Online collaborative writing:learners’ perceptions and their changes
using data visualization tools and interviews
Takehiro Hashimoto1 and Takeshi Sato2
Abstract. This study investigated L2 learners’ perception changes at each stageof online collaborative writing. Previous studies revealed the familiarity ofL2 collaborative learning with Information and Communication Technology(ICT), whereas few described at which stage of the learning process L2 learners’
perceptions change. Therefore, this study examines how the learners’ attitudes andperceptions change at certain phases of collaborative learning and whether thesechanges affect the success or failure of their L2 collaborative learning. This study
analyzed two questionnaire surveys before and after the learning activity, observed
the collaborative learning processes via visualization tools, and conducted semistructured interviews for participants to reflect on their learning processes andperceptions of collaborative writing. The mixed research analyses demonstratethat advancing a particular stage leads to the learners’ linguistic awareness and theshift of their attitudes more positively. The findings show the factors and stages
determining the success of L2 online collaborative learning.
Keywords: collaborative writing, mixed methods research, data visualization,language awareness.

1.

Introduction

Collaborative learning is one of the major tasks in language learning. Theteachers have conducted collaborative learning tasks for decades, and recent ICT

1. Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan; hast@tamacc.chuo-u.ac.jp; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3493-7702
2. Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo, Japan; tsato@cc.tuat.ac.jp; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4797-0234
How to cite this article: Hashimoto, T., & Sato, T. (2022). Online collaborative writing: learners’ perceptions and their changes
using data visualization tools and interviews. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. Bédi, L. Bradley, K. Friðriksdóttir, H. Garðarsdóttir,S. Thouësny, & M. J. Whelpton (Eds), Intelligent CALL, granular systems, and learner data: short papers from EUROCALL
2022 (pp. 147-153). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.61.1450© 2022 Takehiro Hashimoto and Takeshi Sato (CC BY)

147

Takehiro Hashimoto and Takeshi Satodevelopment and online instructions have boosted online collaborative writing andresearch (Arnold, Ducate, & Kost, 2012; Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Lund, 2008;
Yim & Warschauer, 2017). However, learners’ involvement during a collaborative
task remains unclear. This study investigated the shift in L2 learners’ perception of
online collaborative writing by focusing on the phases of the collaborative writing
process.

2.

MethodOur research recruited 98 undergraduate students in two Japanese universities
specialized in economics (n=38) and engineering (n=60). Their L2 competencies
are estimated to be lower-intermediate (A2) to intermediate (B1).
The participants were asked to collaboratively write an essay consisting of several
paragraphs using Google Docs for two weeks outside the classroom. They shared
the same documents on their computer, decided their roles in their classes, andwrote the essay individually and in parallel. Both groups of university students
conducted the same activities, while the topics given were slightly different; in one
university, the participants were asked to translate the essays their instructor wrote
in Japanese into English. The other participants from a science university, on theother hand, chose the topic by themselves and wrote their essays in English.
This study employed a mixed method research, integrating a quantitative
questionnaire survey and qualitative interview research. First, we conducted thequestionnaire survey before and after the learning period. The questionnaire wasdeveloped to examine the perceived usefulness, attitudes toward, and reluctance tocollaborative learning. Then one participant from each group was asked to join asemi-structured interview. Each participant was asked to review and elaborate theirwriting process and their thoughts on the collaboration.
To observe participants’ collaborative writing processes, we utilized two onlinetools on Google Docs: DocuViz (Wang et al., 2014) and AuthorViz (Wang etal., 2018; Yim & Warschauer, 2017). DocuViz counts the number of words
the participants wrote and edited during their writing period. AuthorViz candetect the author who wrote a specific part of the collaborative essay. Thesetools help the examinees to observe the collaborative writing process. As forthe questionnaire, we analyzed the survey results by dividing them into positive
and negative responses. Interviews were coded by extracting relevant items andconceptualized using grounded theory. Finally, we examined the relationship
148

Online collaborative writing: learners’ perceptions...

between the questionnaire and interviews. The results of our quantitative andqualitative research are described in the next section.

3.

Results and discussion

Figure 1 shows how one group conducts the collaborative task. The number ofcharacters, or location of words in the essay was painted with each participant’scolor from top to bottom. As seen in Figure 1, the progress of the collaborative
writing is visualized according to the timeline of writing. All participants joined
the writing task one by one in Figure 1, which suggests this group planned
the task well and successfully conducted the collaborative task with equalcontributions. Not every group shows a similar pattern. Only a few members
joined the task in some groups, or the contribution of each member is only
once in another group. The overall progress can be grasped when used with avisualization tool.
Figure 1. Docuviz visualization for how one group develops their collaborative
writing

The questionnaire items in Figure 2 are as follows: usefulness for collaborative
writing, such as improvement of grammar, contents, or organization (Q1-Q3);
attitude to collaborative writing (Q4); preference to collaborative writing (Q5); andresistance of interaction with others (Q5-8). As for the questionnaire, the results of
Q1 to Q4 decreased. Meanwhile, the results of Q5 did not change. The results of149

Takehiro Hashimoto and Takeshi Sato

their resistance (Q5-8) differed – the resistance to being read or revised by peers
decreased, but the sense of inequality in contribution increased.
Figure 2. Positive responses (N1=75, N2=76)

Figure 3. Analysis of interview based on grounded theory

The qualitative result of the interview in Figure 3 above shows how participants’
perception changes in each stage of collaboration, i.e. brainstorming, collaboration,
150

Online collaborative writing: learners’ perceptions...

and revision phases. In the brainstorming phase, participants had positiveor negative perceptions of collaborative learning. Participants with positiveperceptions noticed the advantage of collaboration. This advantage affected theircollaboration through the subsequent two phases. On the other hand, participants
with negative perceptions only talked about the task and did not improve their tasks
or collaborative processes anymore. Their negative perception is due to member
relationships, lack of time, and uneven contribution to the task.
When participants were in the collaboration phase, participants who were positive
toward collaboration connected their perception to the learning effect. Their positive
beliefs were that (1) it was good to read other participants’ sentences; (2) it would
improve their proficiency when they showed their writing to others; (3) they aregetting accustomed to the collaborative task; or (4) it is good to hear advice frommany other perspectives. Those beliefs all constituted their learning effect. Startingfrom this learning effect, three aspects of tension, noticing, and language awarenesswere repeated through collaborative learning and revision phases. Tension,consisting of audience, evaluation, and responsibility, would enhance participants’concentration. Debski (2006) claims an audience can be L2 learning motivation
because they provide immediate support. Noticing has a somewhat broad meaning.
Participants noticed new or different ways of writing, found mistakes objectively,
recognized the lack of grammar or phrases, and obtained different lines of thought.
Those noticing aspects led to the positive participants’ language awareness in therevision phase. Participants could recognize their own or other participants’ writing
styles and choice of words, which increased their writing variation and urged
self-reflection on their learning. Participants became aware of the organizationof an essay, self-revision, syntax, and dictionary use. The more participants wereaccustomed to the task, the more they were conscious of language. The language
awareness increases the positive impression of collaboration on them and improves
their learning. If participants did not revise their essays, they could not improvetheir collaboration.
Although some participants did not resist collaboration from the beginning,some did. Some participants lacked self-confidence in their English proficiency.
Others were reluctant to edit other members’ sentences, partly because they had
less confidence in their proficiency, did not know how to revise, or were afraidof revising their peers’ drafts. That resistance, however, in many cases changed
into their acceptance of editing. Some participants thanked other members forrevising their writing, whereas others thought revision made them realize theirlack of competency. In general, participants got accustomed to collaboration anddecreased their resistance.
151

Takehiro Hashimoto and Takeshi SatoThe questionnaire results suggest that the perception of usefulness andeffectiveness decreases as a whole, because not all students have good impressionsof collaborative learning. The data visualization and interview results, however,revealed that those with positive perceptions could obtain the learning effect oftension, noticing, and language awareness. Their positive perception could provide
them with a good opportunity for collaboration, learning, and self-reflection.

4.

Conclusions

Our mixed method study verified the shift in learners’ perceptions toward L2
collaborative writing and examined how learners’ awareness changes through thephases of the writing process that lead to successful collaborative writing. As aresult of our analyses, when learners have a positive perception of collaboration,
they are able to develop their language awareness gradually across each phase,leading to successful learning. Additionally, our research confirmed the usefulnessof the data visualization tools in clarifying the direction of the analyses. Therefore,
more mixed method research will be conducted for technology-enhanced L2
learning and teaching research using such visualization tools.

5.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI 18K00778.

References
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing groupdynamics and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431-448. https://doi.
org/10.11139/cj.29.3.431-448
Debski, R. (2006). Project-based language teaching with technology. NCELTR Publications.
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning
abilities in computer mediated language learning: attention to meaning among students
in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09588220903467335
Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: a collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35-54.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000414
Wang D., Nguyen, T., Pham, K., Somers, J., Olson, J., Olson, G., & Zhang, J. (2014). Docuviz.
[Computer software]. https://github.com/dakuo/DocuViz1152

Online collaborative writing: learners’ perceptions...

Wang D., Nguyen, T., Pham, K., Somers, J., Olson, J., Olson, G., & Zhang, J. (2018). Authorviz.
[Computer software]. https://github.com/nttrung91/authorviz
Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts:
methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146165. https://doi.org/10125/44599

153

Published by Research-publishing.net, a not-for-profit association
Contact: info@research-publishing.net© 2022 by Editors (collective work)© 2022 by Authors (individual work)
Intelligent CALL, granular systems and learner data: short papers from EUROCALL 2022
Edited by Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir, Branislav Bédi, Linda Bradley, Kolbrún Friðriksdóttir, Hólmfríður Garðarsdóttir,Sylvie Thouësny, and Matthew James Whelpton
Publication date: 2022/12/12
Rights: the whole volume is published under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives International (CC BY-NCND) licence; individual articles may have a different licence. Under the CC BY-NC-ND licence, the volume is freely
available online (https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.61.9782383720157) for anybody to read, download, copy, andredistribute provided that the author(s), editorial team, and publisher are properly cited. Commercial use and derivative
works are, however, not permitted.
Disclaimer: Research-publishing.net does not take any responsibility for the content of the pages written by the authorsof this book. The authors have recognised that the work described was not published before, or that it was not underconsideration for publication elsewhere. While the information in this book is believed to be true and accurate on the date ofits going to press, neither the editorial team nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions.
The publisher makes no warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. While Researchpublishing.net is committed to publishing works of integrity, the words are the authors’ alone.
Trademark notice: product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Copyrighted material: every effort has been made by the editorial team to trace copyright holders and to obtain theirpermission for the use of copyrighted material in this book. In the event of errors or omissions, please notify the publisher ofany corrections that will need to be incorporated in future editions of this book.
Typeset by Research-publishing.net
Cover photo by © 2022 Kristinn Ingvarsson (photo is taken inside Veröld – House of Vigdís)
Cover layout by © 2022 Raphaël Savina (raphael@savina.net)
ISBN13: 978-2-38372-015-7 (PDF, colour)
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
A cataloguing record for this book is available from the British Library.
Legal deposit, France: Bibliothèque Nationale de France - Dépôt légal: décembre 2022.