Journal of Information Technology Education: Volume 10, 2011

Innovations in Practice

Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies:

Education Students’ Perceptions
Cornelia Brodahl, Said Hadjerrouit, and Nils Kristian Hansen
University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]

Executive Summary
Web 2.0 technologies are becoming popular in teaching and learning environments. Among them
several online collaborative writing tools, like wikis and blogs, have been integrated into educa-
tional settings. Research has been carried out on a wide range of subjects related to wikis, while
other, comparable tools like Google Docs and EtherPad remain largely unexplored in the litera-
ture. This work presents a case study investigating education students’ perceptions of collabora-
tive writing using Google Docs and EtherPad. Both tools provide opportunity for multiple users
to work on the same document simultaneously, have a separate space for written metacommuni-
cation, and are promoted by software designers to be fairly intuitive to adopt without prior train-
ing. The work investigates if perceptions depend on factors such as gender, age, digital compe-
tence, interest in digital tools, educational settings, and choice of writing tool, and examines if the
tools are easy to use and effective in group work. This paper focuses on quantitative results of
survey questionnaires. Further qualitative analysis will be presented in a later paper.
The theoretical framework is drawn from two learning theories, the social-constructivist learning
theory and the community of practice, and their relationships to collaborative tools. Related re-
search literature is characterized by a number of issues: positive elements of use, advantages of
using Web 2.0 technologies, critical issues regarding the pedagogical value of Web 2.0, and the
role of the teacher in using these technologies.
The case study participants were 201 education students who just began their four-year initial
teacher education at two study programs with a total of six classes at the university Teacher Edu-
cation Unit. They were assigned a collaborative writing task and asked to take an on-line survey
on completion. When the survey closed, a total of 166 students (83.6%) had participated. The re-
sults were analyzed based on frequency distributions.
The hypothesis that students with high digital competence and a positive attitude towards digital
tools are more positive than average seems to be confirmed. Also gender does not play any par-
ticular role. As for younger students being more positive than older, the population of older stu-
dents was so low that no conclusion can
Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or be drawn. The work does not validate
in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute. that EtherPad users are more positive
Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these
works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee than Google Docs users, but this may be
provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit explained by EtherPad being unavail-
or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice able for some time during the students’
in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is per- collaborative writing period.
missible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To
copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or Furthermore only 13.9% of the students
to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment were motivated to use the tools for col-
of a fee. Contact [email protected] to re-
quest redistribution permission.
laboration, and only a minority of the

Editor: Nicole Buzzetto-More

Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

students (15.7%) reported that the quality of collaboration in the group increased with use of the
tools. Likewise, the tools did not work as expected for a majority of the students (70.5%). Forty-
seven percent of the students liked to comment and edit others contributions to group work.
Although the results cannot be generalized to a larger group of students, and no definite conclu-
sions can be drawn from the questionnaires about the usefulness and effectiveness of Google
Docs and EtherPad for collaborative writing, the results cannot be underestimated since some
results are consistent with the research literature.
Future research consists of the qualitative evaluation of the students’ comments to open ended-
questions in the questionnaire, the students’ collaborative essay papers, and their contributions to
group work. It may also be important to examine the extent and quality of utilization of the tools
for collaborative writing. Triangulation of the data collected may shed light on how they really
perceived the effectiveness of Google Docs and EtherPad to support collaborative writing among
students.
Keywords: Collaborative writing, collaborative tools, EtherPad, Google Docs, Web 2.0 tech-
nologies.

Introduction
Low cost, ubiquity, accessibility and ease of use are all potential affordances making Web 2.0
technologies more attractive than traditional software in teaching and learning environments (Aj-
jan & Hartshorne, 2008). During the last few years, the use of several online collaborative writing
tools, e.g., blogs and wikis, has been integrated into educational settings. The advantages of wikis
for a variety of different uses and their inclusion in learning processes have been broadly studied
and documented in classrooms, distance and blended learning, as have the potential pitfalls and
critical issues associated with their use. In higher education settings, research has been carried out
on a wide range of subjects related to wikis, including issues such as didactic and organizational
arrangements for learning, design of open learning environments, and knowledge production
(Baltzersen, 2010; Bonk, Lee, Kim & Lin, 2009; Karasavvidis, 2010; Kasemvilas & Olfman,
2009; Pusey & Meiselwits, 2009; Rice, 2009; Su & Beaumont, 2010; Trentin, 2009). However
the use of Google Docs (2008) and EtherPad (2008), being collaborative writing tools relatively
comparable to wikis, remains largely unexplored in the literature (Chu, Kennedy, & Mak, 2009).
Although, Garner (2010) provides a discussion of how technologies like Google Docs can support
the personal knowledge management.
Google Docs (GD) and EtherPad (EP) are tools promoted by software designers to be fairly intui-
tive to adopt for anyone accustomed to a word processor like Microsoft Word or Open Office
Writer. Yet the fact remains that it is difficult to predict how students will behave in a real educa-
tional setting. Taking the complexity of learning processes into consideration, the educational use
of GD and EP raises a number of questions. How important is the students’ digital literacy and
previous knowledge in ICT in such situations? What role do parameters such as age, gender, and
number of collaborators play in the collaboration and learning process? Are GD and EP poten-
tially powerful tools supporting collaborative learning and encouraging the students to collabo-
rate? And, is introducing the tools possible without teaching them in detail? Clearly, there is a
need to explore these issues experimentally.
This case study investigates beginner education students’ perceptions of collaborative Web 2.0
tools to support academic work. The goal is to enrich the empirical results in this domain by eva-
luating the perceived effectiveness of GD and EP as online collaborative tools. The investigation
is carried out in collaboration with teacher educators in a setting with groups of undergraduate
education students using the tools to collectively write a reflective essay paper.

IIP 74
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

The case study is structured according to three categories: subject, object, and approach. The sub-
jects of the study are education students. The object of the study is the use of collaborative writ-
ing tools in teacher education. The approach is exploratory, considering questions posed below,
and theory-building.
The paper is structured as follows. First, the research question is presented. Second, the theoreti-
cal framework is described. Third, the collaborative tools GD and EP are outlined. This is fol-
lowed by the methodology of the work. Then, the results are presented and analyzed. Finally,
some remarks and future work conclude the article.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This work examines education students’ perceptions of collaborative writing by means of the col-
laborative tools GD and EP. The investigation is situated in teacher education and an established
partnership between the Faculty of Technology and Sciences and two studies, associated with
three classes each and in two different cities.
Accordingly, the research questions are:
• How do students perceive collaborative writing with GD and EP?
• Do perceptions vary depending on factors like gender, age, digital competence, interest in
and opinion on importance of digital tools, educational settings and choice of writing
tool?
• Are the tools easy to use and effective in group work?
The research hypotheses are:
• Students with high digital competence and a positive attitude towards digital tools are
more positive than average.
• Younger students are more positive than older.
• Gender does not play any particular role.
• EP-users are more positive than GD-users as EP is easier to use.

Theoretical Framework
The proposed theoretical framework serving as a foundation for this work is drawn from two
learning theories – the social-constructivist learning theory and the community of practice – and
their reciprocal relationship to collaborative tools. The framework identifies two major elements
and how they might relate to each other: firstly, learning theories that help to understand the very
nature of collaborative learning in terms of learner engagement, group discussion, collaboration,
participation in communities of practice, language and culture, and negotiation of meaning; sec-
ondly, collaborative tools that serve as means of communication for collaborative learning activi-
ties where group members use various techniques to write collaboratively, share their knowledge,
post information, and discuss issues of common interest. The framework specifies collaborative
learning processes and collaborative tools in a dialectical relationship. The quality of collabora-
tion depends both on students’ prerequisite knowledge in terms of collaborative skills, on the one
hand, and the potential capabilities of the tools in supporting students’ collaborative learning in
terms of user-friendliness and effectiveness, on the other hand. Collaboration presupposes a trou-
ble-free interaction with the tool in order for the students to work collaboratively.

IIP 75
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

The purpose of this framework is to guide the implementation and evaluation of collaborative
writing with GD and EP. The framework addresses both technical and pedagogical issues of col-
laborative writing. It provides support to investigate the research questions, analyze and interpret
the results, and draw some conclusions for collaborative writing. The framework is an attempt to
make meaningful links between the collaborative tools GD and EP and collaborative learning,
based on current learning theories. The effectiveness of the framework in practice will depend on
the strength of the links between the learning theories and the collaborative tools being used.

Socio-Constructivist Learning Theory

Theories of collaborative learning are based on the socio-constructivist theory that knowledge is
socially produced by communities of people and that individuals can gain knowledge if they join
knowledge communities (Vygotsky, 1978). From a social constructivist point of view, learning is
considered an active process in which people construct their knowledge by relating it to their pre-
vious experiences in real situations through interaction with the social environment. Thus, learn-
ing occurs as learners improve their knowledge through collaboration and information sharing in
authentic contexts. According to Vygotsky, language and culture play essential roles in human
collaboration and communication. As a result, the socio-constructivist learning theory is essen-
tially a collaborative learning theory. In education, collaborative learning is seen as a process of
peer interaction that is mediated and structured by the teacher.
Vygostky’s theory of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) expresses the social aspect of learn-
ing. ZPD is the “distance between the actual developmental 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). ZPD
describes the tasks the learner can do, but only with help from a more knowledgeable person.
This means that students can learn, but beyond a certain level, they cannot learn alone unless they
are engaged in a level of activity that they cannot manage alone without the assistance of a more
knowledgeable person. Vygostky’s theory of ZDP is a useful construct to understand the tension
between individual learning and collaboration with others. Students’ learning development in an
online collaborative environment should not be assessed by what they can learn independently
with the tools alone, but rather by what they can learn in collaboration with fellow students (Buz-
zetto-More, 2010; Koohang, Riley, & Smith, 2009).

Community of Practice
Collaborative learning becomes even more important when it takes place in the context of a
community of practice (Wenger, 1998). A community of practice consists of people engaged in
collective learning in a shared domain, where learning becomes a collaborative process of a
group. In such communities, students collaborate as they acquire a common understanding of a
shared knowledge domain (Lave & Wenger, 1998). Students’ participation in communities of
practice is based on negotiation and renegotiation of the meaning of the shared domain. This
means that understanding and experience are in constant interaction and mutually constitutive
(pp. 51-52). Becoming a member of such a community includes learning how to collaborate in
the community (p. 109). In this perspective, participation in online dialogue by means of collabo-
rative tools can be seen as social practices and contextual negotiation of meaning. Collaborative
writing is one example of a shared knowledge space where students come together as communi-
ties of learners to share knowledge as they generate content (Dubé, Bourhis, & Jacob, 2006; Par-
ker & Chao, 2007).

IIP 76
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Tools for Collaborative Writing

Collaborative tools can serve as a knowledge platform for a community of practice where mem-
bers of the community can share their knowledge with the group, post information, work to-
gether, and critically discuss issues (Cattafi & Metzner, 2007). The use of collaborative tools is
characterized by some of the elements fundamental to a community of practice, including an
online presence, a variety of interactions, communication, participation, relevant content, and re-
lationships to a broader subject field of interest. Collaborative tools can be used to facilitate com-
puter-supported collaborative learning, i.e., the development of collaboration by means of tech-
nology to enhance learning. In addition, collaborative tools can enhance peer interaction and
group work, facilitate sharing and distributing knowledge and information among a community of
learners (Lipponen, 2002). Finally, an essential element of collaborative learning is that learners
should be encouraged to reflect on their knowledge. Collaborative tools allow this reflection to be
done collaboratively, moving closer to a fully social constructivist mode of learning.

Collaborative Writing with Google Docs and EtherPad

Google Docs and EtherPad
One set of Web 2.0 applications are collaborative writing tools, where several people collaborate
on producing a document or a set of documents over the Web. Common applications are blogs
and wikis. A blog is sequential, sharing content by posts and comments displayed in reverse
chronological order, but a wiki allows for multiple users to edit each other’s content (Bell, 2009).
To modify a wiki page, however, the user must enter an edit-mode and then save a new version of
the page (Bell, 2009), so a wiki also has a chronological structure. Thus editing is performed on a
document previously written by another author. This may pose a problem as users may feel reluc-
tant to edit other people’s work and to have their own work edited by others (Blau & Caspi,
2009).
Alternative collaborative writing applications enable synchronous editing and allow users to col-
laborate in real time. Examples are GD and EP. GD provides a suite of applications consisting of
word processor – having most of the features found in standard word processors – spreadsheet,
presentation tool, database, and survey tool. EP is less full featured, but is noted for being particu-

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of an editor with conversation space.

Document editing takes place in pane A, non-threaded chat in pane B.
Color coded highlights indicate author.

IIP 77
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

larly easy to use (Hoya, 2010). Both applications are free. They differ however in that GD re-
quires users to have an account, while EP is open to anybody. EP automatically provides each
author with a unique highlight color and updates the document being edited continuously, i.e.,
every half second (EtherPad, 2008). Both GD and EP provide automatic saving and also allow the
author to save at any time. Each saving produces a new document revision. Such revision track-
ing is a strong feature also provided by wikis. All three systems also offer a means for written
metacommunication, in the form of separate discussion pages in wikis and chat fields (see Figure
1) in GD and EP.

The Writing Process

For the task-focused approach to collaborative writing, text editors conveying a conversation
space were recommended and used (Figure 1). These types of co-authoring applications allow
work modes and processes including synchronous and asynchronous co-located activity, as well
as synchronous and asynchronous distributed activity. Authors are able to communicate by writ-
ing using artifacts, i.e., the editor (see A in Figure 1) and a conversation space (see B in Figure 1),
as well as aurally. Understanding may come from direct communication and interaction through
shared artifacts (Figure 2). With reference to the conceptual model of cooperative work (a, b, c, d,
h) by Miles, McCarthy, Dix, Harrison, and Monk (1993), we extend this model to include col-
laborative writing and communication by means of chat integrated in the tools (e, f, g):
(a) Direct communication between participants.
(b) Participant’s interaction with the document in editor.
(c) Indirect communication between participants through the document in editor.
(d) Participants’ mutual establishment of various means to refer to the artifact in editor.
(e) Participant’s interaction with other participant(s) in chat box.
(f) Online communication in chat box or through chat log.
(g) Participants’ mutual establishment of various means to refer to the artifact in chat box.
(h) Common understanding from interaction through shared artifacts.

Figure 2: Extended conceptual model of collaborative writing, based on Miles et al. (1993).

IIP 78
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Collaborative writing using GD and EP is based on this model and utilized depending on the us-
ers’ needs and learning styles in a real educational situation.

Literature Review
Looking at the research literature, it appears that published material related to Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in higher education is characterized by a number of issues: positive elements of use, advan-
tages of using Web 2.0 technologies, critical issues regarding the pedagogical value of Web 2.0,
and the role of the teacher in using these technologies.
First, the research literature reports on positive elements of use of Web 2.0 technologies as teach-
ing tools. For example, Rienzo and Han (2009) found significant benefits of using GD in a man-
agement course with more than 400 students, and they anticipate additional benefits in the future,
e.g., raising collaboration to a new level. Likewise, Tsoi (2010) reported that the outcomes of the
process of integration of Web 2.0-mediated collaborative activities in terms of the richness of the
contents of the blogs and wikis have been encouraging and positive. Furthermore, Rice (2009)
claims collaborative writing in Web 2.0 environments not only to be a practical tool, but also a
fluid, dialogical situation existing among writers, objects, and the informational contexts. Chu et
al. (2009) reported on 14 undergraduate students in the Information Management Program, who
found MediaWiki and GD to be an effective (and enjoyable) online collaboration and manage-
ment tool. Blau and Caspi (2009) analyzed different types of students’ collaboration on peers’
written assignments using GD. They found differences in psychological ownership and perceived
quality of the document, but not in their perceived learning, and believe that a collaboratively
written document might have higher quality than a document written alone.
Second, the research literature also highlights the advantages of using Web 2.0 technologies. For
example, Kittle and Hicks (2009) discuss, from new perspectives on literacies, issues about how
learners work together and what online tools like word processors and wikis can enable, synchro-
nously and asynchronously. They present sample procedures for how we can teach collaborative
writing using technology and how to pay attention to what is happening in the document and
mentally. Similarly, Lamb and Johnson (2010) considered, from the perspective of teacher-
librarians, GD as collective writing tool in inquiry-based education. They discussed ways writing
tools can be used in facilitating teaching and learning in order to think, create, and share at the
same time as addressing subject areas in the classroom. Also, Krebs, Schmidt, Henninger, Lud-
wig, and Müller (2010) think that weblogs and wikis are a promising way to improve students’
learning and to impart their 21st century skills, but these assumptions are the best hypotheses.
Empirical research is still necessary to confirm the potentialities of Web 2.0 for collaborative
learning.
Third, apart from the advantages of using Web 2.0 technologies and the positive results achieved
so far reported in the literature, there are still a number of critical issues regarding the educational
value of Web 2.0 technologies in comparison to traditional ways of learning. The research litera-
ture reports on a number of studies on the use of Web 2.0 for collaboration in educational set-
tings. Elgort, Smith, and Toland (2008) pointed out that many students still favor individual
learning instead of working collaboratively, although wiki technologies require collaboration
among students. According to Luckin et al. (2009), few learners reported engaging in genuine
collaborative learning using Web 2.0 technologies. On the contrary, most learners reported that
they did not work collaboratively. Furthermore, despite the potential capabilities of Web 2.0,
Dron (2007) pointed out that the structure generated through social software intended to support
collaboration and group interaction may not be pedagogically useful, and there are many ways
that social software can fail to address the learners’ needs. Criticisms are also expressed by Grion
and Varisco (2007). They explored the shared construction of professional identity and the nature
of interaction in students sharing their case-work, a synthesis of real life scholastic experiences

IIP 79
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

and pedagogical theoretical reasoning, by means of a collaborative writing tool. They identified
the need to provide a space for supporting these novice students to reflect more. Lastly, Brush and
Saye (2009) succeeded using collaborative tools (like GD) for school visit inventory and empow-
ering inquiry-based teaching practices in social studies classrooms, having pre-service teacher
students collectively gather, analyze, and interpret information. However, they indicated that
“even if mentor-teachers do have expertise in technology integration and time to mentor preser-
vice teachers, they may not have the opportunity to model diverse teaching strategies in the lim-
ited amount of time a preservice teacher is present in their classroom, or they may lack of tech-
nology resources at a given placement school” (p. 59).
Finally, another important subject for discussion in the literature is the teacher’s role in using
Web 2.0 technologies. Parker and Chao (2007) think that the role of the teacher is as important as
in the traditional classroom. Teachers still need to teach Web 2.0 as a skill, by incorporating so-
cial software into classroom, and to prepare students to make innovative uses of collaborative
software tools. Likewise, Kim, Hong, Bonk, and Lim (2009) stress that effective teacher interven-
tion is a crucial component leading to better group performance, collaboration, and reflection. In
contrast, Prensky (2010) claims Web 2.0 technology to be a tool that students use for learning
essential skills and “getting things done” (p. 103) and that students should be encouraged to use
Web 2.0 tools as much as possible – not necessarily teach them to use technology.

Methodology
Case Study
This case study is about students’ perceptions of collaborative writing tools in a higher education
setting, where focus is on educational objectives, not on teaching the tools. The case study is
based on a set of research questions and initial hypotheses and uses both quantitative and qualita-
tive data collection methods. This paper is only on the quantitative part of the work. The case
study also draws on a theoretical framework associated with learning theories and the link to col-
laborative tools. The case study includes a community of students from two campuses at the same
university.
A case study research was chosen for three reasons. First, it provides a suitable context for the
research questions and the research hypotheses. Second, it helps to find out whether the results
support the theoretical framework and existing research work. Third, it uses methods to collect
both quantitative and qualitative data and their triangulation to achieve an adequate understanding
of the students’ perceptions of GD and EP.
The case study is a part of a larger research and development project (R&D) aiming to enhance
students’ digital competence and collaborative skills as an activity in a multi-step introduction of
Web 2.0 technology. Nevertheless, the case may stand alone shedding light on challenges with
introducing collaborative Web 2.0 writing tools.

Background for the Case Study

In comparable countries in Europe, there are differences in national ICT related policies and ICT
competence targets in initial teacher education (European Schoolnet, 2010). In Norway, there are
targets set for ICT competence for teachers related to use in subjects, but there is no standard or
target aimed at teachers’ overall ICT competence (Søby, 2009). The policy for ICT integration in
teacher training has been introduced at the national level in the new program for initial teacher
education (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2009), to be incorporated into the
institutional policies. In preparing its curriculum and syllabus, each teacher training institution
has to state how digital competences should be built. The challenge then is, within the teacher

IIP 80
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

training institution, to encourage both the teacher educators responsible for teaching a specific
school subject and the educational science subject teachers to operationalize the ICT policy in
their teaching (Tømte, Hovdhaugen & Solum, 2009).

Research and Development Project (R & D)

At the University of Agder, with the educational science subject teachers’ looking for space and
opportunities for students to acquire and practice ICT in the new, expanded subject Pedagogy and
Pupil-related Skills (PPS), the Faculty of Science and Technology established a project to run for
three years. The main goal of this project, “Learning Arena 2020 – Web 2.0”, is to utilize Web
2.0 to create new arenas for collaborative learning. The project investigates learning based on
adopting social networking and collaborative technologies. Particular focus is given to the design
and organization of learning activities and to the potential methods and ways of learning they
might create. The main target group is students in a variety of teacher education programs with
the clear goal of spreading experiences to the teachers and pupils in schools. The first step of the
project included collaboration with the educational science subject teachers, both at the main
campus (C1) and the satellite campus (C2). While the main campus offers a wide variety of edu-
cational studies, the satellite campus has a technology and engineering profile and focuses on ma-
thematics and science as major areas of study in teacher education.

Key Elements of the Case Study

The researchers and collaborating educational science subject teachers designed a mandatory
group task for the education students in the second month of their education, as a jump-start to
utilizing Web 2.0 tools in collaborative learning. The development of the task was based on the
following premises and presumptions:
• Focus should be on the content of the new subject, not on technical skills and tools.
• Web 2.0 technologies should supposedly be easy to use and take little time to learn.
• An introduction of tools might be needed, but with emphasis on good use and motivation,
not details.
Beyond covering subject content, the task was to be designed with the intention of providing op-
portunities for students to acquire and practice ICT skills, in particular applications and technolo-
gies allowing for engaging and connecting with others, as well as experiencing implications for
learning strategies.
The assignment was presented by the educational science subject teachers, and the use of a Web-
based collaborative real-time editor was made mandatory. The assignment consisted of writing
narratives of practice, based on theory and experience from ongoing first practical training in
elementary school, and working in groups of four to seven students. The tasks were slightly dif-
ferent at the two campuses because of different priorities given by the local team of campus
teachers: the focus at C1 was on a teacher’s role and at C2 on the students’ first teaching load.
Each base group, consisting of five to seven persons at C1 and four persons at C2, worked on the
same task and was required to collaboratively write a two to three page reflective essay paper us-
ing either GD or EP.
Apart from formal writing requirement and a five-minute demonstration of each of the two writ-
ing tools, no detailed training was given, expecting the students with equal ease to find their way
to explore and utilize the writing tool while working on their subject assignment.

IIP 81
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Participants
The work used a convenience sample for two reasons. First, the participants were directly acces-
sible to the researcher. Second, students were expected to take part in an online survey, resulting
in a high response rate.
The sample included all beginner education students (N = 201) in the university Teacher Educa-
tion Unit (see Table 1).
• The participants consisted of 71.1% females and 28.9 % males with a mean age of 22.4
years and a median age of 20.5.
• Ages ranged from 18.8 to 44.2 years.
• Students were enrolled in one of two courses, 48.3% and 51.7% respectively: Primary
Education program (PE) for grades 1-7 in 10-year compulsory schooling and Lower Sec-
ondary Education program (LSE) for grades 5-10.
• Three LSE-classes (R, S and T) were held on main campus (C1), as did two PE-classes
(U and V). One class (W) attended the PE-program on the satellite campus (C2).

Table 1: Students’ age and gender distribution related to classes, study programs and
locations with different educational settings.
Aged 19-27 Aged 28-44 All ages
L SP C Female Male Subtotal Female Male Subtotal Female Male Subtotal
C1 LSE R 19 15 34 0 3 3 19 18 37
(51.4) (40.5) (91.9) (0.0) (8.1) (8.1) (51.4) (48.6) (100.0)
C1 LSE S 22 6 28 2 1 3 24 7 31
(71.0) (19.4) (90.3) (6.5) (3.2) (9.7) (77.4) (22.6) (100.0)
C1 LSE T 19 13 32 2 2 4 21 15 36
(52.8) (36.1) (88.9) (5.6) (5.6) (11.1) (58.3) (41.7) (100.0)
C1 PE U 27 6 33 4 0 4 31) 6 37
(73.0) (16.2) (89.2) (10.8) (0.0) (10.8) (83.8) (16.2) (100.0)
C1 PE V 29 3 32 4 0 4 33 3 36
(80.6) (8.3) (88.9) (11.1) (0.0) (11.1) (91.7) (8.3) (100.0)
C2 PE W 13 7 20 2 2 4 15 9 24
(54.2) (29.2) (83.3) (8.3) (8.3) (16.7) (62.5) (37.5) (100.0)
Total (n) 129 50 179 14 8 22 143 58 201
Total (%) (64.2) (24.9) (89.1) (7.0) (4.0) (10.9) (71.1) (28.9) (100.0)
Note. Numbers of students are shown in boldface, percentage is italicized and parenthesized.
L = Location (C1 = main campus; C2 = satellite campus); SP = Study program (LSE = Lower
Secondary Education; PE = Primary Education); C = class-name

Three classes (R, S, and T) with a total of 104 students attended the lower secondary education
program (LSE) for grades 1-7 being held on the main campus (C1), as did two classes (U and V)
with a total of 73 students in the program for primary education (PE) for grades 5-10. One class
(W) comprising of 24 students also attended the latter program on the satellite campus (C2).
Each class was organized in 35 basic work groups. The 29 groups on the main campus consisted
of 5-7 students each, with a mean age between 19.8 and 27.4 years. The six groups on the satellite
campus consisted of four students each, with a mean age varying from 21.0 to 31.8 years.

IIP 82
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

A show of hands, after a demonstration of GD and EP, revealed that none of the students present
had used EP before. Less than 2% had used GD: one student on satellite and three students on
main campus.
Relying on the concept of Digital Natives as defined by Prensky (2001, p.1) and overall charac-
terized as possessing a core set of technology based skills (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, &
Krause, 2008, p. 117), this research work designates all students born after 1983, who were 27 or
younger at the time of the study, as a part of the Net generation of Digital Natives in Europe
(Jones, Ramanau, Cross, and Healing, 2010, p. 724). Accordingly, 89.1% of the first-year stu-
dents are considered as Digital Natives.

Data Collection Methods

While the project has gathered data from multiple sources (i.e., group works, reflection notes,
peer comments, survey), this study is confined to a survey. Data triangulation on remaining mate-
rial will be effected in subsequent studies.

After completing their collaborative writing, the students were asked to take an electronic survey
using a Web form presented on the main page of the Web site used for their reflective essay pa-
per. This Web site was built using the content management system Drupal (http://drupal.org/),
and the survey was constructed with Drupal Webform (http://drupal.org/project/webform/).
The survey used a five-point Likert scale as follows: Strongly agree (SA), Agree (A); Neither
agree nor disagree (NAD); Disagree (D); and Strongly disagree (SD). In addition, a category
“Don’t Know” was added since some students might be expected to be unsure about how to an-
swer. The survey questionnaire reflects the research questions. Since it is an online survey, the
issue of anonymity has been taken into account to indicate that students’ answers would be
treated confidentially. The Webform module was used for collecting and processing responses.
Also, using a Webform parameter, multiple answers were excluded.
The survey was originally open for 4 days at campus C1 and 2 days on campus C2. But the num-
ber of respondents was low, so it was reopened for 2 days on campus C1 and 3 days on campus
C2. Non-responding students on C2 were also given the opportunity to respond during a lesson,
and individual students were granted access on request. The survey had the following characteris-
tics:
• Respondents were not anonymous, thus gender, age, and group size was known a priori.
Use of non-anonymous respondents also gives opportunity for linking responses and stu-
dent essays in later research.
• Issues included digital competence, satisfaction with the collaborative process, satisfac-
tion with the collaborative writing tool, and opinions on cooperative writing. The students
were also asked to state their own digital competence, how well they liked to work with
digital tools, and how important they expected digital competence to be in their future
work as a teacher.
• Digital competence was estimated based on students’ replies as to how often they per-
formed certain common computer tasks, ranging from Never to Daily. Each task was as-
signed a skill level ranging from 1 (Low) to 5 (High), corresponding to key concepts of
ICT literacy (Erstad, 2009). (See Appendix A, Table A1 for more details). The frequency
of performing a task was assigned a value on a scale ranging from 0 (Never, Don’t know)
to 7 (Daily). The scale was logarithmic, reflecting the conceptual smaller difference be-
tween Daily and Weekly as opposed to Never and Less than monthly. (See Appendix A,
Table A2 for more details). By multiplying each skill level (Table A1) with the corre-
sponding frequency value (Table A2), a set of products in the range [0, 35] were ob-

IIP 83
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

tained. To avoid many basic skills counting as equal to a few advanced skills, the num-
bers were not averaged. Instead the largest product was chosen as an indicator of digital
competence, and classified on a scale ranging from Very low to Very high. (See Appen-
dix A, Table A3 for more details).
• Due to decisions made by the campus teachers, the survey was mandatory in class R, S,
T, U and V at campus C1, and optional in class W at campus C2.

Preliminary Results
The work focuses on the quantitative results of the survey questionnaires. It does not analyze stu-
dents’ comments or reflective essay papers. Without a qualitative analysis of these, the results
must be considered with caution. As we search for dissimilarities in response distribution between
two groups, the results are presented as frequency distribution tables with the groups compared in
juxtaposition. The focus was not on distribution details within each group, i.e., mean and standard
deviation.
A total of 166 students (83.6% of N = 201) participated in the survey: 154 (87% of n = 177) on
main campus, and 12 (50% of n = 24) on satellite campus. In the following, the preliminary re-
sults describe the students’ perceptions of the:
• collaborative tool, including ease-of-use and effectiveness (See Table 2, statements 1-3)
• collaborative process, supported by the tool (See Table 2, statements 4-8).

Students’ Perceptions of Collaborative Writing, Global View

Table 2 presents a count of responses to the statements concerning the collaborative tool, the col-
laborative process, and how well the collaborative tool worked.
Concerning the ease-of-use and effectiveness of the tool, 38.6% agreed or strongly agreed that the
tool was easy to use. Likewise, only 26.5% of the students thought that the tool was effective to
use in group work. Furthermore, 32.5% found that the tool is easier to use than traditional text
processing. While only 31.3% of the students liked to comment and edit others work, 47.6%
strongly agreed or agreed that other students comment and edit their own work. In addition, only
15.7% of the students found that the tool influenced the quality of collaborative work within the
group. Furthermore, only 13.9% were motivated to use the tools for collaboration with their fel-
low students. Regarding the learning effect of collaborative work, 34.9% strongly agreed or
agreed that they learned by collaborating. Finally, 16.9% of the students indicated that the tool
did work as expected
The results must be interpreted cautiously depending on the analysis of further information, since
more than 30% of the students neither agreed nor disagreed to any of the statements, except for
statement 9 (See Table 2). An explanation of this uncertainty may be lack of experience with the
tools, but other causes may be the students’ digital competence and lack of time to work with the
tool. Thus it is difficult to assess the real value of collaboration by means of GD and EP. How-
ever, it is possible to draw some provisory conclusions:
• An important number of students (47.6%) were not motivated to use the tools for collabo-
ration.
• The tools did not work as expected for the overwhelming majority of the students
(70.5%).
• The tools did not significantly affect the quality of collaboration between the students.

IIP 84
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Table 2: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing, global view

Responsea
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Don’t Sub- Sub-
agree agree disagree know total total
(SA) (A) nor (D) (SA) SA+A D+SD
Statement disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool 9 55 54 38 10 0 64 48
in group work (5.4) (33.1) (32.5) (22.9) (6.0) (0.0) (38.6) (28.9)

2. It was effective to use the 8 36 60 44 17 1 44 61

tool in group work (4.8) (21.7) (36.1) (26.5) (10.2) (0.6) (26.5) (36.7)

3. The tool was easier to use

7 47 52 42 17 1 54 59
than traditional tools such
(4.2) (28.3) (31.3) (25.3) (10.2) (0.6) (32.5) (35.5)
as MS Word
4. I liked to comment and
9 43 59 38 9 8 52 47
edit others contributions to
(5.4) (39.8) (35.5) (9.0) (3.0) (4.8) (31.3) (28.3)
group work
5. I liked that other students
13 66 59 15 5 8 79 20
comment and edit my own
(7.8) (39.8) (35.5) (9.0) (3.0) (4.8) (47.6) (12.0)
work in the group
6. The quality of collabora-
6 20 54 46 33 7 26 79
tion in the group increased
(3.6) (12.0) (32.5) (27.7) (19.9) (4.2) (15.7) (47.6)
with the use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to
3 20 62 51 28 2 23 79
collaborate with the stu-
(1.8) (12.0) (37.3) (30.7) (16.9) (1.2) (13.9) (47.6)
dents in the group
8. It was instructive to edit
5 53 68 21 13 6 58 34
and comment others con-
(3.0) (31.9) (41.0) (12.7) (7.8) (3.6) (34.9) (20.5)
tributions to group work

9. The tool did work as ex- 8 20 18 51 66 3 28 117

pected (4.8) (12.0) (10.8) (30.7) (39.8) (1.8) (16.9) (70.5)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface, percentage is italicized and parenthesized. an = 166

Students’ Perceptions of Collaborative Writing: Detailed Views

Tables 3.1 to 3.8 show how the percentage of positive (Strongly agree and Agree), neutral (Nei-
ther agree nor disagree and Don’t know), and negative (Disagree and Strongly disagree) re-
sponses to statements 1-3 (collaborative tool) and 4-8 (collaborative process) vary with gender,
age, perceptions of digital competence, educational setting, and whether they used GD or EP.

Gender
Table 3.1 indicates that females were more negative than males regarding the collaborative tool
(36.4% / 26.4%) and process (33.5% / 25.2%). (See Appendix B, Table B1 for more details).

IIP 85
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Table 3.1: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to gender

Male Female
(n = 46) (n = 120)
Statement Statement Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
category no
Collaborative tool 1–3 33.5 37.7 26.8 31.4 32.2 36.4
Collaborative process 4–8 32.2 42.6 25.2 27.3 39.2 33.5
Note. Average on frequency (%): Positive responses include responses Strongly agree or Agree,
neutral responses Neither agree nor disagree and Don’t know, negative responses Disagree and
Strongly disagree.

Age
Table 3.2 shows that Digital Immigrants (age 28-44) were more positive regarding the collabora-
tive tool (39.2% / 31.8%) than Digital Natives, that is to say, first-year students born after 1983 or
later at the time of the study (Jones et al., 2010, p. 724). They were however less positive regard-
ing the collaborative process (22.4% / 29.4%). But, the results should be considered with caution,
as only 17 digital immigrants responded to the questionnaire. (See Appendix B, Table B2, for
more details).
Table 3.2: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to age
Age 19-27 Age 28-44
(n = 149) (n = 17)
Statement Statement Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
category no
Collaborative tool 1–3 31.8 33.6 34.7 39.2 35.3 25.5
Collaborative process 4–8 29.4 39.3 31.3 22.4 47.1 30.6
Note. Average on frequency (%): Positive responses include responses Strongly agree or Agree,
neutral responses Neither agree nor disagree and Don’t know, negative responses Disagree and
Strongly disagree.

Digital competence
The students’ digital competence was estimated based on how often they performed certain tasks
on a computer; they were asked to state their perception of own digital competence, how much
they liked to work with digital tools, and how important they imagined digital tools would be in
their future work as a teacher (see section “Key Elements of the Case”).
Table 3.3 shows that students assessing their own digital competence as high or very high tended
to be more negative regarding the collaborative tool than those with medium or lower perception
(35.1% / 30.9%), but more positive regarding the collaborative process (30.0% / 25.9%). (See
Appendix B, Table B3 for more details).
Table 3.4, on the other hand, shows that students with high or very high estimated digital compe-
tence were more positive regarding the collaborative tool (41.7% / 29.2%) and less negative re-
garding the collaborative process (25.9% / 33.1%). An explanation of this contradiction may be
that the students’ perception of own digital competence was too high. 67% of the students per-
ceived their own digital competence as higher than estimated, 38% as estimated, and 10% as low-
er than estimated. (See Appendix B, Table B4 for more details).

IIP 86
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Table 3.5 shows that students with high or very high interest in digital tools were more positive
regarding the collaborative tool (35.4% / 26.7%) and the collaborative process (32.6% / 20.7%).
(See Appendix B, Table B5 for more details).
Table 3.6 shows that students who thought that digital tools will be of high or very high impor-
tance in their future work as a teacher were more neutral regarding the collaborative tool (35.1% /
30.7%) and more positive regarding the collaborative process (32.5% / 20.0%). (See Appendix B,
Table B6 for more details).
Table 3.3: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to own perception of
digital competence
Medium, low, very low, High, very high
Don’t know
(n = 54) (n = 112)
Statement Statement Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
category no
Collaborative tool 1–3 33.3 35.8 30.9 32.1 32.7 35.1
Collaborative process 4–8 25.9 42.2 31.9 30.0 39.1 30.9
Note. Average on frequency (%): Positive responses include responses Strongly agree or Agree,
neutral responses Neither agree nor disagree and Don’t know, negative responses Disagree and
Strongly disagree.

Table 3.4: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to estimated digital

competence
Medium, low, very low, High, very high
Don’t know
(n = 122) (n = 44)
Statement Statement Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
category no
Collaborative tool 1–3 29.2 33.9 36.9 41.7 33.3 25.0
Collaborative process 4–8 27.2 39.7 33.1 32.7 41.4 25.9
Note. Average on frequency (%): Positive responses include responses Strongly agree or Agree,
neutral responses Neither agree nor disagree and Don’t know, negative responses Disagree and
Strongly disagree.

Table 3.5: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to interest in digital

tools
Medium, low, very low, High, very high
Don’t know
(n = 55) (n = 111)
Statement Statement Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
category no
Collaborative tool 1–3 26.7 32.7 40.6 35.4 34.2 30.3
Collaborative process 4–8 20.7 37.1 42.2 32.6 41.6 25.8
Note. Average on frequency (%): Positive responses include responses Strongly agree or Agree,
neutral responses Neither agree nor disagree and Don’t know, negative responses Disagree and
Strongly disagree.

IIP 87
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Table 3.6: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to how important they
assume digital tools to be in their future work as a teacher
Medium, low, very low, High, very high
Don’t know
(n = 51) (n = 115)
Statement Statement Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
category no
Collaborative tool 1–3 33.3 30.7 35.9 32.2 35.1 32.8
Collaborative process 4–8 20.0 42.4 37.6 32.5 39.1 28.3
Note. Average on frequency (%): Positive responses include responses Strongly agree or Agree,
neutral responses Neither agree nor disagree and Don’t know, negative responses Disagree and
Strongly disagree.

Educational settings
Table 3.7 shows that responses from students at the main and satellite campus differed considera-
bly. This may be due to different educational settings at the two campuses: each base group
worked on a reflective and narrative task, one task at campus C1 and a comparable task at campus
C2 (see section “Data Collection Methods”). While base groups of 5 to 7 students at campus C1
planned and elaborated their experiences being located at different schools, each group of 4 stu-
dents at C2 was located at a single school during their practice.
Despite their larger size, the base groups at C1 indicated on average more positive and less nega-
tive perception, both according to the ease-of-use and effectiveness of the tool and of the collabo-
rative climate of their writing situation.
As shown in Table 2, a large number of students indicated uncertainty about the value of the tool
used and the collaborative writing. Also only 12 students from campus C2 have responded to the
questionnaire. It therefore seems reasonable that a cautious analysis of these responses has to look
into the students’ description of their group work and line of actions. However, it is possible that
base groups seeing each other at least in school hours were less motivated to use communication
technology to collaborate than base groups working at different schools and at a distance. (See
Appendix B, Table B7 for more details).
Table 3.7: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing in different educational settings
Base groups of 5–7 at C1, Base groups of 4 at C2,
spread to different schools gathered at same school
(n = 154) (n = 12)
Statement Statement Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
category no
Collaborative tool 1–3 33.5 33.8 32.7 19.4 33.3 47.2
Collaborative process 4–8 29.4 40.1 30.5 20.0 40.0 40.0
Note. Average on frequency (%): Positive responses include responses Strongly agree or Agree,
neutral responses Neither agree nor disagree and Don’t know, negative responses Disagree and
Strongly disagree. C1 = main campus; C2 = satellite campus.

Collaborative tools
Table 3.8 show that students using GD tended to be considerably more positive regarding the col-
laborative tool (45.1% / 29.3%) and less negative regarding the process than those using EP
(25.5% / 32.6%), even though EP supposedly is easier to use. The explanation could be that EP

IIP 88
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

was periodically unavailable during the students’ work period. This is substantiated by the fact
that only 10.6% of the students using EP agreed or strongly agreed to that the tool always worked
as it should, in contrast to 41.2% of the students using GD. (See Appendix B, Table B8 for more
details).
Table 3.8: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to tool used
EtherPad Google Docs
(n = 132) (n = 34)
Statement Statement Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
category no
Collaborative tool 1–3 29.3 34.6 36.1 45.1 30.4 24.5
Collaborative process 4–8 28.2 39.2 32.6 30.6 43.5 25.9
Note. Average on frequency (%): Positive responses include responses Strongly agree or Agree,
neutral responses Neither agree nor disagree and Don’t know, negative responses Disagree and
Strongly disagree.

Limitations
The limitations of the work are concerned with five issues: type of sample, validity and reliabil-
ity, confidentiality, level of experiment control, and time considerations.
First, the study was conducted with a small convenience sample, with participants from one uni-
versity only, and thus may not well cover the perceptions of the total population of beginner edu-
cation students. While this should not invalidate the initial results, readers need to be aware of
this limitation and consider the results of the study with some degree of caution. Replication stud-
ies with a larger population may confirm or question these early research results.
The second limitation is concerned with reliability and validity issues. Reliability refers to the
extent to which the research results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the
population and if the results can be reproduced under similar circumstances using a similar meth-
odology (Hardy & Bryman, 2004). To achieve a high degree of reliability, it is important to be
aware of the conditions and circumstances under which the study is carried out and the factors
that may influence the results of the study. Reliability is also enhanced by an accurate description
of the methodology being used so that it can be reused to produce similar results. High reliability
is ensured only if these conditions are fulfilled, if used again in similar circumstances.
Two validity issues are concerned with the case study: measurement validity and external validity
(Bryman, 2004; Hardy & Bryman, 2004). Measurement validity is associated with the extent to
which the data collection methods indicate what they are intended to measure. Survey question-
naires alone cannot accurately measure the students’ perceptions of Web 2.0 technologies, but a
higher degree of measurement validity is ensured through the use of qualitative data collection
methods and their triangulation with survey questionnaires. External validity is concerned with
the question of whether the results of the case can be generalized beyond the two campuses.
Clearly, the case study cannot be generalized to other campuses because it is not known to which
extent the students are representative for a larger population.
Third, limitations may arise from respondents not being anonymous because it is possible to link
the answers to the students’ name for university staff. Openness may impact the results. Not be-
ing anonymous may turn out at least two ways: students may complete the questionnaire with
diligence, or they may avoid giving purely critical answers.
Fourth, freedom of how to use the collaborative writing tools during the group tasks caused a rel-
atively low-level experimental control with the students’ utilization of the tools. The qualitative

IIP 89
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

data of the project will reveal more about, i.e., the conditions under which the students worked
together in their respective groups, the quality of their collaboration, their task awareness, and the
degree of reflection during their work. These important details may affect the results, but are not
considered in this paper.
Fifth, reopening the surveys after the initial period, issuing reminders, and making special ar-
rangements to increase the number of respondents may have produced some less serious re-
sponses.

Conclusions and Future Work

The goal of this work was to use a case study to assess education students’ perceptions of col-
laborative work by means of survey questionnaires. More specifically, the aim was to assess
whether GD and EP can support collaborative writing among students according to various pa-
rameters such as age, gender, students’ digital competence, educational setting, and tool used.
Given this background, the main strength of this study is its contribution to the literature on the
use of GD and EP as collaborative writing tools. As previously noted, little has been done to de-
termine the extent to which their use has any impact on student collaborative subject work in
higher education settings. This preliminary study offers something to begin filling that void. It
provides a theoretical framework to inform the study about the relationships between collabora-
tive learning theories and collaborative writing tools and how they influence each other. Further-
more this study offers a preliminary valuation of a training approach designed to help education
students, with no prior training, get acquainted with collaborative tools and develop skills and
competencies in implementation in educational tasks.
The case study allowed the investigation of the research questions and hypotheses by means of
survey questionnaires. The results have been analyzed using a statistical analysis method based
on frequency distributions. Frequencies alone cannot provide sufficient evidence that collabora-
tive tools are easy-to-use, effective, enhance motivation, and increase collaboration, but they pro-
vide an overall picture of the students’ subjective perceptions within a particular educational set-
ting. Even though it is not possible to gain new insights that would be generalizable beyond the
student population without an analysis of data collected by qualitative methods, it is possible to
draw some conclusions about students’ preferences, motivations, and ways of using the collabora-
tive tools.
Firstly, the results seem to confirm the hypothesis that students with high digital competence and
a positive attitude towards digital tools are more positive than average and that gender does not
play any particular role. As for younger students being more positive than older, the population of
older students was so low that no conclusion can be drawn. The work does not validate the hy-
pothesis that EP-users are more positive than GD-users, since EP is considered as easier to use
than GD. This may be explained by EP being unavailable for some time during the students’ col-
laborative writing period.
Secondly, the results reveal that only 13.9% of the students were motivated to use the tools for
collaboration. Additionally, only a minority of the students (15.7%) reported that the quality of
collaboration in the group increased with use of the tools. Likewise, the tools did not work as ex-
pected for most students (70.5%). Regarding the collaborative writing process, no definitive con-
clusions could be drawn from the results. The results also reflect students’ positive experiences
with collaborative writing, e.g., forty-seven percent of the students liked to comment and edit
others contributions to group work. Even though these results are consistent with some research
work in the field of Web 2.0 technologies (Dron, 2007; Grion & Varisco, 2007; Luckin et al.,
2009), they need to be considered with caution until a qualitative analysis of the students’ writ-
ings is undertaken.

IIP 90
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Thirdly, the results pointed out, as indicated above, that the collaborative tools did not work as
expected, since only 16.9 % strongly agreed or agreed that the tools did not create technical prob-
lems. It follows from the survey that most students encountered a number of technical problems
that hindered them from fully performing their collaborative writing tasks. Besides this, it appears
that collaborative tools alone cannot fully support true collaborative writing, even though they are
designed with elements that facilitate collaboration, e.g., chat-function, concurrent editing and
writing. Of course, the problems encountered by the students are not exclusively limited to the
technicalities of the tools because other factors may have played an important role in the way stu-
dents used the tools, worked together, and collaborated, such as course content, the pedagogy be-
ing used, time consideration, tool familiarization and integration, prerequisite knowledge and
skills, and institutional and administrative constraints.
Summarizing, although these preliminary results cannot be generalized to a larger group of stu-
dents, and no definite conclusions can be drawn from the survey questionnaire about the useful-
ness and effectiveness of GD and EP for collaborative writing, the results cannot be underesti-
mated since some results are consistent with the research literature. Hence, these results will be
taken into account and triangulated with qualitative data to perform a more in-depth analysis of
the capabilities of the tools to support collaborative writing. Then, it will be possible to develop a
pedagogical model that helps to understand how education students perceive, work with, and use
GD and EP to achieve educational goals. The model will also provide a better understanding of
collaborative tools in terms of advantages, mode of work, affordances, potentialities, and limita-
tions. Furthermore, the model will allow a more thorough evaluation of the theoretical framework
and its potential capabilities to support collaborative learning and communities of practices in
terms of active participation, group interaction, and construction of shared knowledge.
Future research consists of the qualitative evaluation of the students’ comments to open ended-
questions in the survey questionnaire, the students’ collaborative essay papers, and their contribu-
tions to group work. It may also be important to examine the extent and quality of utilization of
the tool for collaborative writing. Triangulation of the data collected may shed light on how they
really perceived the effectiveness of GD and EP to support collaborative writing among students.

References
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory
and empirical tests. Internet & Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80.
Baltzersen, R. K. (2010). Radical transparency: Open access as a key concept in wiki pedagogy. Austral-
asian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 791-809.
Bell, A. (2009). Exploring Web 2.0: Second generation internet tools - blogs, podcasts, wikis, networking,
virtual worlds, and more. Georgetown, TX: Katy Crossing Press.
Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learn-
ing and outcome quality of collaboration using Google Docs. Proceedings of the Chais conference on
instructional technologies research 2009: Learning in the technological era, pp. 48-55.
Bonk, C., Lee, M., Kim, N., & Lin, M. (2009). The tensions of transformation in three cross-institutional
wikibook projects. Internet & Higher Education, 12(3/4), 126-135.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing pre-service social studies teachers to integrate
technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Educa-
tion, 9(1), 46-59.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: University Press.

IIP 91
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Buzzetto-More, N. (2010). Assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of an e-portfolio used for summative
assessment. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6, 61-85. Retrieved April
5, 2011, from http://www.ijello.org/Volume6/IJELLOv6p061-085Buzzetto691.pdf
Cattafi, R., & Metzner, C. (2007). A didactic experience in collaborative learning. Issues in Informing Sci-
ence and Information Technology, 4, 15-28. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from
http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2007/IISITv4p015-028Catt351.pdf
Chu, S., Kennedy, D., & Mak, M. (2009). MediaWiki and Google Docs as online collaborative tools for
group project co-construction. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Knowledge Man-
agement [CDROM]. Hong Kong, Dec 3-4, 2009.
Dron, J. (2007). Designing the undesignable: Social software and control. Educational Technology & Soci-
ety, 10(3), 60-71.
Dubé. L., Bourhis, A. & Jacob, R. (2006). Towards a typology of virtual communities of practice. Interdis-
ciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 1, 69-93. Retrieved April 5, 2011,
from http://www.ijikm.org/Volume1/IJIKMv1p069-093Dube.pdf
Elgort, I., Smith, A.G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Austral-
asian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195–210.
Erstad, O. (2009): Addressing the complexity of impact – A multilevel approach towards ICT in education.
In F. Scheuermann & F. Pedro (Eds.), Assessing the effects of ICT in education. Indicators, criteria
and benchmarks for international comparisons (pp. 21-38). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
EtherPad (2008). EtherPad: Really real time collaboration. Retrieved from http://ietherpad.com/
European Schoolnet. (2010). 2009 series of insight country reports. In A. Balantskat & V. Garoia (Eds),
2009/2010 Insight Country Reports. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from
http://insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/insight/policy/policies/2009_country_reports.htm
Garner, S. (2010). Supporting the personal knowledge management of students with technology. Proceed-
ings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) 2010, pp. 237-246. Retrieved March
17, 2011, from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2010/InSITE10p237-246Garner764.pdf
Google Docs (2008). Free web-based word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, and form which allow
you share and collaborate online. Retrieved from http://docs.google.com
Grion, V., & Varisco, B .M. (2007). Online collaboration for building a teacher professional identity.
PsychNology Journal, 5(3), 271 – 284. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from www.psychnology.org
Hardy, M., & Bryman, A. (Eds.). (2004) Handbook of data analysis. London: SAGE Publications.
Hoya, B. (2010). Google Docs, EtherPad, and then some: Word processing and collaboration in today’s
portable work environment. Texas Library Journal, 86(2), 60-62.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a dis-
tinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722-732.
Karasavvidis, I. (2010). Wiki uses in higher education: Exploring barriers to successful implementation.
Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 219-231.
Kasemvilas, S., & Olfman, L. (2009). Design alternatives for a MediaWiki to support collaborative writing.
Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 4, 87-106. Retrieved from
http://jiito.org/articles/JIITOv4p087-106Kasemvilas.pdf
Kennedy, G., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences
with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
24(1), 108–122. Retrieved November 24, 2010, from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.pdf

IIP 92
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Kim, P. &, Hong, J.-S., Bonk, C. & Lim, G. (2009). Effects of group reflection variations in project-based
learning integrated in a Web 2.0 learning space. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17.
Kittle, P., & Hicks, T. (2009). Transforming the group paper with collaborative online writing. Pedagogy:
Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 9(3), 525-538.
Koohang, A., Riley, L., & Smith, T. (2009). E-learning and constructivism: From theory to application.
Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 91-109. Retrieved April 5, 2011,
from http://www.ijello.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p091-109Koohang655.pdf
Krebs, M., Schmidt, C., Henninger, M., Ludwig, M., & Müller, W. (2010). Are wikis and weblogs an ap-
propriate approach to foster collaboration, reflection and students’ motivation? In N. Reynolds & M.
Turcsányi-Szabó (Eds.), IFIP advances in information and communication technology: Vol. 324. Key
competencies in the knowledge society (pp. 200-209). Berlin: Springer.
Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2010). Beyond Googling: Applying Google tools to inquiry-based learning.
Teacher Librarian, 37(4), 83-86.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Do Web 2.0 tools really open
the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11-16-year-old students. Learning, Media,
and Technology, 34(2), 87-104.
Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl
(Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: 2002. Foundations for a CSCL community (pp.
72-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miles, V. C., McCarthy, J. C., Dix, A. J., Harrison, M. D. & Monk, A. F. (1993). Reviewing designs for a
synchronous-asynchronous group editing environment. In M. Sharples (Ed.). Computer supported col-
laborative writing (pp. 137-160). Berlin: Springer.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2009). White paper on teacher education “The teacher –
the role and the education”. Report to the Storting No. 11 (2008-2009). Retrieved November 05, 2010,
from
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/stortingsmeldinger/Teacher_Education_FactSheet.pdf
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and
Learning Objects, 3, 57-72. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from:
http://www.ijello.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p057-072Parker284.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin
Press.
Pusey, P., & Meiselwitz, G. (2009). Heuristics for implementation of wiki technology in higher education
learning. In A. Ozok & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 5621.Online
Communities and Social Computing (pp. 507-514). Berlin: Springer.
Rice, J. A. (2009). Devising collective knowledge for the technical writing classroom: A course-based ap-
proach to using Web 2.0 writing technologies in collaborative work tutorial. IEEE Transactions on
professional Communications, 52(3), 303-315.
Rienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google Web 2.0 tools for course management. Journal of In-
formation Systems Education, 20(2), 123-128.
Søby, M. (2009). Norway country report on ICT in education. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from
http://cms.eun.org/shared/data/pdf/cr_norway_2009_final_proofread_2_columns.pdf
Su, F., & Beaumont, C. (2010). Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning. Innovations in Edu-
cation & Teaching International, 47(4), 417-431.

IIP 93
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project.
Journal of Computers Assisted Learning, 25(1), 43-55.
Tsoi, M. F. (2010). Supporting productive integration of Web 2.0-mediated collaboration. In N. Reynolds
and M. Turcsányi-Szabó (Eds.), KCKS 2010, IFIP AICT 324, pp. 401–411. IFIP International Federa-
tion for Information Processing.
Tømte, C., Hovdhaugen, E., & Solum, N.H. (2009). ICT in initial teacher training - Norway (Country Re-
port/Case Study). Retrieved November 5, 2010, from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/61/45128319.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.

Appendix A

Table A1: Skill levels assigned to computer tasks

Activity Skill Activity Skill
level level
Uses presentation tools 1 Uploads files 3
Uses word processor 1 Uploads to LMS (Fronter, It's Learning) 3
Searches the Internet 2 Posts on own blog 4
Searches Wikipedia 2 Posts on own Web page 4
Sends instant messages (Chat, Messenger) 2 Builds Web pages from scratch (HTML) 5
Uses e-mail 2 Edits images 5
Shops on the Internet 3 Illustrates texts with images/videos 5

Table A2: Values assigned to frequency of performing a computer task

Frequency Value Frequency Value
Don’t know 0 Monthly 5
Never 0 Weekly 6
Less than monthly 3 Daily 7

Table A3: Classifying digital competence

Largest product Digital competence Largest product Digital competence
0-13 Very low 28-34 High
14-20 Low 35 Very high
21-27 Medium

IIP 94
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Appendix B

Table B1: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to gender

Male Female
(n = 46) (n = 120)
Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t
agree/ agree disagree/ know agree/ agree disagree/ know
Agree nor Disagree Agree nor Disagree
Statement disagree disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool in 24 13 9 0 40 41 39 0
group work (52.2) (28.3) (19.6) (0.0) (33.3) (34.2) (32.5) (0.0)

2. It was effective to use the tool 13 21 11 1 31 39 50 0

in group work (28.3) (45.7) (23.9) (2.2) (25.8) (32.5) (41.7) (0.0)

3. The tool was easier to use than

12 17 17 0 42 35 42 1
traditional tools such as MS
(26.1) (37.0) (37.0) (0.0) (35.0) (29.2) (35.0) (0.8)
Word
4. I liked to comment and edit
14 19 12 1 38 40 35 7
others contributions to group
(30.4) (41.3) (26.1) (2.2) (31.7) (33.3) (29.2) (5.8)
work
5. I liked that other students
24 17 4 1 55 42 16 7
comment and edit my own
(52.2) (37.0) (8.7) (2.2) (45.8) (35.0) (13.3) (5.8)
work in the group
6. The quality of collaboration in
10 19 15 2 16 35 64 5
the group increased with the
(21.7) (41.3) (32.6) (4.3) (13.3) (29.2) (53.3) (4.2)
use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to col-
8 20 18 0 15 42 61 2
laborate with the students in the
(17.4) (43.5) (39.1) (0.0) (12.5) (35.0) (50.8) (1.7)
group
8. It was instructive to edit and
18 18 9 1 40 50 25 5
comment others contributions
(39.1) (39.1) (19.6) (2.2) (33.3) (41.7) (20.8) (4.2)
to group work

13 5 28 0 15 13 89 3
9. The tool did work as expected
(28.3) (10.9) (60.9) (0.0) (12.5) (10.8) (74.2) (2.5)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface; percentage is italicized and parenthesized.

IIP 95
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Table B2: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to age

Aged 19-27 Aged 28-44
(n = 149) (n = 17)
Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t
agree/ agree disagree/ know agree/ agree disagree/ know
Agree nor Disagree Agree nor Disagree
Statement disagree disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool in 56 50 43 0 8 4 5 0
group work (37.6) (33.6) (28.9) (0.0) (47.1) (23.5) (29.4) (0.0)

2. It was effective to use the tool 37 54 57 1 7 6 4 0

in group work (24.8) (36.9) (38.3) (0.7) (41.2) (35.3) (23.5) (0.0)

3. The tool was easier to use than

49 44 55 1 5 8 4 0
traditional tools such as MS
(32.9) (30.2) (36.9) (0.7) (29.4) (47.1) (23.5) (0.0)
Word
4. I liked to comment and edit
49 53 41 6 3 6 6 2
others contributions to group
(32.9) (39.6) (27.5) (4.0) (17.6) (47.1) (35.3) (11.8)
work
5. I liked that other students
73 51 18 7 6 8 2 1
comment and edit my own
(49.0) (38.9) (12.1) (4.7) (35.3) (52.9) (11.8) (5.9)
work in the group
6. The quality of collaboration in
24 49 70 6 2 5 9 1
the group increased with the
(16.1) (36.9) (47.0) (4.0) (11.8) (35.3) (52.9) (5.9)
use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to col-
20 55 72 2 3 7 7 0
laborate with the students in the
(13.4) (38.3) (48.3) (1.3) (17.6) (41.2) (41.2) (0.0)
group
8. It was instructive to edit and
53 59 32 5 5 9 2 1
comment others contributions
(35.6) (43.0) (21.5) (3.4) (29.4) (58.8) (11.8) (5.9)
to group work

26 15 105 3 2 3 12 0
9. The tool did work as expected
(17.4) (12.1) (70.5) (2.0) (11.8) (17.6) (70.6) (0.0)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface; percentage is italicized and parenthesized.

IIP 96
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Table B3: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to own perception of

digital competence
Medium, low, very low, High or very high
Don’t know
(n = 54) (n = 112)
Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t
agree/ agree disagree/ know agree/ agree disagree/ know
Agree nor Disagree Agree nor Disagree
Statement disagree disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool in 21 17 16 0 43 37 32 0
group work (38.9) (31.5) (29.6) (0.0) (38.4) (33.0) (28.6) (0.0)

2. It was effective to use the tool 14 21 19 0 30 39 42 1

in group work (25.9) (38.9) (35.2) (0.0) (26.8) (34.8) (37.5) (0.9)

3. The tool was easier to use than

19 19 15 1 35 33 44 0
traditional tools such as MS
(35.2) (35.2) (27.8) (1.9) (31.3) (29.5) (39.3) (0.0)
Word
4. I liked to comment and edit
15 17 17 5 37 42 30 3
others contributions to group
(27.8) (31.5) (31.5) (9.3) (33.0) (37.5) (26.8) (2.7)
work
5. I liked that other students
25 19 6 4 54 40 14 4
comment and edit my own
(46.3) (35.2) (11.1) (7.4) (48.2) (35.7) (12.5) (3.6)
work in the group
6. The quality of collaboration in
8 15 27 4 18 39 52 3
the group increased with the
(14.8) (27.8) (50.0) (7.4) (16.1) (34.8) (46.4) (2.7)
use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to col-
7 19 26 2 16 43 53 0
laborate with the students in the
(13.0) (35.2) (48.1) (3.7) (14.3) (38.4) (47.3) (0.0)
group
8. It was instructive to edit and
15 26 10 3 43 42 24 3
comment others contributions
(27.8) (48.1) (18.5) (5.6) (38.4) (37.5) (21.4) (2.7)
to group work

10 5 39 0 18 13 78 3
9. The tool did work as expected
(18.5) (9.3) (72.2) (0.0) (16.1) (11.6) (69.6) (2.7)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface; percentage is italicized and parenthesized.

IIP 97
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Table B4: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to estimated digital

competence
Medium, low, very low, High or very high
Don’t know
(n = 122) (n = 44)
Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t
agree/ agree disagree/ know agree/ agree disagree/ know
Agree nor Disagree Agree nor Disagree
Statement disagree disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool in 42 38 42 0 22 16 6 0
group work (34.4) (31.1) (34.4) (0.0) (50.0) (36.4) (13.6) (0.0)

2. It was effective to use the tool 27 48 46 1 17 12 15 0

in group work (22.1) (39.3) (37.7) (0.8) (38.6) (27.3) (34.1) (0.0)

3. The tool was easier to use than

38 37 47 0 16 15 12 1
traditional tools such as MS
(31.1) (30.3) (38.5) (0.0) (36.4) (34.1) (27.3) (2.3)
Word
4. I liked to comment and edit
35 44 36 7 17 15 11 1
others contributions to group
(28.7) (36.1) (29.5) (5.7) (38.6) (34.1) (25.0) (2.3)
work
5. I liked that other students
56 43 16 7 23 16 4 1
comment and edit my own
(45.9) (35.2) (13.1) (5.7) (52.3) (36.4) (9.1) (2.3)
work in the group
6. The quality of collaboration in
19 35 62 6 7 19 17 1
the group increased with the
(15.6) (28.7) (50.8) (4.9) (15.9) (43.2) (38.6) (2.3)
use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to col-
17 43 61 1 6 19 18 1
laborate with the students in the
(13.9) (35.2) (50.0) (0.8) (13.6) (43.2) (40.9) (2.3)
group
8. It was instructive to edit and
39 50 27 6 19 18 7 0
comment others contributions
(32.0) (41.0) (22.1) (4.9) (43.2) (40.9) (15.9) (0.0)
to group work

22 12 86 2 6 6 31 1
9. The tool did work as expected
(18.0) (9.8) (70.5) (1.6) (13.6) (13.6) (70.5) (2.3)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface; percentage is italicized and parenthesized.

IIP 98
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Table B5: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to interest in digital

tools
Medium, low, very low, High or very high
Don’t know
(n = 55) (n = 111)
Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t
agree/ agree disagree/ know agree/ agree disagree/ know
Agree nor Disagree Agree nor Disagree
Statement disagree disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool in 19 14 22 0 45 40 26 0
group work (34.5) (25.5) (40.0) (0.0) (40.5) (36.0) (23.4) (0.0)

2. It was effective to use the tool 10 22 23 0 34 38 38 1

in group work (18.2) (40.0) (41.8) (0.0) (30.6) (34.2) (34.2) (0.9)

3. The tool was easier to use than

15 18 22 0 39 34 37 1
traditional tools such as MS
(27.3) (32.7) (40.0) (0.0) (35.1) (30.6) (33.3) (0.9)
Word
4. I liked to comment and edit
13 16 22 4 39 43 25 4
others contributions to group
(23.6) (29.1) (40.0) (7.3) (35.1) (38.7) (22.5) (3.6)
work
5. I liked that other students
21 17 12 5 58 42 8 3
comment and edit my own
(38.2) (30.9) (21.8) (9.1) (52.3) (37.8) (7.2) (2.7)
work in the group
6. The quality of collaboration in
5 15 32 3 21 39 47 4
the group increased with the
(9.1) (27.3) (58.2) (5.5) (18.9) (35.1) (42.3) (3.6)
use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to col-
4 17 33 1 19 45 46 1
laborate with the students in the
(7.3) (30.9) (60.0) (1.8) (17.1) (40.5) (41.4) (0.9)
group
8. It was instructive to edit and
14 22 17 2 44 46 17 4
comment others contributions
(25.5) (40.0) (30.9) (3.6) (39.6) (41.4) (15.3) (3.6)
to group work

6 5 43 1 22 13 74 2
9. The tool did work as expected
(10.9) (9.1) (78.2) (1.8) (19.8) (11.7) (66.7) (1.8)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface; percentage is italicized and parenthesized.

IIP 99
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Table 6: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to how important they

assume digital tools to be in their future work as a teacher
Medium, low, very low, High or very high
Don’t know
(n = 51) (n = 115)
Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t
agree/ agree disagree/ know agree/ agree disagree/ know
Agree nor Disagree Agree nor Disagree
Statement disagree disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool in 20 13 18 0 44 41 30 0
group work (39.2) (25.5) (35.3) (0.0) (38.3) (35.7) (26.1) (0.0)

2. It was effective to use the tool 14 21 16 0 30 39 45 1

in group work (27.5) (41.2) (31.4) (0.0) (26.1) (33.9) (39.1) (0.9)

3. The tool was easier to use than

17 13 21 0 37 39 38 1
traditional tools such as MS
(33.3) (25.5) (41.2) (0.0) (32.2) (33.9) (33.0) (0.9)
Word
4. I liked to comment and edit
12 20 17 2 40 39 30 6
others contributions to group
(23.5) (39.2) (33.3) (3.9) (34.8) (33.9) (26.1) (5.2)
work
5. I liked that other students
15 24 9 3 64 35 11 5
comment and edit my own
(29.4) (47.1) (17.6) (5.9) (55.7) (30.4) (9.6) (4.3)
work in the group
6. The quality of collaboration in
5 17 26 3 21 37 53 4
the group increased with the
(9.8) (33.3) (51.0) (5.9) (18.3) (32.2) (46.1) (3.5)
use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to col-
6 15 29 1 17 47 50 1
laborate with the students in the
(11.8) (29.4) (56.9) (2.0) (14.8) (40.9) (43.5) (0.9)
group
8. It was instructive to edit and
13 23 15 0 45 45 19 6
comment others contributions
(25.5) (45.1) (29.4) (0.0) (39.1) (39.1) (16.5) (5.2)
to group work

6 7 37 1 22 11 80 2
9. The tool did work as expected
(11.8) (13.7) (72.5) (2.0) (19.1) (9.6) (69.6) (1.7)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface; percentage is italicized and parenthesized.

IIP 100
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Table B7: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing in different educational settings

C1 C2
(n = 154) (n = 12)
Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t
agree/ agree disagree/ know agree/ agree disagree/ know
Agree nor Disagree Agree nor Disagree
Statement disagree disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool in 61 47 46 0 3 7 2 0
group work (39.6) (30.5) (29.9) (0.0) (25.0) (58.3) (16.7) (0.0)

2. It was effective to use the tool 43 58 52 1 1 2 9 0

in group work (27.9) (37.7) (33.8) (0.6) (8.3) (16.7) (75.0) (0.0)

3. The tool was easier to use than

51 49 53 1 3 3 6 0
traditional tools such as MS
(33.1) (31.8) (34.4) (0.6) (25.0) (25.0) (50.0) (0.0)
Word
4. I liked to comment and edit
49 55 43 7 3 4 4 1
others contributions to group
(31.8) (35.7) (27.9) (4.5) (25.0) (33.3) (33.3) (8.3)
work
5. I liked that other students
76 52 18 8 3 7 2 0
comment and edit my own
(49.4) (33.8) (11.7) (5.2) (25.0) (58.3) (16.7) (0.0)
work in the group
6. The quality of collaboration in
24 53 71 6 2 1 8 1
the group increased with the
(15.6) (34.4) (46.1) (3.9) (16.7) (8.3) (66.7) (8.3)
use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to col-
22 59 71 2 1 3 8 0
laborate with the students in the
(14.3) (38.3) (46.1) (1.3) (8.3) (25.0) (4.8) (0.0)
group
8. It was instructive to edit and
55 61 32 6 3 7 2 0
comment others contributions
(35.7) (39.6) (20.8) (3.9) (25.0) (58.3) (16.7) (0.0)
to group work

25 16 111 2 3 2 6 1
9. The tool did work as expected
(16.2) (10.4) (72.1) (1.3) (25.0) (16.7) (50.0) (8.3)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface; percentage is italicized and parenthesized. Re-

sponses are related to two campuses with different educational settings: C1 = main campus; C2 =
satellite campus

IIP 101
Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions

Table B8: Students’ perceptions of collaborative writing according to tool used

EtherPad Google Docs
(n = 132) (n = 34)
Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t
agree/ agree disagree/ know agree/ agree disagree/ know
Agree nor Disagree Agree nor Disagree
Statement disagree disagree
1. It was easy to use the tool in 47 42 43 0 17 12 5 0
group work (35.6) (31.8) (32.6) (0.0) (50.0) (35.3) (14.7) (0.0)

2. It was effective to use the tool 30 50 51 1 14 10 10 0

in group work (22.7) (37.9) (38.6) (0.8) (41.2) (29.4) (29.4) (0.0)

3. The tool was easier to use than

39 43 49 1 15 9 10 0
traditional tools such as MS
(29.5) (32.6) (37.1) (0.8) (44.1) (26.5) (29.4) (0.0)
Word
4. I liked to comment and edit
43 41 40 8 9 18 7 0
others contributions to group
(32.6) (31.1) (30.3) (6.1) (26.5) (52.9) (20.6) (0.0)
work
5. I liked that other students
58 48 19 7 21 11 1 1
comment and edit my own
(43.9) (36.4) (14.4) (5.3) (61.8) (32.4) (2.9) (2.9)
work in the group
6. The quality of collaboration in
18 45 64 5 8 9 15 2
the group increased with the
(13.6) (34.1) (48.5) (3.8) (23.5) (26.5) (44.1) (5.9)
use of the tool
7. The tool motivated me to col-
21 47 62 2 2 15 17 0
laborate with the students in the
(15.9) (35.6) (47.0) (1.5) (5.9) (44.1) (50.0) (0.0)
group
8. It was instructive to edit and
46 51 30 5 12 17 4 1
comment others contributions
(34.8) (38.6) (22.7) (3.8) (35.3) (50.0) (11.8) (2.9)
to group work

14 13 103 2 14 5 14 1
9. The tool did work as expected
(10.6) (9.8) (78.0) (1.5) (41.2) (14.7) (41.2) (2.9)

Note. Frequency of responses is in boldface; percentage is italicized and parenthesized.

IIP 102
 Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen

Biographies
Cornelia Brodahl received the master degree in Mathematics from the
University of Münster (Germany) in 1979. She joined University of
Agder, Kristiansand (Norway) in 2001. She is currently an Associate
Professor of ICT in Learning at the Faculty of Engineering and Sci-
ence. She has been in the teaching profession since 1980 and worked
as system analyst in industry in 1998-2001. Her research and teaching
interests include ICT and learning, and Professional ICT Didactics.
Main areas of expertise and interest are ICT supported learning, digital
teaching aids, pedagogical Web design, and didactical animations in
mathematics.

Said Hadjerrouit is a Full Professor of Informatics at the University

of Agder. He holds a Ph.D. (1992) in Medical Expert Systems and Ar-
tificial Intelligence, and a Master (1985) in Software Engineering from
the Technical University of Berlin (Germany). He has been working at
the University of Agder since 1991. Hadjerrouit has teaching experi-
ence in informatics and society, philosophical and ethical issues of
computing, object-oriented programming, Web engineering, software
development, databases, didactics of informatics, ICT in mathematics
education, and ICT-based learning. His current research focuses on
software engineering education, didactics of informatics, ICT in ma-
thematics education, e-Learning, technology-enhanced learning, Web-based learning resources,
Web 2.0 technology and social software.

Nils Kristian Hansen received a master degree in electronics / com-

puter science from The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim
(Norway) 1987 and also holds an intermediate degree in Mathematics
from the University of Agder, Kristiansand (Norway).
He joined the University of Agder in 2002, and is currently employed
as a Chief Engineer at the Department of Technology and Science. He
teaches Computer Science and Mathematics and provides computer
support for teaching and research. Professional interests include soft-
ware development and use of computers and technology in education.

IIP 103