relevant to the students and educators of primary and secondary education since they initially targeted these particular education levels. A quantitative study design was appropriate in this case because what needed to be gathered as behavioral data from subjects in a natural environment.

Reference

Woodrich, M. P., & Fan, Y. (2017). Google Docs as a tool for collaborative writing in the middle school classroom.Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 391-410.

Click Here To Order Now!

Google Docs as a Tool for Collaborative Writing

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)