Developing Young EFL Learners’

Writing Skill in Wikis' Collaborative

Environment

Do not confine your children to your

own learning, for they were born in
another time (Chinese proverb).

Roya Khoii, Zahra Arabsarhangi

Islamic Azad University, North-Tehran Branch; Ministry of Education, Iran

ABSTRACT
The present paper reports on a study employing wikis' collaborative environment for teaching writing to
young EFL learners. Sixty female students at junior high school divided into one control and two
experimental groups based on their writing scores participated in this study. Collaboration was the key
concept in both experimental groups, where the members wrote through interaction with each other and
used peer correction. However, in one of them, the writing activities were conducted in the wiki
environment, while in the other the students wrote following the norms of a collaboration-oriented class.
The students in the control group wrote individually and were corrected by their teacher. The obtained
results indicated that, although both experimental groups had outperformed the control group, the
collaborative activities in a technology-oriented context involving the use of wiki pages had contributed
to greater progress in the acquisition of the writing skill and produced better student writers.

Keywords: Collaborative learning, Collaborative writing, Cyber English, Internet, Junior high school, Technology,
Warschauer, Web 2.0.

INTRODUCTION

For many people, writing is the most important skill in learning a foreign language, and many educated
people believe it to be the primary representation of language and the cornerstone of all language skills. It
is an important tool for students not only in learning but also in communication. As a productive skill, it
equips them with the communication and thinking skills to participate effectively in life especially in
today's modern world where a person can communicate a variety of messages to a closer or distant reader
or readers. Writing is especially important for the instruction of second language learners for three
reasons: first, writing well is a vital skill for academic or occupational success, but one that is especially
difficult for second language learners to master (National Commission on Writing, 2004 as cited in
Warschauer, 2010). Second, writing can be an effective tool for the development of academic language
proficiency as learners more readily explore advanced lexical or syntactic expression in their written work
(e.g., Warschauer & Ware, 2006). Third, writing across the curriculum can be invaluable for mastering
diverse subject matter, as written expression allows learners to raise their awareness of knowledge gaps,
abstract problem-specific knowledge into schemas that can be applied to other relevant cases, and
elaborate mental representations of knowledge that can be more easily retrieved, while simultaneously
allowing teachers to better understand the students' state of knowledge and thinking process and thus
adjust instruction as necessary (Reeves, 2002).

On the other hand, writing is a skill that many teachers find difficult to teach, particularly to young
learners, and, as a result of this, a skill many learners do not enjoy. Achieving success in a written task
does not lie solely in learning the grammar and lexicon of the language. Learning to write in a foreign
language implies much more than acquiring the linguistic tools needed to communicate meaning, and it
is, in fact, not an isolated classroom activity, but a social and cultural experience. That is why during the
last two decades there has been a surge in the introduction of new techniques for helping students become
better writers (Rao, 2007; Reilly & Reilly, 2005). Several accounts of the history of L2 writing pedagogy
and of the discipline itself document the development and growing importance of L2 writing studies as a
field of practice and investigation (Matsuda, 2003; Silva & Brice, 2004; cited in Leki, Cumming, & Silva,
2008).The traditional view in language classes that writing functions primarily to reinforce patterns of
oral language use, grammar, and vocabulary is now being supplanted by the notion that writing is a
worthwhile enterprise in and of itself (Weigle, 2002). Consequently, there is an active interest today in
new theoretical approaches to the study of written texts as well as approaches to the teaching of second or
foreign language writing that incorporate current theories and research findings. One of the fields that
seems to be able to offer some solutions to the problems associated with the teaching and learning of
writing in a foreign language is the field of computer and internet technologies.

Computers have brought significant changes to almost every aspect of people's lives, including education,
and many innovations of the digital revolution continue to have an impact both on the way people
conduct their lives and on the way educators endeavor to teach foreign languages. Presently, young FL
learners are learning internet skills and the language of the internet (or ‘Cyber English’) just as they learn
basic literacy skills. Since being electronically literate means not only acquiring technical skills, but also
working with English, EFL teachers are in a position to kill two birds with one stone (Lewis, 2004). At
the same time, multimedia possibilities allow them to introduce content in diverse ways and, thus, appeal
to the learning styles or ‘intelligences’ of different young learners.

The evolution of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) over the recent years has attracted many
enthusiasts' attention in the field of ELT to explore the ways in which the computer technology can be
exploited to provide likely remedies for many of the problems students encounter during second language
learning such as having apprehension or lack of motivation (Khoii & Aghabeig, 2009). Recent
innovations like blogs, wikis, and Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds may be less familiar but offer
powerful opportunities for online collaboration for both language professionals and learners. The fast
pace of changes in the communication revolution are also affecting the ways foreign language teachers
use the information technology to develop learners' language skills. Given the importance of the writing
skill in the process of communication, the difficulties that young learners have with learning this skill, the
problems that teachers might encounter in teaching it, and the contributions that the computer technology
can make to foreign language learners in learning this skill while enjoying it, this paper firstly presents a
brief literature on the various factors involved in young learners' acquisition of this skill in a Cyber
environment employing the wiki pages. Then it provides the details of a study conducted on the effects of
writing in wiki's collaborative environment on the development of young learners' writing ability. Finally,
it discusses the drawn conclusions and presents some suggestions for further research.

BACKGROUND
Technology and Writing
Nowadays, technology allows people from different countries and cultures throughout the world to
interact with each other, and communication across languages is something inevitable. Moreover, the
ability to speak and write a second language is becoming widely recognized as an important skill for
educational, business, and personal reasons (Weigle, 2002). As Pennington (2003) states, ''The computer
in its many guises as a writing tool and communications medium is changing the way we interact with
information and with each other'' (p. 286). Computers can enhance all aspects of the writing process,
allowing easy revision, multiple drafts, and spell-checking. Also, increasingly sophisticated translation
suggestions and grammatical advice are available, which may be used with caution by advanced writers
(Hanson-Smith, 2001 as cited in Hanson-Smith & Rilling, 2007).

Furthermore, writing is no longer the sole domain of writing professionals like journalists, novelists,
academicians, and scientists. People write more in general these days, both adults and children. Studies
have indicated the emergence of new writing styles with more flexibility and less formality (Gains, 1999
as cited in Marandi, 2011; Gimenez, 2000). Besides, an overwhelming number of highly popular new
words, phrases and acronyms have been introduced into English under the influence of the Net (Marandi,
2002).

In general, writing on a computer enhances both the motivation to write and revise or completely change
a text (e.g., Daiute, 1985; Jedeskog, 1993; Pontecorvo, 1997 as cited in Gimenez, 2000). As ESL research
and practices have developed, many techniques and methods have proved successful in English L2
writing classrooms. e.g.:

 Careful needs analysis to plan curriculums;

 Cooperative and group work (including collaborative writing) that strengthen the
community of the class and offer writers authentic audiences;
 Integration of language skills in class activities;
 Learning style and strategy to help students learn how to learn; and
 The use of relevant, authentic materials and tasks. (Carter &
Nunan, 2001, p. 32).

In addition to the above, advances in technology, require teachers and administrators to not only review
their curricula, approaches, and educational tools, but also lead them to consider the possibility of
incorporating technology into their teaching (Timuchin, 2006). In order to make effective use of new
technologies, teachers must thus take a step back and focus on some basic pedagogical requirements
(Warschauer & Whittaker, 2002). In composition, students regularly use word processing, which has
revolutionized the writing process. In fact, the introduction of the computer to the composing task has
rendered writing into a simple and enjoyable activity rather than a loathsome and laborious effort.

Internet, Web 2.0 Tools, and Writing

Brunvand and Byrd (2011) argue that innovative technological applications, programs, and software can
be used to promote student engagement and motivation and, ultimately, enhance the quality of learning
experience for students. Here, the Internet, as a dynamic and interactive medium carries the greatest share
of technology-enhanced education and plays an undeniable role in the mastery of several different
academic fields, including foreign language learning. Available literature suggests that creating optimal
conditions for learning to write, increasing students' motivation, and paving the way for students' future
success are three of the most important reasons why L2 teachers should use the Internet in language
teaching. According to Richards and Renandya (2002), ''The rapid growth of the Internet, which links
computers all over the world into a single electronic communications network, is in the process of making
widespread computer-based instruction a reality'' (p. 347).

Web 2.0 is about revolutionary new ways of creating, collaborating, editing and sharing user-generated
content online in an easy way. The term Web 2.0 basically refers to new web technologies that allow
anyone to add or modify content online. Presently, teachers who have themselves mastered a foreign
language with the aid of nothing more complicated than a textbook and a blackboard are expected to be
able to use web 2.0 tools such as podcasts, blogs, and wikis. There are, now, enough online tools to bring
technology into FL classes that can inspire, excite, and motivate young learners to learn new subjects in
connection with the rest of the world. Presently, there is very little need for long, formal written work in
the classroom and, with the advent of email and word processors with spell checkers in most of the web
2.0 tools, most people do very little written work (Geyser, 2010).

As mentioned before, the role of written language has clearly changed in the past few decades due to the
rise of new information and communication channels (e.g., Herring, 2001). A great deal of our
communication is done by means of a kind of writing which is mediated by the computer, the Internet,
and other Web 2.0 tools. This has prompted the idea that technology is no longer merely a tool to be
utilized; it is part of the literacy to be acquired. The good point here is that all aspects of the writing
process like revising, drafting, and spell-checking can be easily enhanced by the help of computers for
student writers, and it is generally reported that the motivation to write, revise or completely change a text
will be increased by writing on a computer.

New digital media have played an important role in the teaching of writing through both the cognitive era
that began in the 1980s, in which word processing was emphasized as a tool for revision (Pennington,
1993), and the sociocognitive era that began in the 1990s, in which computer-mediated communication
was emphasized as a tool of social construction of meaning (Kern & Warschauer, 2000). The most
dramatic change here has been the initiation of the virtual classroom for composition classes, in which
students may never meet physically but instead read electronic texts, comment on their peers' drafts, and
communicate in writing with the instructor (Carter & Nunan, 2001).

Access to the Internet brings the world into the classroom and helps the students to use the language in
authentic contexts. Thanks to great majority of online electronic resources, such as journals, library
catalogs, topical databases, and search services in English, students use them easily to enhance their
writing skill. They can also receive feedback on the quality of their work using some online facilities such
as Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) systems (Khoii & Doroudian, 2013). Some scholars have
suggested that the very nature of online texts is different from that of printed texts (Levy, 1997 as cited in
Marandi, 2011) and, therefore, involves different processes and requires somewhat different skills
(Warschauer, 1999). The potential of the Internet is almost literally endless. Training students to use that
potential sensibly will be of great benefit to them, especially if and when they wish to continue studying
on their own. Today, some language instructors use the internet in many creative ways. If the goal is to
teach writing, internet activities should be structured so that they bring about an increase in the types of
writing processes and relationships essential to becoming a better writer (Warschauer & Whittaker, 2002).

Young Learners and L2 Writing

Clearly, writing is the most difficult skill for young language learners to master. However, it is central to
their intellectual, social and emotional development and plays a critical role in learning everything,
including a foreign language. When writing, L2 learners have to pay attention to higher level skills of
planning and organizing as well as lower level skills of spelling, punctuation, word choice,
grammaticality, etc. That is why teachers usually face great challenges in teaching these skills and
conventions to young learners as they may at times find them confusing and difficult to understand.

In the past, it was believed that the learning of writing had to be postponed to later stages when young
learners developed some mastery in oral skills and became more cognitively prepared to perform the
required tasks and activities. Even when they started teaching writing to this group of learners, it was
limited to doing exercises in the book and copying them in the notebook. Later they learned to write short
sentences with given words, but they were not engaged in free-writing until more advanced levels of
proficiency. However, the picture of foreign language teaching, in general, to young learners has changed
dramatically since the advent of the communicative approach to language learning. In the fast-paced
world of today, the objectives of many foreign language courses for this age group include all or most of
the following:

 to develop basic language skills;

 to equip the students with the vocabulary and grammar necessary to communicate fluently and
accurately;
 to enable the students to understand and convey messages, orally and in writing, in a variety of
situations;
 to encourage creative use of acquired knowledge and skills;
 to ensure direct access to scientific, technological and cultural information;
 to broaden the students’ horizons;
 to help students understand democratic values. (Ralea, 2001 p. 95)

According to the above list, communicating in writing and ensuring access to technology in the process of
L2 learning are among the objectives of learning English as foreign language. Thus young learners should
have the opportunity to write as much as possible and, to accomplish this task, teachers are recommended
to incorporate technology-oriented learning tools to help them become better student writers. Curtain
(2008, p. 201) states that, when promoting communication as a goal and in an activity-oriented approach,
instruction in early language learning programs also emphasizes concrete experiences and the use of
visuals and physical activity. She argues that this emphasis is crucial since the children participating in
these programs are at concrete stages of cognitive development. Therefore, the use of games, group and
pair activities, and experience-based approaches to reading and writing could all help to motivate students
to communicate and provide situations in which communication is concrete, natural, and meaningful.
Clearly, working in the collaborative environment of some Web 2.0 tools, such as wikis, could be of great
help to students trying to learn to write in English in order to communicate their ideas freely to their
peers.

Moreover, Rhodes (2014, p. 16) refers to FLES (Foreign Language in the Elementary School) as one of
the goals in elementary school foreign language programs. She defines FLES as follows: “Foreign
language in the elementary school programs aim for students to acquire listening, speaking, reading, and
writing skills and gain an understanding and appreciation of other cultures. Focus of instruction can be on
language and/or subject content (p. 16).” Evidently, the writing skill is considered to be a necessary
component in foreign language pedagogy in the modern era.

Traditionally, studies on composition were commonly product-oriented, and most of them looked at
writing instructions and their effects on writing in terms of the end product. On the contrary, more recent
studies are process-oriented and are interested in what a writer actually does in the process of writing. The
ultimate goals of a process approach are teaching learners strategies for planning, revising, and editing
their compositions and getting them to use these strategies autonomously. The process approach stresses
writing activities which move learners from the generation of ideas and the collection of data to a finished
text and sees writing development as an unconscious process which happens when teachers facilitate the
exercise of writing skill.

One of the most adopted teaching models to develop writing skills in the balanced literacy approach is the
writing process method (Zampardo, 2008). This method stresses both narrative and expository writing
and functions as a road map through which students' thoughts and actions are monitored from the
beginning of writing to the production of work. Here, the typical stages that student writers go through in
producing a piece of writing include prewriting, composing/drafting, revising, and editing. This is a
cyclical process during which L2 writers can revise, rescan or even re-plan their writing at any stage
where new ideas and new language forms are discovered. In other words, during the writing process a
stage may be skipped but can be returned to later.
Collaboration and Collaborative Learning
Collaboration involves working with another or others on a joint project. In recent years, many have
argued for the promotion of collaboration among foreign language learners (Bruce, Peyton, & Batson,
1993; Storch, 1999 as cited in Kessler, 2009). Arnold and Ducate (2006) observe that the context, tools,
and participants of a learning environment help to mediate collaborative learning. Swain concludes that
collaborative activities ''lead learners to reflect on their own language production as they attempt to create
meaning'' (1995, p. 141). Through the act of collaboration, students are exposed to valuable input from
others (Vygotsky, 1962 as cited in Kessler, 2009), are encouraged to produce enhanced output (Oxford,
1997), are given more opportunity for practice (Ortega, 2007), and provide effective linguistic feedback
for themselves and peers (Vygotsky, 1978 as cited in Kessler, 2009).

According to the Office of Instructional Consultation at the University of California, Santa Barbara
Website (2006), collaborative learning is the umbrella term encompassing many forms of collaborative
learning, from small group projects, to the more specific form of group work called cooperative learning.
Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only
increases interest among the students but also promotes critical thinking (Olivares, 2007).

Literature on collaborative learning in second-language (L2) acquisition strongly supports the importance
of social interaction and collaboration in L2 learning (Saville-Troike, 2006) and writing (Hyland, 2003).
Collaborative learning has also been associated with higher achievement, higher motivation, positive
student-student relationships, and more positive attitudes towards the discipline of study (Rohrbeck,
Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003). It is grounded in social constructivism (e.g., Dewey, 1916;
Piaget, 1973; Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1996 as cited in Olivares, 2007) and is concerned with creating
new knowledge. Here, the teacher serves as facilitator or guide (Dewey, 1916 as cited in Olivares, 2007)
to the social process of discovery. Brody (1995, as cited in Olivares, 2007) states that collaborative
learning can be considered an outward-looking, unstructured group process where the primary goal of the
group is to generate, through creative interaction, a best solution, that is, knowledge construction.

Most of the literature views technology-supported collaborative learning using computer-mediated

communication in L2 learning in a positive light (Jones, Garralda, Li, & Lock, 2006). Although some
researchers have been critical of computer-aided/assisted instruction in language learning (Angrist &
Lavy, 2002), the literature generally seems to point to web-based collaborative learning as a potentially
promising technology in language learning as well as in writing (Goodwin-Jones, 2003). Kirschner,
Strijbos, Kreijns, and Beer (2004, as cited in Bower, 2008) distinguish three types of affordances in
computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL): educational, social, and technological. Gibbson
(1986) first coined the term ''affordances'' as what the environment offers and provides as perceived by
the subjects living in it. Similarly, Norman (1998) describes affordances of a tool as both the perceived
and actual properties of a tool that determine how it can be used by the user. For technology
implementation to be effective, the affordances provided by a learning aid [wikis here] and the
affordances required by a learning task need to match (Bower, 2008).

Both educational and social affordances are characterized by two factors: (1) a reciprocal relationship
between the learner and the environment, and (2) a perception-action coupling. Social affordance should
also encourage learners to engage in activities and generate social interaction. Technological affordance is
concerned with technical design and its usability in allowing the users to learn, access, and control the
device for task accomplishment. All in all, CSCL redirects knowledge from the individual to the group,
that is, it externalizes knowledge and, through social interaction, creates shared cognitions or shared
mental models (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997 as cited in Olivares, 2007).

Collaborative Writing
Collaborative writing is a learning activity where two or more students work together to produce a joint
written document. More precisely, collaborative writing activities are carried out when two or more
students modify, revise, and/or review each other’s contributions to the document (Witney & Smallbone,
2011). Here, one person may share a draft with one or two others in order to receive suggestions for
improvements. Collaborative writing projects are quite common in real-life settings such as regular
classrooms and business corporations (Butler, 2001).

Collaborative writing contributes to increased complexity in writing and the willingness to utilize peer
feedback as well as increased grammatical accuracy and the overall quality of writing (Storch, 2005).
Working together can help students to learn and perform the stages of writing more effectively. In fact,
they typically write better and take more pride in their writing when they are writing for an audience.
Since many professions require collaborative writing, this technique can help prepare students,
particularly young learners, for tasks they will have in their careers (Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2005). In a
collaborative situation, writers are impelled to make decisions about the language needed to express their
ideas and, thus, to formulate the structure in which to express those ideas as they produce a text together.
Here, knowledge is situated in a setting involving individuals working together to achieve a common goal
or a set of overlapping goals. Students get to know each other, resolve some of the small interpersonal
tensions that inevitably arise, and anticipate each other's collaborative assets and shortcomings. That is
why the value of collaborative writing as a means to develop the linguistic and writing conventions of a
foreign language has also been underpinned from a sociocultural perspective (Villamil & de Guerrero,
1998 as cited in Oskoz & Elola, 2010; Storch, 2005).

According to Ede and Lunsford (1990, as cited in Wenger, 1998), there are different ways teams may
choose to write collaboratively:
 Team or group plans and outlines with each member drafting a part. Then team or group
members revise the whole.
 Members agree on assigned writing tasks. Each member carries out individual tasks, and
then one of the members compiles the parts and revises the whole.
 Team or group plans and outlines. One member writes the entire draft, and the team or
group revises.
 One member plans and writes the draft, and the group or team revises.

Collaborative practices are being increasingly advocated in second language classrooms largely in
response to the collaborative potential of Web 2.0 tools. The literature reveals a noticeable increase in
interest in collaborative writing (e.g., Arnold, Ducate, & Kost, 2009; Oskoz & Elola, 2010; Kessler, 2009;
Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Storch, 2005). Newer technologies like wikis allow researchers insight into
the L2 collaborative writing process and an increased understanding of how these technologies may affect
the collaborative writing process. Some have identified that students are likely to actively engage in
online collaborative activities due to the public nature of the information and sense of accountability
(Sengupta, 2001 as cited in Kessler, 2009). Once groups are formed, students can communicate through
e-mail, instant messaging, or telephone. As they work together to write, they can embed comments on the
students' work without the red ink scribbles that necessitate lengthy, time-consuming, and often wasteful
rewriting and monitor individual contributions using the tracking features available in standard word
processing programs or simply use different font styles.

Successful Collaborative Writing

Successful collaborative writing requires peer interaction. According to Wenger (1998), collaborative
writing involves mutual engagement of the individuals in community to develop a sense of identity. The
engagement draws out the competence of each individual to create 'complementary' contributions. Yong
(2010) states that teachers should emphasize the significance of mutual interactions and taking
complementary roles as students interact with one another in completing the task as such in planning,
generating ideas, and responding to one another’s points of view. In addition, learning to listen well to
one another should also be emphasized. Yong (2010) points out that in the process of writing, the
interactions among group members could help the students learn from their peers, share knowledge and
make decisions collaboratively, utilize strategies, and deal with conflicts. In the whole process,
coordinators may communicate with each other by various means, such as voice, characters, and body
languages. But different people with different backgrounds may differ in the comprehension of words and
sentences. Moreover, the degree of comprehension at different stages may be different, so it is necessary
to provide comprehensive support for collaboration (Jianshe & Liyi, 2003).

Stages of Collaborative Writing

According to Fleming (1988), there are three stages of collaborative writing that we need to consider as
we organize, plan and write the paper: invention, drafting and revision.

Invention Stage
Two of the strategies used at this phase are sharing and preliminary debating. In the note sharing strategy,
learners can brainstorm about the topics first by sharing notes. Learners using the preliminary strategy, on
the other hand, prepare a debate or idea on a topic as preparation for writing papers. West and West
(2009) state, ''Debates allow students to explore opposing sides of an issue by means of a structured
dialogue'' (p. 85). Members of the group gather support for their positions, which then become shared
materials for papers.

Drafting Stage
There are three models in the drafting stage:

1. Chunk Model: This model merely divides the writing of a project into sections, with each student
writing one part. The advantage of this model is that everyone participates. Thus, group members
should be aware of the different sections to be written, such as the introduction and conclusion
sections, and pay attention to transitions.
2. Blended Model: This model will only work if learners have enough time to work together. They
have to be present in the same place and discuss every aspect of the paper.
3. Compiler Model: Here, each group member does the whole assignment. Each member's work is
to be assessed and the final best product will be selected out of the group to create the final draft
(Fleming, 1988).

Revision Stage
Finally, in the revision stage, once the draft has been completed, members of the group have to revise the
paper. They can accomplish this task by revising one another's drafts, or the best writer of the group can
become the chief editor of the draft. Other group members can give comments or suggestions.

Advantages of Collaborative Writing

Most writers benefit from regular communication with other writers. Having a place to listen thoughtfully
to new work by others and having the option of receiving response to the writing can be encouraging, and
tremendously helpful. Schneider (2003) maintains that writing with others can help students:

 learn the craft: In an atmosphere of support, a writer receives help rather than judgment.
 correct their mistakes: Good response often sends a writer back to the work encouraged and helped
through blocks and uncertainties.
 take risks: Writing with others and listening to the writing of others can give courage to take greater risks,
to tell more truth, to trust the instincts. Writing with others can strengthen the nerve.
  publish: A good workshop leader will have knowledge and resources to help the students know when and
where to send a manuscript for publication.
 have perspective: Once they begin to offer their work for publication, the workshop can help them to deal
with rejection slips, and it can be a place in which to celebrate accomplishments.
 network: By meeting together, writers form important relationships that may result in collaboration, or in
contacts with or introductions to editors or agents.
 believe in their own art: What students need to hear, and believe, is their ability, their facility, the
effectiveness and strength of their own peculiar and inimitable voices.

The theoretical basis for collaborative writing projects largely rests on the work of Vygotsky (1978) with
his emphasis on the role of social interaction in learning and on the concepts underlying the
communicative approach in L2 learning. Hirvela (1999) expands on the importance of social interaction
when he notes that collaborative writing provides opportunities for students to write as part of a
community and use each other for support and guidance. Collaborative and/or pair writing in both L1 and
L2 settings has been recognized as contributing to a higher quality of writing (Storch, 2005), a better
sense of audience (Leki, 1993), increased pooling of knowledge (Donato, 1994) and ownership (Storch,
2005) in the writing process, increased student motivation (Kowal & Swain, 1994; Swain & Lapkin
1998), and attention to discourse structures as well as grammar and vocabulary usage (Swain & Lapkin,
1998). Storch (2005) also notes the importance of immediate feedback for optimal collaborative writing
to occur.

What Is a Wiki?

In 1994, Ward Cunningham implemented the first wiki, the Wiki Wiki Web, to promote the exchange of
ideas among fellow programmers on his consultancy website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward-
Cunningham; O' Leary, 2010 ). Wiki has been described by its creator as ''the simplest online database
that could possibly work'' (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001, p. 4). In fact, Cunningham adopted the term wiki
from a Hawaiian word for ''quick.'' As the term suggests, the technology's initial goal was to give users
the ability to quickly put content on the web (O' Leary, 2010 ) or most users can be functional on a wiki in
as little as 5 to 10 minutes (Cronin, 2009).

A wiki is a series of interlinked collaborative web pages that can be edited and added to by a group of
learners. Nowadays, the availability of these online environments for practicing writing and delivering the
materials in a web-based format has turned them into useful tools for teaching writing. In addition, the
time demanding nature of writing and classroom time limitations have led some teachers to use these
ideal platforms to boost their students' motivation to learn to write. Wikis are based on the hypertext
system of storing and modifying information (Neumann & Hood, 2009). In hypertext, writers create ''
mosaics of information'' (Marcus, 1993 as cited in Pennington, 2003) made up of chunks of information
arranged on computer ''pages.'' These chunks of information, which may be textual, visual, auditory, or
any combination of these, are connected by electronic links in a Web page format (Pennington, 2003).
Each page can store information and is easily viewed, edited, and commented on by other people using
any web browsers. Thus, a contribution is not a comment or response (as in a blog), but an alteration to
the previous contribution (Kessler, 2009). Functionally, a wiki is meant to engage individuals to regularly
update wiki pages in a collaborative fashion, to add new information, and to create links between pages
(Neumann & Hood, 2009). According to O' Leary (2010), wikis are designed to facilitate quick and easy
content generation, collaboration, and distribution.

Wikis are unique among Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) tools. CMC tools such as
discussion forums, email, and conferencing tools accommodate the collaborative discussion of ideas well
(Kessler, 2009). As Warschauer (2010) mentions, wikis turn traditional CMC activity around. Whereas
email and chat facilitate informal, author-centric, personal exchange, writing on a wiki facilitates more
formal, topic-centric, depersonalized exchange. Most wiki contributions are written, but they can include
media such as images, videos, and sound files (O'Leary, 2010). Wikis are being increasingly used within
the higher education context to assist knowledge management in an academic setting (Raman et al., 2005)
and to develop a collaborative online textbook (Ravid, Kalman & Rafaeli, 2008). However, most interest
has focused on how wikis might foster learning in students (Elgort, Smith & Toland, 2008; Robertson,
2008; and Ruth & Houghton, 2009).

Warschauer (2010) refers to Wikipedia as a great example of a large wiki. It is most prominent wiki,
ranks sixth among most visited Websites in the world, and features 14 million articles written in more
than 200 languages. He declares that much of the discussion regarding the role of wikis in education has
focused on the suitability of Wikipedia as a source for student research. Thanks to the success of the
Wikipedia project, an overwhelming majority of people in academic life are familiar with the wiki
software, including its major functions and the layout of a typical wiki page, which is different from
traditional html websites (Kuteeva, 2011).

Educational Benefits of Wikis

A wiki involves the students as active learners rather than simply receivers of knowledge. Parker (2007)
observes, ''Course content is no longer static'' with a wiki; ''It is ever changing and can evolve through a
course and beyond'' (p. 290). Building a wiki can help prepare students for the Web 2.0 world. It is not
enough to just describe Web 2.0 technologies to them; students need hands on experience. And there are
other worthwhile pedagogical benefits. As stated earlier, creating a wiki can help students develop their
ability to collaborate and to create knowledge rather than simply absorb it. As Guth (2007) states, when
contributing to a wiki project, students are not just writing for the teacher, but for and with their peers. As
such, they promote collective authoring which inherently entails peer review. As students learn to depend
on one another for feedback, they become less dependent on the teacher, more autonomous, and have an
increased sense of responsibility for what they write (Cronin, 2009). An important potential benefit is that
learning may be facilitated by the use of a wiki (Cutler, 2006; Minocha & Thomas, 2007).

Nov (2007) explored the motivations of users of Wikipedia who contribute content and concluded that
fun is the top motivator in these studies. Whereas most students are users of one or more social media
such as Facebook or Twitter, they are probably unaware of Web 2.0 uses in the world. The motivation to
start and continue learning will be derived from communities and peers and the various technologies that
allow the identification of and communication with others who share in or contribute to the learning
(Mayes & Freitas, 2007). Furthermore, motivation may be a precursor to autonomy (Spratt, Humphreys,
& Chan, 2002 as cited in Kessler, 2009). Benson (2001) and Hadjerrouit (2013) recognize the enormous
potential for the development of through the use of technology, as well as the reliance upon autonomy in
order to effectively utilize the potential of technology-based learning environments. In research into
autonomy and technology, Toyoda (2001) finds that there are ''three conditions necessary for autonomous
learning: 1) accessible and reliable technology, 2) sufficient computer literacy in students, and 3) good
communication with and support from peers'' (para.1).

Examining discussions in a wiki, Hunter (2011) found that the online collaborative environment is
helping redefine contributors’ ideas of authorship. He concluded that collaborative writing is more
successful when the writers share “common ‘habits of mind’”, and when contributors hold less “author-
centric perspectives of textual ownership” (p. 40). Characteristics of wikis cited as leading to this
redefinition of authorship and ownership include the ease with which collaborators can work together and
the large number of people who can contribute, resulting in increased critical thinking in the collaborative
writing process.

Moreover, wiki's tracking system gives in-depth information about the types of edits the students are
making and helps teachers assess their collaboration and the development of their group writing process
(Woo, M. Chu, S., Ho, A. & Li, XX. (2010), a task that may be difficult to monitor in traditional
group work in the classroom. This can help teachers decide on the kind of support to be given and provide
immediate feedback when necessary during the course of writing and not at the end when the product is
finished.

Generally speaking, educators might find three types of wikis helpful: the library wiki, the reciprocal
wiki, and the student-produced wiki (Teehan, 2010). However, for the purpose of this study, only the
reciprocal type will be discussed.

A Reciprocal Wiki and Collaboration

A reciprocal wiki is all about collaboration. Reciprocal wikis promote the synergetic effects that occur
when students work as a team on a project. It invites user participation in completing a task, making lists,
collecting documentation, and exchanging ideas. Whether teachers create a wiki to team up with
colleagues or interact with students, this tool holds great potential for the practice of virtual cooperative
learning. Reciprocal wikis, once they are introduced to teachers, find wide acceptance as a
communication and file storage tool. A wiki can simplify the collaboration process, and it does so without
the gap in productivity associated with waiting for peers or the teacher to read, reply, read other
responses, reply again, and so on. The good point here is that tasks and revisions can be done
simultaneously. Collaboration takes less time and is less complicated, and the end product is online for
everyone to use and appreciate. It is a perfect vehicle for users who have no time to meet face to face but
need to collaborate on joint resources and initiatives. When students are working on a group assignment
and cannot meet outside of school to share ideas, a wiki is the best option for collaborating. If
collaboration is the process of bringing people, ideas, best practices, and creation together, then wikis are
the vehicles that make that process possible in today's educational setting (Teehan, 2010, p. 5).

Wikis and Collaborative Writing

The use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the foreign language classroom has opened new
possibilities regarding the type and frequency of interactions between students of a foreign language or
between students and native speakers of the target language (Díez-Bedmar & Pérez-Paredes, 2012).
Among the emerging CMC technologies that can be used in schools today, wikis stand out as one that can
render a teacher-centered world to a more learner-centered one. Whereas email and chat facilitate
informal, author-centric, personal exchange, writing on a wiki facilitates more formal, topic-centric, and
depersonalized exchange. Presently, wikis have attracted much attention from teachers because their
usage is very easy, and they promote collaborative learning among students. The purpose of a wiki is to
engage individuals to regularly update wiki pages collaboratively, to add new information, and to create
links between pages.

The evolution of social technologies, such as wikis, has brought a renewed attention to L2 collaborative
writing (for example, Kessler, 2009 ; Oskoz & Elola 2010). Some have identified that students are likely
to actively engage in online collaborative activities due to the public nature of the information and sense
of accountability. Authoring flexibility, creation, the generation of new knowledge, open editing, and
review structure of wikis are referred to as good examples of wikis' applications in collaborative writing
(O’leary, 2010). Sharing, peer-commenting, and co-constructing are also useful platforms in which wikis
may foster students' collaborative writing (Richardson, 2009). Woo, Chu, Ho, and Li (2011) also report
that students enjoy using the wiki, and the overall perception is that it helps foster teamwork and improve
writing. What students want to focus on and where the class needs to improve are easily seen in wikis'
history and audit trail of changes (O' Leary, 2010).

By the help of wikis, students write more, ask more questions, use more language functions, and adopt a
more conversational tone in their language (Woo et al., 2011 & O'leary, 2010). Moreover, collaborative
writing via wikis' environment allows students to focus more strongly on structure and organization in
contrast to individual writing, where learners tend to focus on local aspects such as grammar (Oskoz &
Elola, 2010 ). According to Taylor (2003), collaborative assignments offer students the benefits and
experience of building on existing knowledge through the dynamic interplay with and among other
students, the subject matter, and the teacher. With careful coordination and communication, group writing
assignments can yield excellent results and valuable experiences. Like other group tasks, collaborative
writing has the potential to be far superior to individual writing because the weaknesses and inadequacies
of individuals are caught by one another, while all the strengths of the individuals are pooled (Kirkland &
Saunders,1991 as cited in Jianshe & Liyi, 2003).

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER

Issues, Controversies, Problems

In this section, the writers will briefly report on a study that they conducted on the effect of using wikis’
collaborative environment on the development of young learners’ writing ability. Then they will present
the results of the statistical analyses of the obtained data and discuss their observations and findings.

The Study

Research Question

In order to achieve the goal of the study, the following question was proposed:

Q: Does working in wikis' collaborative environment have any effect on the improvement of young
EFL learners' writing skill?

Methodology

Participants

The participants of this study consisted of 60 Iranian elementary level female foreign language learners
between 14 and 16 years of age divided into one control and two experimental groups. The same teacher
taught all the three groups after the school time in twelve preplanned sessions. It is necessary to note that,
since all the writing classes were held after the regular school time, all the students were required to
present a consent letter signed by their parents in order to participate in the classes.

Materials

The materials used in the study consisted of the following:

1. The writing section of a KET in order to choose the ultimate participants of this study. This test
consisted of 20 word completion items, an open cloze test, an information transfer part, and a
guided writing test. According to the handbook of Cambridge ESOL Examination, this test is at
level A2. At this level, a learner should be able to cope linguistically in a range of everyday
situations which require a basic and largely predictable use of language.
2. A writing pretest on a topic chosen from the book Writing Tutor 1A (Lewis, 2011) in order to
measure the participants’ writing ability at the outset of the study.
3. A posttest on a topic chosen from the above book in order to measure the effects of the treatment.
4. A modified version of the narrative writing rubric for grade 2 (accessed on 19 July 2012 at
http://www.fsusd.k12.ca.us/education/assessment/docs/rubric_2.pdf). In this version, the criterion
 of Focus was replaced by Writing Process (ranging from Effective use to No evidence of use) in
order to make it more compatible with the purpose of the study.
5. PBworks, formerly known as PBwiki (http://pbworks.com).
6. The book Writing Tutor: Sentence writing, 1A by Randy Lewis (2011) . This book was used to
teach L2 writing to the students.

Procedure

At the outset of the study, 60 homogenous students were selected from among 100 students after the
administration of the writing section of the KET. Then they were matched into three groups, one control
and two experimental groups, each consisting of 20 participants. In the next phase of the study, a writing
pretest, describing a series of pictures on the topic ''Lunch Bullies'', was administered to measure the
participants’ writing ability before the treatment.

Following the process of group formation, the 12-session treatment period commenced. The teacher
taught narrative writing following the writing process method using the same textbook to all the three
groups. In the course of instruction, the students were familiarized with different stages of writing
including prewriting, drafting, revising, and proofreading. Each session, the teacher introduced a topic for
sample writing and asked some questions to attract the students' attention to the organization of the
sample. The grammar and the new vocabularies of each sample were practiced as well. As the lesson
continued, the teacher guided them to complete each stage of the writing process from brainstorming to
writing the final draft.

The control group had the same teacher and used the same textbook as the two experimental groups. They
also received the same instruction concerning the writing process, wrote on the same topics, and
participated in exactly the same number of class sessions. Here, each student was responsible for doing all
the assignments including the exercises and completion of final drafts individually following the writing
process method. They received feedback regarding the quality of their works from the teacher in the form
of written comments on each of their narrative writings. However, collaboration was the key concept in
the two experimental groups (EX1 and EX2) where the students wrote collaboratively in small groups and
employed peer correction. The students in EX1 group planned and outlined a text. Then, one member
wrote the entire draft. After that, the group revised the entire text and edited it before giving it to the
teacher. The students in EX2 group followed the same procedure but in their wiki pages in the class. Each
group had a specific folder in the wiki pages. Here, the teacher knew who had written the drafts and who
had made the changes to them. Below, there is an example of a first draft written by one of the students
and corrected by three others:

Lunch Time
Emily was sitting a lone alone on the chair bench in the park near her
house.But Suddenly Tim came and took a cake from her bay bag.
Tim was very happy but Emily was really angry because he
took it with out without her permission. When he wanted to learn
leave there, she cried and wanted her cake but he didn’t deliver
give back the cake. Poor her Emily !
(Change of font signifies edition or addition)

At the end of the edition process, the final product turned out to be as follows:

One Day in the Park

 Last week on Monday Emily decided to go to the park to eat
something for lunch. First, she sat alone on the bench and put
her bag beside herself. Suddenly she saw Tim. Tim was Emily's
classmate. Then, he came and sat near Emily. After that, he
took a cake from her bag and ate. Next, he took an apple.
Finally, he ate all the food. Emily was really surprised and
angry. When Tim wanted to leave there, she cried to say
something but said nothing. Poor Emily!

Interestingly, in the process of edition and co-construction of the text, the participants not only made
corrections in terms of spelling, grammar, word-choice, and conventions, but they also added more
content to the text and unanimously decided to change the topic of the final product.

At the end of the treatment, a narrative writing posttest was given to all the three groups in order to
measure their progress in terms of this skill.

Results

Standardizing the Homogeneity Writing Test

At the beginning of this study, the writing section of the KET was administered to 30 students whose
language proficiency level was similar to the participants of this study to pilot the test. The test consisted
of four parts concentrating on testing basic writing skills. It comprised 5 word completion items, 10 open
cloze items, 5 information transfer items, and one guided writing item. The guided writing papers of all
the students were scored by two raters (both experienced teachers at the participants’ school) according to
the general mark scheme for the KET (Appendix A). To achieve 5 marks in this guided writing item, a
candidate was required to write a cohesive message which successfully communicated all three parts of
the message with only minor grammar and spelling errors.

Later a process of item analysis was carried out for the items in the first three parts of the test in order to
identify and discard the poor items. The item facility and item discrimination indices of each item were
calculated. Items with facility indices below 0.30 and beyond 0.70 and discrimination values below 0.40
were discarded. The results indicated that some items (8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14) in the open cloze part had to
be revised. Then another open cloze was given to the previous 30 students for a re-analysis of the new IF
and ID values. Based on the results, the new items enjoyed satisfactory IF and ID values. Table 1
provides the descriptive statistics of the homogeneity writing test in the piloting phase after revising the
open cloze part.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the homogeneity writing test piloting

N Min. Max. Mean SD

Total 30 2 22.5 11.31 5.62
The
inter-rater reliability of the scores of the guided writing section was calculated by means of the Cronbach-
α formula (0.93). Because of the high consistency between the two raters, the average of the scores given
by the two raters to each paper was considered as the ultimate score of each participant in each group.
The inter-rater reliability of the scores in the guided writing item is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Inter-rater reliability of the guided writing item

Cronbach-α N of Raters
Guided Writing Item 0.93 2
The reliability of the first three parts of the homogeneity writing test which was calculated through the
Cronbach-α formula turned out to be 0.85, indicating that the test was reliable.

Table 3. Reliability statistics of the first three parts of the homogeneity

writing test
Cronbach-α N of Items
Parts 6-8 0.85 20

At this stage, the researchers felt safe in employing the above piloted test for the selection of the
participants of the study. The homogeneity writing test was administered to 100 elementary EFL learners
with the aim of selecting 60 of them for the study. The descriptive statistics of the homogeneity writing
test are given below in Table 4.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the homogeneity writing test

N Min. Max. Mean SD
Total 100 1 20 9.17 4.37

Forming the Three Groups of the Study

From among the 100 students who took the homogeneity writing test, 60 students were selected as the
final participants of the study. They were later matched into three groups based on their obtained scores.
There were one control and two experimental groups, each consisting of 20 participants. The descriptive
statistics of the homogeneity writing test of the three newly formed groups appear in Table 5.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the homogeneity writing test of the three

groups
N Mean SD Skewness
Statistic Std. Error
Control 20 10.50 3.692 .847 .512
EX1 20 10.55 3.953 .872 .512
EX2 20 10.80 4.188 .667 .512

EX1: The group working collaboratively

EX2: The group working collaboratively in wiki's environment
C: The control group doing individual activities

Dividing the statistic of skewness by its standard error, the researchers found that the assumption of
normality was observed in the distribution of the scores of the three groups (1.65, 1.70, and 1.30 for the
control, EX1, and EX2 groups respectively, all falling within the range of -1.96 and +1.96). Figure 1
displays the normality of the homogeneity writing test.
 Figure 1. Histogram of the homogeneity writing test

Analysis of the Writing Pretest

In the next phase of the experiment, a writing pretest, describing a series of pictures on the topic ''Lunch
Bullies'', was administered to determine the writing ability of the participants before the treatment. This
would enable the researchers to investigate the possible impact of the treatment on the improvement of
the writing skill of the experimental groups. Table 6 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the writing
pretest.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of the writing pretest

Std.
N Mean Deviation Skewness
Statisti Statisti
Statistic c Statistic c Std. Error
Contro
20 9.68 1.162 .590 .512
l
EX1 20 9.87 1.572 .076 .512
Once more, the EX2 20 9.82 1.908 .786 .512 results of the
skewness analysis, as shown in Table 6,
revealed that the assumption of normality was observed in the distribution of the writing pretest scores of
the three groups (1.15 for the control group, 0.14 for EX1 , and 1.53 for EX2, all falling within the range
of -1.96 and +1.96). Figure 2 shows the normality of the writing pretest scores.

Figure 2. Histogram of the writing pretest scores

As mentioned before, all papers were scored by two raters using an analytic scale (Jacobs et al. 1981)
based on the rubric scales between grade 2 & 3 in American schools (Appendix B). The inter-rater
reliability of the writing pretest was calculated through the Cronbach-α formula, which turned out to be
0.92, showing a high consistency between the two raters.

Table 7. Inter-rater reliability of the writing pretest

Cronbach-α N of Raters
.92 2

Figure 3 shows the mean differences between the control and experimental groups on the writing pretest.

16
14
12
10
8
Mean
6
4
2
0
Control Experimental Wiki

Figure 3. The mean scores of the three groups on the writing pretest

ANOVA for the Writing Pretest Mean Scores

In order to determine the homogeneity of the participants regarding their writing skill, the researchers ran
an ANOVA. The probability associated with the F-observed value (.917) was higher than the significant
level of .05 (Table 8). Therefore, it was safely concluded that the three groups belonged to the same
population in terms of writing before the treatment.

Table 8. One-way ANOVA for the pretest

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .433 2 .217 .087 .917
Within Groups 141.712 57 2.486
Total 142.146 59

Analysis of the Writing Posttest

After twelve instructional sessions, a personal narrative writing on the topic ''My Birthday'' was
administered to measure the effects of the treatment at the end of the study. The mean scores, variances,
and standard deviations of the writing posttest are reported for the three groups in Table 9.
 Table 9. Descriptive statistics of the writing posttest
N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error
Control 20 11.65 1.125 .692 .512
EX1 20 13.10 1.382 -.314 .512
EX2 20 14.67 2.066 -.476 .512

As shown in Table 9, the results of the skewness analysis again revealed that the assumption of normality
was observed in the distribution of the writing posttest scores of the three groups (1.35 for the control
group, -0.61 for EX1, and -0.92 for EX2 all falling within the range of -1.96 and +1.96). Figure 4
illustrates the normality of the writing posttest scores.

Figure 4. Histogram of the writing posttest scores

The inter-rater reliability of the writing posttest was calculated through the Cronbach-α formula, which
turned out to be 0.92, showing a high consistency between the two raters on the posttest.

Table 10. Inter-rater reliability of the writing posttest

Cronbach-α N of Raters
.92 2

Figure 5 shows the mean differences between the control and experimental groups on the writing posttest.
 16
14
12
10
8
Mean
6
4
2
0
Control Experimental Wiki

Figure 5. The mean scores of the three groups on the writing posttest

ANOVA for the Writing Posttest Mean Scores

In order to compare the means of the three groups on the writing posttest, an ANOVA was run. As Table
11 indicates, the probability associated with the F-observed value (.000) was lower than the significant
level of .05. Therefore, it was concluded that there was a statistically significant difference between the
means of the three groups on the writing posttest.

Table 11. One-way ANOVA for the posttest

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 91.55 2 45.77 18.44 .000
Within Groups
141.48 57 2.48
Total
233.04 59

At this stage, to locate the exact places of mean differences between the groups on the posttest, a post-hoc
Scheffe's test was performed. According to Table 12, all the mean differences were significant at the 0.05
level.
 Table 12. Scheffe test for the posttest
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Difference (I-
(I) Groups (J) Groups J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
control group EX1 -1.45* .498 .019 -2.70 -.19
*
EX2 -3.02 .498 .000 -4.27 -1.77
*
EX1 control group 1.45 .498 .019 .19 2.70
*
EX2 -1.57 .498 .010 -2.82 -.32
*
EX2 control group 3.02 .498 .000 1.77 4.27
EX1 1.57* .498 .010 .32 2.82
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Post-hoc comparisons using the Scheffe test indicated that the mean score of EX1 (M = 13.10, SD = 1.38)
was significantly different from the control group (M = 11.65, SD = 1.12). Similarly, the mean of EX2 (M
= 14.67, SD = 2.06) differed significantly from that of EX1 and the control group. On the whole, it was
concluded that collaboration was a key element in the superiority of the two experimental groups over the
control group in terms of writing. More importantly, it was concluded that collaborative activities in a
technology-oriented context employing the use of wiki pages contributed to greater progress in the
acquisition of the writing skill.

Solutions and Recommendations

The results of the present study indicated that elementary level EFL learners’ writing skill finds its
success in wikis’ collaborative setting. First, the factor of collaboration, no trace of which could be found
in the control group, was the key element in the success of the two experimental groups. Moreover, they
showed that collaborative activities in a technology-oriented context employing the use of wiki pages
contributed to greater progress in the writing skill. Several reasons might have led to the greater progress
in the two experimental groups, including dealing with others’ attempts, having and reviewing mutual
negotiation, recognizing peers’ writing problems, sharing problems, personalizing the text, and probably
improving learners’ confidence as writers.

In collaborative writing, student writers can also benefit from reading the work of others, interacting with
others, becoming aware of weaknesses in other students' writing, sharing difficulties, and through this
interaction taking ownership of a text and possibly boosting participants' confidence as writers (Shine,
2010). In other words, peer collaboration has the potential to benefit students in ways that instructor's
feedback cannot (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Leki, 1990; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Yang, 2006 as cited in Shine,
2010).

Moreover, technology seems to have played an influential role in establishing an environment highly
required for learning to write. It helped the writing process exceed the boundaries of the classroom and
encouraged learners’ collaboration. The characteristics of the wiki technology not only yielded an
interactive environment, but also prompted team-based writing. Furthermore, wikis prompted the L2
writers focus on the recursive process of writing. The entire course materials were available to the wiki
group in the current study at all times. Therefore, the material and the content were easy to be utilized by
the students in case of their absence in the class (This facet of wikis was greatly favored by the
participants). They could also deliver their homework any time at home. The students in the wiki group
found writing in wiki pages very easy and enjoyable and almost all of them wished to continue the course
for a longer time. Interestingly enough, they even asked their teacher to teach the instructors of their
normal school lessons how to use the wiki pages so that they could work on their other assignments in the
wiki environment. Besides, almost all of them found the editing task very useful and, at the same time,
exciting (!) because it gave them a good feeling to eliminate the teacher from the correction process and
not have their written products spoiled with red marks.

This study gives language teachers and learners an opportunity to begin thinking about the new ways of
teaching and learning a foreign language in an attempt to persuade them to examine promising technology
and modern methods. Current research in writing using Web 2.0 tools has investigated how these
technologies provide new opportunities for students “to engage in the writing process and display their
finished products” (Hoopingarner, 2009, p. 228). Many have recognized that students tend to
communicate online in unpredictable ways (Belz, 2007; Fischer, 2007), focus on meaning rather than
form (Kessler, 2009), demonstrate improved fluency and accuracy (Elola & Oskoz, 2010), and value the
opportunity to share feedback with peers (Ware & O’Dowd, 2008). Also, technologies that allow many-
to-many communication influence collaborative writing in terms of how writers may plan and engage in
collaborative tasks (Kessler, 2009). This area of individual autonomy within collaborative writing is one
that is receiving more attention in research, due largely to the increasing ease of these assignments made
possible by the technology of Web-based word processing and to the research opportunities this
technology provides (Kessler & Bikowski, 2010). Kessler (2009) notes that the amount of teacher
intervention and student autonomy in collaborative writing projects can influence the writing and as such
should be considered carefully.

All in all, the outstanding features of the wiki technology like the open editing and review structure not
only provided a platform that had a collaborative essence but also supported collaborative writing in the
wiki group in this study. The obtained results support the idea that wikis are good means to call students'
attention to the cyclical process of writing and rewriting (Leuschner & Strobl, 2010); that is, the concepts
that the researchers had tried to reinforce during the treatment period in all the three groups. Furthermore,
according to Quiggin (2006), wikis generate a steady stream of innovation in the content and style of the
text and other materials presented. In this study, the wiki group had also access to all the course content
wherever they were, whereas the other groups' access was limited to the confines of the classroom. So,
when the students in the wiki group were absent, they could access the content of the class and submit
their assignments without any difficulty. The wiki technology certainly proved to be simple, efficient, and
effective in this study.

Research on the use of wikis in collaborative writing limits the application of wiki just to upper
intermediate and advanced classes and mostly in university settings (Li, 2012). The findings of this study,
however, showed that learning outcomes can also be affected when wiki is used with young language
learners. Wiki is an ideal tool for young learners at elementary levels of language proficiency to learn
language because they like cooperative modes of discovery learning and exploration because of their
rather inquisitive nature. They prefer learning by doing and, thus, experiencing reality.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

This study investigated young EFL learners' writing skill development in wikis' collaborative
environment. With the increased use of collaborative tools such as wikis, it is inevitable that more
research will provide insight into the ways these tools can best serve the needs of teachers and students.
While the results of this research may be valuable for a variety of contexts, there are certainly student
populations who do not have much in common with the participants of this study. Hence, the following
suggestions are provided for further research:
 1. This study was conducted in eight weeks, which might be considered a short period for the
treatments to exercise their full impacts. Although all the participants were computer literate, it
was the first time they had used wikis as a component of their foreign language learning courses.
Therefore, the novelty effect of the tool may have affected student participation in the wiki-based
tasks. Hence, the study could be replicated over a longer period by allowing the participants to
get fully accustomed to the technical features of the tool and to acquire full appreciation of how
to collaborate with each other using the wiki pages.
2. In this study, the effect of wikis' collaborative environment was investigated on improving the
writing skill of elementary-level EFL learners. Follow-up studies may focus on the writing skill
of learners at other levels of proficiency.
3. From among the different types of writing, only the narrative type was practiced in the classes in
this experiment. Further research may consider other types of writing.
4. This study focused exclusively on improving young learners’ writing skill. It might be intriguing
to investigate the effect of wikis on other skills such as speaking. This is because wikis also
provide users with the opportunity to upload their voices on their own pages.
5. The present study was based on a blended learning approach in which the wiki was integrated
with face-to-face teaching. This combination of in-class and online learning increased the
effectiveness of foreign language classes by reducing the teacher’s lecture time and focusing on
activities done by the learners. Another study can work on e-learning merely and adopt the wiki
as an entirely online mode of delivery.
6. Another study can focus on the potential changes in students' attitude to writing after participating
in wiki-based writing classes.

CONCLUSION

As John Dewey once said, “If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow.”
The findings of this study indicated that collaboration can play a crucial role in the improvement of young
learners’ writing ability. Besides, they made it clear that technology provides enormous chances which
could activate the possibility of written interaction, collaboration, group activity, and contemplation by
creating infinite opportunities to make expression possible for young L2 learners. Writing for a wiki may
be of greater interest for students than writing in a traditional fashion. This higher level of interest in
writing may encourage struggling writers to write more frequently.

Wiki pages can function as invaluable tools enabling writing teachers to provoke real world
communication in a virtual world. Wikis make classroom references, collaboration, parental engagement,
creation of learners’ portfolios, and provision of extensive viewpoints on peers’ performance possible.
Besides, they keep learners and their parents informed of outdoor classroom events in a safe setting.
Teachers can use wikis to communicate with parents when a wiki is created as a class homepage
including student projects, future events, homework assignments, and daily lessons. They might even load
pictures of students and films of class activities on the page. In this way, teachers are in control of the
content, and the wiki becomes an extension of the classroom. Such an approach is often called a blended
approach in which classroom activities are intertwined with online content, activities, and other resources
(Richardson, 2009).

Because of the potential of Web2.0, and with a growing general enthusiasm from educators, teachers, and
students, more research is required to investigate methodologies that will assist in discovering how Web
2.0 technologies like wikis can be taken up effectively in education. As Byrne (2009, p. 52) notes,
“Technology of itself does not create more engaged or better students” or improve learning, but using
wikis appropriately allows students to create new content and engage in their learning.
Writing is a basic communication skill and, with its unique features, it contributes to overall language
learning. Through writing, we are able to share ideas, arouse feelings, persuade, and convince other
people. Technology offers a rich environment where skills such as written communication, collaboration,
team work, and reflective thinking can be assessed by giving learners multiple channels and unlimited
space for expression. As demonstrated in this research, through wikis, a wide range of these skills are
possible. Wikis are also wonderful resources for teachers. Teachers can create a class wiki to encourage
critical thinking and real world communication. In addition, when using them, both students and their
parents will be able to stay engaged outside of the classroom in a non-threatening environment.
According to Surowiecki (2004), across the globe students are able to use collective intelligence to create
''the wisdom of crowds'', connecting within rich and dynamic social environments, rather than studying in
solitude through impersonal learning management systems designed by administrators.

REFERENCES

Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2002). New evidence on classroom computers and pupil learning. Economic
Journal, 112, 735-765.

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in
an online environment. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 42-66. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/arnoldducate/default.html

Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2009). Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from culture project in
German class. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online
collaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 115 –144). San Marcos, TX: Texas State University.

Barkley, E.F., Cross, K.P., & Major, C.H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for
college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publication.

Belz, J. A. (2007). The development of intercultural communicative competence in telecollaborative

partnerships. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language
teachers (pp. 127–166). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.

Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis-matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational
Media International, 45(1), 3-15.

Brunvand, S. & Byrd. S. (2011). Using voice thread to promote learning engagement and success for all
students. Technology for Teaching and Learning, 43(4), 28-37.

Butler, D. (2001). Collaborative writing with electronic communication. Retrieved from

http://www.bsu.edu/web/dlb/T/projects/projects/cw.doc

Byrne, R. (2009). The effect of Web 2.0 on teaching and learning. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 50-53.

Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). Teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cronin, J. (2009). Upgrading to Web 2.0: An experiential project to build a marketing wiki. Journal of
Marketing Education, 31, 66-75.

Curtain, H. (2008). Early language learning in the USA. In M. Nikolov & H. Curtain (Eds.), An Early
start: Young learners and modern languages in Europe and beyond (191-208). Council of Europe.
European Centre for Modern Languages.

Cutler, K. (2006). A new high-tech takes on school group projects. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Boston Globe.

Díez-Bedmar, M., & P. Pérez-Paredes. (2012). The types and effects of peer native speakers’ feedback
on CMC. Language Learning & Technology,16(1), 62- 90. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/pdf

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work?
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195-210.

Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what learners are actually doing? Monitoring learners’ behavior in
CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 409–442.

Fleming, M. B.(1988). Getting out of the writing vacuum. In J. Golub (ed.), Focus on collaborative
learning. Classroom practices in teaching English (pp.77-84). National Council of Teachers of English:
Urbana, IL.

Geyser, J. (2010). The productive skills writing. Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Productive-

Skills-Writing& id=4425646

Gibbson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associated, Publishers.

Gimenez, J.C. (2000). Business e-mail communication: Some emerging tendencies in register. English for
Specific Purposes, 19, 237-251.

Goodwin-Jones, B. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning
& Technology, 7(2), 12.

Guth, S. (2007). Wikis in education: Is public better? In Proceedings of the2007 International Symposium
on Wikis (WikiSym ’07) (pp. 61-68). New York: Association of Computing Machinery.

Hadjerrouit, S. ( 2013). A framework for assessing the pedagogical effectiveness of wiki-based

collaborative writing: Results and implications. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning
Objects, 9, 29-49.

Hanson-Smith, E., & Rilling, S. (2007). Learning language through technology. TESOL Inc.
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.),
The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL
Journal, 8(2), 7–12.
Hoopingarner, D. (2009). Best Practices in Technology and Language Teaching. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 222-235.

Hunter, R. (2011). Erasing “property lines”: A collaborative notion of authorship and textual ownership
on a fan wiki. Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing, 28(1), 40–
56.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S.A.,Wromuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F., and Hughey, J.B. (1981).
Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Roeley, MA: Newbury House Publications.

Jianshe, Zh., & Liyi, W. (2003). Using ontology to solve the consistency problems in collaborative
writing. Retrieved from http://dsonline.computer.org/portal/cms-docs/iwces-6/Jianshe.pdf

Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, C. S. D., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to
face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 1-23.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M.
Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language

Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79–95.

Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous language learning abilities in
computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41- 58.

Khoii, R., & Aghabeig, M. (2009). Computer software and the improvement of the elementary EFL
students' listening comprehension. Journal of Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Literature,
1(2), 59-73.

Khoii, R., & Doroudian, A. (2013). Automated Scoring of EFL Learners’ Written Performance: A
Torture or a Blessing? In Proceedings of ICT for Language Learning Conference. Pixel Publisher.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’
language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/
journals/0965-8416

Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer- reader relationship. English for
Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44-57.
Leki, I. (1993). Reciprocal themes in reading and writing. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the
composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 9–33). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in
English. NY: Routledge Publisher.

Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. Boston: Addison
Wesley.

Leuschner, T., & Strobl, C. (2010). Exploring the potential of digital and trialogical systems in language
learning: Web 1.0 and web 2.0 applications in FL writing proficiency courses. Paper presented at the
International Conference ICT for Language Learning. Florence, Italy.

Lewis, G. (2004). The internet and young learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, R. (2011). Writing tutor: Sentence writing. Compass publishing.

Li, M. (2012). Use of wikis in second/foreign language classes: A literature review. CALL-EJ, 13, 17-35.

Marandi, S.S. (2002). Teaching English in the new millennium: CALL in Iran. In A.A. Rezaie (Ed.),
Proceedings of the first conference on issues in English language teaching in Iran (pp. 205-220). Tehran:
University of Tehran Press.

Marandi, S.S. (2011). CALL 101: Some basics any CALL practitioner needs to know. Foreign Language
Teaching Journal, 100(1), 70-77.

Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12(2), 65-83.

Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H. Beetham & R.
Sharp (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Routledge Taylor & Francis group. London:
National Commission on Writing.

Minocha, S., & Thomas, P. G. (2007). Collaborative learning in a wiki environment: Experiences from a
software engineering course. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13, 187-209.

Neumann, D. L., & Hood, M. (2009). The effects of using a wiki on student engagement and learning of
report writing skills in a university statistics course. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3),
382-398.

Norman, D. A. (1998). Psychology of everyday things: The design of everyday things (1st MIT Press Ed.).
London: MIT Press.

Nov, O. (2007). What motivates wikipedians? Communications of the Association of Computing

Machinery, 50(11), 60.

O'Leary, D.E. 2010. Wikis: from each according to his knowledge. In H. Donelan, K. Kear, and M.
Ramage (eds.), Online communication and collaboration (pp. 89-101). New York: Routledge.
Olivares, O.J. (2007). Collaborative vs. cooperative learning: The instructor's role in computer supported
collaborative learning. In K.L. Orvis & A.L. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning:
Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 20-39). New York: Information Science Publishing.

Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitive-interactionist

SLA perspective. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied
linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 180-207). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2010). Meeting at the wiki: The new arena for collaborative writing in foreign
language courses. In M. Lee & C. McLaughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social
informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 209-227). Hershey, PA: IGI Global

Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative
strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(6), 443-457.

Parker, J. (2007). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful tools for the classroom. Internet and Higher
Education, 10, 289-291.

Pennington, M. (1993). Exploring the potential of word processing for non-native writers. Computers and
the Humanities, 27(3), 149-163.

Pennington, M. (2003). The impact of the computer in second language writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.),
Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 287-309). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Quiggin, J. (2006). Blogs, wikis and creative innovation. International Journal of Cultural studies, 9(4),
481-496.

Ralea, C. M, (2008). Foreign language teaching to young learners in Romania. In M. Nikolov & H.
Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and modern languages in Europe and beyond (93-99).
Council of Europe. European Centre for Modern Languages.

Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management systems for teaching and
learning with wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16 (3), 311-320.

Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), 100-106.

Ravid, G., Kalman, Y., & Rafaeli, S. (2008). Wikibooks in higher education: Empowerment through
online distributed collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1913-1928.

Reeves, D. (2002). Accountability in action. Denver, Colorado: Advanced Learning Press.

Reilly, J. & Reilly, V. (2005). Writing with Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richard, J.C., & Renandya, W.A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. An anthology of current
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, W. (2009). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Rhodes, I. (2014). Elementary school foreign language teaching: Lessons learned over three decades
(1980–2010). In Foreign language annals, American council on the teaching of foreign languages.

Robertson, I. (2008). Learners’ attitudes to wiki technology in problem based, blended learning for
vocational teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 425-441.

Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W. & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning
interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 240-257.

Ruth, A., & Houghton, L. (2009). The wiki way of learning. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 25(2), 135-152.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge : Cambridge University

Press.

Schneider, p. (2003). Writing alone and with others. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shine, A. (2010). A practical approach to untangling argument in academic writing. In M. Al-Hamly, P.

Davidson, & I. Fayed (Eds.), Computers in English language teaching (pp. 100-106). Dubai: TESOL
Arabia Publications.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.

Surowiecki, K. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Doubleday.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & b.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. Retrieved from
http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0026-7902

Taylor, M. E. (2003). Tips for collaborative writing. ELT Journal, 57(2), 149-157.

Teehan, K. (2010). Wikis : The educator's power tool. Oxford: Linworth.

Timuchin, M. (2006). Implementing CALL in an EFL context. ELT Journal, 60(3), 262-269.

Toyoda, E.(2001). Exercise of learner autonomy in project-oriented CALL. CALL-EJ Online,2(2).

Ware, P. D., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language
Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43–63. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/wareodowd/
default.html

Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning &
Technology, 14(1), 3-8.

Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research
agenda. Language Teaching Research, 157-180.

Warschauer, M., &Whittaker, P.F. (2002). The internet for English teaching: Guidelines for teachers. In
J.C. Richards & W.A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current
practice (pp. 368-373). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weigle, C.S. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

West, J. A. & West, M. L. (2009). Using wikis for online collaboration. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Witney, D. and Smallbone, T. 2011. Wiki work: Can using wikis enhance student collaboration for group
assignment task? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 101-110.

Woo, M. Chu, S., Ho, A. & Li, XX. (2010). Using a wiki to scaffold primary school students'
collaborative writing. Educational Technology & Society, (in press).

Woo, M., S. Chu, A. Ho, and X. Li. (2011). Using a wiki to scaffold primary-school students'
collaborative writing. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 43–54.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yong, M.F. (2010). Collaborative writing features. RELC Journal ,4(1), 18-30.

Zampardo, K.M. (2008). An examination of the impact of teacher modeling on young children’s writing.
Unpublished doctoral thesis. Oakland University, Michigan.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Wiki: A group collaboration software tool based on Web server technology that can be used to facilitate
collaborative knowledge creation and sharing.

Wiki websites: Websites designed to enable users to make additions or edit any page of the site.

Collaboration: The act of working with one or more people in order to achieve something.

Collaborative Learning: A general term for an approach to language teaching and learning which makes
use of learners working together in small groups.

Process oriented of writing: An approach to learning to write emphasizing that writing itself is a
developmental process that creates self-discovery and meaning.
Collaborative Writing: Sharing written documents during the process of writing. One person may share
a draft with one or two others with the goal of getting suggestions for improvements. The reviewer may
add comments and suggestions, but does not edit wording, syntax or organization.

Cyber English: A web-based approach to teaching and learning English.

Web 2.0: A second generation in the development of the World Wide Web, conceived as a combination
of concepts, trends, and technologies that focus on user collaboration, sharing user-generated content, and
social networking.