It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Collaborative writing appears to be an academic exercise whose relevance will only continue to rise, especially with the ever-increasing arrival of newer technology easily appropriated for educational uses. Often this new technology is commercially produced or open source, free, incredibly intuitive to use, and most important, created for the express purpose of facilitating collaborative writing. It is important to understand if these new technologies, commonly referred to as collaborative writing environments, offer a common-sense, low-to-no-cost means for institutions of higher learning to address the challenge of teaching collaborative writing skills to students. This qualitative research study analyzed one of these new tools, Google Documents, to determine its suitability as a collaborative writing environment for students. Google Documents was the object of inquiry because of its recent adoption campus-wide for all students to use at Iowa State. A dual approach to investigate Google Documents was conducted to determine its suitability as a collaborative writing environment for students. A set of criteria, which I coined The Essential Collaborative Writing Toolkit, for evaluating collaborative writing environments was drawn from the research literature. I was then able to measure Google Documents against these criteria in order to see if it adequately met the specifications needed for a successful collaborative writing environment. Students were also interviewed to discover their experiences using Google Documents. A transcript analysis of these interviews was then made. My findings suggest that Google Documents, with little exception, is an appropriate collaborative writing environment for students. I came to this determination following the synthesis of two things: the results of seeing how well Google Documents met the standards of The Essential Collaborative Writing Toolkit, and students' impressions of Google Documents taken from the transcript analyses.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer