Impact of Collaborative Writing Through Google Docs on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners' Written Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency

الموضوعات : نشریه زبان و ترجمه

Zeinab Cheraghpour ¹ , Nafiseh Hosseinpour ² , Sajad Shafie ³

1 - Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2 - English Department, Falavarjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Esfahan, Iran
3 - Department of English٫ Shahrekord Branch٫ Islamic Azad University٫ Shahrekord٫ Iran

تاريخ الإرسال : 07 السبت , ذو القعدة, 1444 تاريخ التأكيد : 29 الأربعاء , محرم, 1445 تاريخ الإصدار : 16 الخميس , شوال, 1445

الکلمات المفتاحية: Accuracy, Collaborative writing, Complexity, Fluency, Google Docs, Writing skill,

ملخص المقالة :

This study examined how Iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency were affected by collaborative online writing using Google Docs. The language proficiency of 75 EFL learners was gauged based on their performance on the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). They were intermediate male and female EFL learners studying English at three language institutes in Shahrekord. Participants were chosen through convenient sampling. The participants were then split into two groups at random: a Google Docs group, and a control group. Afterwards, learners in the control and experimental groups were given a cause-and-effect prompt as a pre-test, and their writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency were assessed using CAF measures. Following the pre-test, the participants in the experimental groups began a six-week training period in the collaborative environments of Google Docs. The same instructional materials and procedures were presented to the control group, but in a non-collaborative, face-to-face setting. Similar to the writing pre-test, a writing post-test was given to both groups at the end of the intervention, and the writings were graded. In comparison to the conventional methodology, the results obtained showed that the instructional method (Google Docs) is advantageous and effective in enhancing writing skills. The main outcome of this research is that the ease and viability of teaching and learning writing are significantly and meaningfully influenced by giving learners control over their learning through Google Docs.

نص كامل:



Research Paper

Journal of

Language and Translation

Volume 14, Number 3, 2024, (pp.15-29)

 

 

Impact of Collaborative Writing Through Google Docs on Iranian

  Intermediate EFL Learners' Written Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency 

 

Zeinab Cheraghpour1, Nafiseh Hosseinpour2*, Sajad Shafiee3

1Ph.D. Candidate, English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

2*Assistant Professor, English Department, Falavarjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Esfahan, Iran

3Assistant Professor, English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

Received: May 27, 2023        Accepted: August 16, 2023

 

This study examined how Iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency were affected by collaborative online writing using Google Docs. The language proficiency of 75 EFL learners was gauged based on their performance on the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). They were intermediate male and female EFL learners studying English at three language institutes in Shahrekord. Participants were chosen through convenient sampling. The participants were then ran- domly split into two groups: a Google Docs group and a control group. Afterward, learners in the control and experimental groups were given a cause-and-effect prompt as a pre-test, and their writing complex- ity, accuracy, and fluency were assessed using CAF measures. Following the pre-test, the participants in the experimental groups began a six-week training period in the collaborative environments of Google Docs. The same instructional materials and procedures were presented to the control group, but in a non-collaborative, face-to-face setting. Similar to the writing pre-test, a writing post-test was given to both groups at the end of the intervention, and the writings were graded. Compared to the conven- tional methodology, the results showed that the instructional method (Google Docs) is advantageous and effective in enhancing writing skills. The main outcome of this research is that the ease and viability of teaching and learning writing are significantly and meaningfully influenced by giving learners con- trol over their learning through Google Docs.

Keywords: Accuracy; Collaborative writing; Complexity; Fluency; Google Docs; Writing skill

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Writing is an important productive skill for learning other receptive and productive abilities in a second language (L2) (Zhu, 2004). Writing increases cognition and learning, encourages communication, and allows for reflection (Mekheimer, 2005). After they've been written down, ideas may be evaluated, reexamined, reorganized, and modified. Olshtain (2001)

emphasized the significance of this critical talent, claiming that the skill of writing has exceptional status--it is via writing that a person may ex- press a range of messages to near or distant known or unknown readers.

Despite the importance of writing, L2 learners may experience anxiety or fear when compelled to write (Arnold, 2007; Byrd, 2010; Zhu, 2004), which may impede

 

                them        from        strengthening        their        writing

 

*Corresponding Author’s Email:

[e-mail]

skills. The difficulty of writing is routinely

 

 

 

 

 

 

acknowledged by experts in the area. Ac- cording to Nunan (1989), learning to write often and expressively is the most challenging motor skill for all language users, regardless of whether the language is a first, second, or foreign language. As Nunan (1996) points out, producing a cohesive, fluent, and substantial piece of writing is likely the most difficult thing to achieve in a language. Writing, according to Richards and Renandya (2002), is the most difficult ability for L2 learners to acquire.

To help L2 students with this difficult ability, L2 instructors might utilize a range of tools. One alternative is to leverage technol- ogy developments and technologies that might be beneficial for educational objec- tives. Given the prevalence of technical breakthroughs in our everyday lives and the permeation of technology in practically every part of today's life, it seems promising to ex- plore the impact of utilizing Google Docs, as an example of technological resource, on EFL learners' writing growth.

Google Docs, a Web 2.0 application that has the potential to boost the academic writing skills of EFL learners (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017; Godwin-Jones, 2008), allows users to readily update papers both synchronously and asyn- chronously. Students may use Google Docs to write and update documents online while collaborating with other students or the in- structor in real time (George, 2012). Google Docs incorporation into collaborative writing practices has gotten comparatively little scholarly attention.

This online technological tool has piqued the curiosity of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) experts. According to the sociocultural theory of L2 acquisition (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Appel, 1994), interaction, specifically focusing on language and language use, as well as engaging in collaborative di- alogue (Swain, 2000), are essential processes in L2 learning through which students co-cre- ate knowledge about the target language. In fact, the fundamental ideas of this theory are what sparked this interest in collaborative writing using Google Docs.

When compared to research on the ad- vantages of collaborative work for speaking, the number of studies evaluating the benefits of collaborative work for writing in L2 is very limited (Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007). According to Storch (2005), although pair and group work are common in language courses, relatively few researches have looked into the nature of such cooperation when students create a collaboratively authored document. The bulk of research on collaborative writing in the L2 classroom has focused on learners' attitudes towards group/pair work in general, rather than the practice of collaborative writing specifically.

Collaborative writing was one of Google Docs' most popular applications in education, but it was also utilized for a variety of other purposes. According to Thompson (2008), Google Docs allows users to collaborate on the production and modification of online written materials. Sharp (2009) mirrored this sentiment when he said that Google Docs enabled mem- bers of one group to write a document while concurrently observing the modifications that were being made. These characteristics made it possible to update a shared text at the same time. As a consequence, Google Docs was judged to be a more beneficial tool for developing creativity in learning and independence while completing a written work than a regular classroom (Chinnery, 2008).

The first to explore how well Google Docs performed for collaborative writing activities were Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi (2012). The two writing tasks were sent to 35 participants. This research included two groups, one using Google Docs and the other in a more conven- tional setting. These two tasks were used to assess student performance. Despite the fact that Google Docs was effective for 93% of participants' research, it had no effect on students' grades. Furthermore, despite not having previously utilized Google Docs, student participation on this platform encouraged them to do so in the future.

Ishtaiwa and Aburezeq attempted to explore how Google Docs affects student cooperation in EFL classrooms, as well as any possible barriers to such collaboration, in their 2015

 

 

 

research. The study revealed that the unique characteristics of Google Docs improved stu- dent engagement. In an EFL context, Sarah and Yu-Ju (2016) identified disparities in motivation, vocabulary development, and perceptions between two different groups. The second group did individual English prac- tice, while the first group used Google Docs to communicate with their peers on language chal- lenges. The collaborative group outperformed the solo group in terms of performance, learning, and overall experience. According to this research, Google Docs enhanced students' enthusiasm to learn foreign languages.

Ebadi and Rahimi (2017) investigated the influence of online peer editing on academic writing abilities among EFL learners using Google Docs. The participants were chosen from two complete classes of ten EFL students each studying an IELTS course at a language institution in Sanandaj, Iran. IELTS Tasks 1 and 2 were used to evaluate the students' academic writing abilities, and a semi-struc- tured interview was undertaken to learn more about how online peer-editing influ- enced the students' academic writing skills. The findings showed that both in-person teaching and peer editing using Google Docs significantly improved students' academic writing abilities, with the former outperforming the latter.

The above-mentioned studies examined the effect of Google-docs on writing, but none were concerned with the impact of Google-docs on CAF in writing among Iranian EFL learners. Therefore, in this study, the following research question was raised:

 

RQ: Does Google docs-mediated collabora- tive writing have a significant effect on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' written complexity, accuracy, and fluency?

 

METHOD

Participants

Fifty EFL students from three different lan- guage institutes in Shahrekord participated in the research. They were randomly assigned to one of two groups (experimental and control, each with 25 intermediate EFL learners) based

on their performance on the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). The sample included both male and female participants who spoke Persian as their first language; the students ranged in age from 20 to 35 years old.

 

Instruments

The first instrument utilized in this research was the OQPT, a well-known and extensively used language placement test. The OQPT's 60 multi- ple-choice questions on vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension were graded using a rubric, and those with scores between 30 and 47 were designated as intermediate. Writing pre- and post-tests were another data collection instrument used in the research. Students were given a cause-and-effect prompt and given 30 minutes to compose a paragraph about it for the writing pre-test. Before presenting the topic to the students, two SLA professors reviewed it for authenticity and clarity. The written work of the students was assessed by two raters, and the inter-rater reliability of their ratings (83.6%) was calculated.

Following the end of the treatment, a writing post-test was given. This test featured the same format as the pre-test (i.e., cause-and-effect), a time restriction, testing criteria, and scoring. The validity and reliability of the post-test were also investigated. The number of error-free sentences was used to operationalize writing accuracy, while the number of words was used to operationalize writing fluency. The number of clauses per T-unit was calculated (Fathi & Rahimi, 2020), where a T-unit is an independent clause plus any associated dependent clauses.

 

Procedure

To reflect the community of intermediate English language learners at three language institutions in Shahrekord, Iran, a homogeneous sample of intermediate EFL learners was recruited. The participants were then randomly allocated to a Google Doc Group (GDG) and a control group of 25 learners each. Students in the control and experimental groups were given a cause-and- effect pre-test, and their writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency were assessed using CAF measures. Following the pre-test, partici- pants in the experimental group underwent a

 

 

 

six-week treatment phase. To be more precise, students in the experimental groups were taught about Google Docs and how it may be utilized for collaborative writing assignments.

Each GDG member created a Google Doc for oneself and shared it with the other par- ticipants. They then revised each other's papers in groups of two using Google Docs while acting in unison (i.e. with a lapse of time). Each time, the entire class had to edit a peer's writing. Using a different font color, the students were in- structed to proofread their classmates' writings while looking for crucial elements, such as the organization of the information, the use of linking phrases, the choice of appropriate vocabulary, collocation, prepositions, pre- cise grammar structures and tenses, and punctuation.

The phases of the writing process (pre-writing, drafting, and rewriting) were carried out in a face-to-face situation but without cooperation

for the control group, using the identical in- structional materials. This group's learners all had the same amount of lessons, and only the instructor was in charge of giving feedback. At the end of the intervention, the learners in the two groups were given a writing post-test that was comparable to the writing pre-test, and their CAF scores were compared. After their compositions were graded by two separate raters, the inter-rater reliability coefficients for the writing pre-test and writing post-test were determined.

 

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the acquired mean score and 5% Trimmed Mean for each group. The table shows that the means for each group and the 5% trimmed mean are not statistically different. It illustrates that the extreme top and bottom 5% of scores had little to no influence on the final mean scores.

 

 

Table 1 Test Scores Normality: Descriptive Statistics for Participated Groups
		Statistic	Std. Error
GDG C pre-test	Mean	9.93	.21
	5% Trimmed Mean	9.98
GDG A pre-test	Mean	7.72	.24
	5% Trimmed Mean	7.80
GDG F pre-test	Mean	7.37	.24
	5% Trimmed Mean	7.38
GDG C post-test	Mean	16.52	.28
	5% Trimmed Mean	16.52
GDG A post-test	Mean	18.82	.23
	5% Trimmed Mean	18.91
GDG F post-test	Mean	17.27	.27307
	5% Trimmed Mean	17.28
CG C pre-test	Mean	9.63	.18
	5% Trimmed Mean	9.64
CG A pre-test	Mean	8.54	.23
	5% Trimmed Mean	8.52
CG F pre-test	Mean	7.44	.16
	5% Trimmed Mean	7.41
CG C post-test	Mean	14.18	.28
	5% Trimmed Mean	14.15
CG A post-test	Mean	14.13	.15
	5% Trimmed Mean	14.14
CG F post-test	Mean	14.46	.19
	5% Trimmed Mean	14.40

 

 

 

Table 2. below shows the Tests of Nor- mality according to Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics. This assesses the normality of the

distribution of scores. A non-significant re- sult (Sig. value of more than .05) indicates normality.

 

 

Table 2

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova				Shapiro-Wilk
	Statistic	Df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
GDG C pre-test	.206	25	.008	.941	25	.155
GDG A pre-test	.272	25	.000	.849	25	.002
GDG F pre-test	.179	25	.038	.949	25	.234
GDG C post-test	.130	25	.200*	.957	25	.354
GDG A post-test	.240	25	.001	.828	25	.001
GDG F post-test	.193	25	.017	.944	25	.179
CG C pre-test	.164	25	.081	.909	25	.029
CG A pre-test	.171	25	.058	.942	25	.166
CG F pre-test	.150	25	.150	.947	25	.218
CG C post-test	.110	25	.200*	.964	25	.505
CG A post-test	.195	25	.015	.947	25	.210
CG F post-test	.171	25	.058	.936	25	.117
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance

 

 

Table 3

Test of Homogeneity of Variances for Different Components of Collaborative Writin

Collaborative Components	Levene Statistic	Df1	Df2	Sig.
Complexity	.64	2	72	.52
Accuracy	1.02	2	72	.36
Fluency	3.11	2	72	.05

 

 

The performance differences between the various groups are shown in Table 3 as being statistically significant.

A significant difference in conventional group performance was seen, as shown by the multiple comparison calculation.

 

 

Table 4

Test of ANOVA for Different Components of Collaborative Writing

Collaborative Components	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Complexity	2	.72	.64	.52
Accuracy	2	9.94	6.05	.004
Fluency	2	20.96	22.41	.000

 

 

 

A one-way analysis of covariance should be performed in order to obtain additional results because there is a significant difference

between the performances of the groups based on their pre-test scores. Intermediate EFL learners' written CAF

 

 

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for the participants in Google Docs and Conventional Groups

Group types	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Google Doc	16.52	1.44	25
Conventional	14.18	1.41	25
Total	15.35	1.84	50

 

 

 

The Descriptive statistics of the participants in the GDG group (N=25, SD=1.44, M=16.52)

and the CG group (N=25, SD=1.41, M=14.18) are shown in Table 5. According to the obtained mean scores, the GD group performed better than the control group in terms of how complex collaborative writing was.

 

Table 6

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances Dependent Variable: Complexity of Collaborative Writing

F	df1	df2	Sig.
.188	1	48	.66

Table 6 demonstrates that the p-value is higher than the alpha level (P=. 66). As a result, there has been no violation of the variances' equality as- sumption. Table 7 discusses the significance of the obtained difference between mean scores.

 

Results of the Research Question

The following research question and hypothesis were the focus of the study:

Does Google doc-mediated collaborative writing have a significant effect on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' written CAF?

Google-doc-mediated collaborative writing has no significant effect on Iranian.

 

 

 

Table 7

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Complexity of Collaborative Writing

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model	69.5a	2	34.75	16.77	.000	.416
Intercept	142.1	1	142.11	68.59	.000	.593
Covariate (Complexity pre-test)	1.05	1	1.05	.51	.479	.011
Group types	69.45	1	69.4	33.52	.000	.416
Error	97.37	47	2.07
Total	11948	50
Corrected Total	166.8	49
a. R Squared = .416 (Adjusted R Squared = .392)

 

 

The obtained difference for the mean scores is meaningful, as shown in Table 7 (P=. 000<0.05). Thus, the results show that using

Google Docs for the collaborative writing pro- cess is effective, and students in the GDG group outperformed those in the CG group. According

 

 

 

to Cohen (1988), this case's partial eta-square represents a small effect size of 0.41. The co- variate has a 0.47 significance level. This shows that when the independent variable is controlled for, there is no statistically significant relation- ship between the covariate and the complexity of the collaborative writing. The covariate's effect is not significant because the p-value is greater than .05. In reality, it accounted for

1% of the variance in the dependent variable. As a result, the 4.7 results obtained showed that there are significant differences between the participants' performances under various treatment scenarios. Additionally, the results revealed a minor covariate intervention (the appreciable difference between the learners' complexity performance in the GDG and CG conditions).

 

 

Table 8

Grand Mean

Dependent Variable: Complexity of the Collaborative Writing

		95% Confidence Interval
Mean	Std. Error
		Lower Bound	Upper Bound
15.350a	.204	14.940	15.760

 

Table 8 shows the mean scores for each condition in case of removing intervention of the covariate.

 

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: Accuracy of the Collaborative Writing

Grouping GDGCG	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Google Doc	18.82	1.18	25
Conventional	14.13	.79	25
Total	16.47	2.57	50

 

 

The descriptive statistics of the GDG (N=25, SD=1.18, M=18.82) and CG (N=25,

SD=0.79, M=14.13) participants are shown in

Table 9. As a result, the GDG group performed better on the accuracy of collaborative writing, according to the obtained mean scores.

 

 

Table 10

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

Dependent Variable: Accuracy of the Collaborative Writing

F	df1	df2	Sig.
3.47	1	48	.068

 

 

The p-value is greater than the alpha level, as shown in Table 10 (P=0.06). As a result, there has been no violation of the variances'

equality assumption. The significance of the obtained difference between mean scores is dis- cussed in Table 11.

 

 

Table 11

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Accuracy of the Collaborative Writing

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model	276.2a	2	138.1	136.5	.000	.85
Intercept	315.5	1	315.5	311.9	.000	.86
Covariate	1.2	1	1.2	1.2	.266	.02
Grouping	233.5	1	233.5	230.8	.000	.83
Error	47.5	47	1.01
Total	13895.05	50
Corrected Total	323.7	49
a. R Squared = .853 (Adjusted R Squared = .847)

 

 

The difference found between the mean scores is significant, as shown in Table 11 (P=. 000<0.05). Thus, as the results show, using Google Docs in the process of collaborative writing is effective, and students in the GD group outperformed the CG group. According to Cohen (1988), this case's partial eta-square represents a small effect size of 0.83. The co- variate's significance level is 0.26. As long as the independent variable is taken into account, this suggests that there is no meaningful rela- tionship between the covariate and the accuracy

of the collaborative writing. The covariate's effect is not significant because the p-value is higher than .05. In actuality, it accounted for 2% of the variation in the dependent variable. As a result, table 11's obtained results demon- strated that participant performances under various treatment scenarios varied signifi- cantly from one another. The findings also revealed a minor covariate intervention (the appreciable difference in accuracy between the learners' performance in the GDG and CG conditions).

 

 

Table 12

Grand Mean

Dependent Variable: Accuracy of the Collaborative Writing

		95% Confidence Interval
Mean	Std. Error
		Lower Bound	Upper Bound
16.475a	.142	16.189	16.761

 

Table 12 shows the mean scores for each condition in case of removing the intervention of the covariate.

 

Table 13

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: Fluency of the Collaborative Writing

Grouping	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Google Doc	17.27	1.36	25
Conventional	14.46	.98	25
Total	15.86	1.84	50

 

 

 

 

 

 

The descriptive statistics of the GDG (N = 25, SD = 1 36, M = 17 27), and CG (N = 25, SD

= 0 98, M = 14 46) participants are shown in

Table 13. According to the obtained mean scores, the GDG group performed better on the fluency of collaborative writing.

 

 

Table 14

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

Dependent Variable: Fluency of the Collaborative Writing

F	df1	df2	Sig.
.025	1	48	.87

 

 

The p-value is greater than the alpha level (P=0.87), as shown in Table 14. As a result, the equality of the variances assumption has not

been broken. Table 15 will discuss whether or not the obtained difference between mean scores is significant.

 

 

Table 15

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Fluency of the Collaborative Writing

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model	116.6a	2	58.3	54.98	.000	.70
Intercept	377.8	1	377.8	356.2	.000	.88
Covariate	17.9	1	17.9	16.9	.000	.26
Group types	95.7	1	95.7	90.2	.000	.65
Error	49.8	47	1.06
Total	12751.4	50
Corrected Total	166.5	49
a. R Squared = .701 (Adjusted R Squared = .688)

 

 

According to Table 15, the obtained differ- ence between the mean scores is significant (P=. 000<0.05). Thus, using Wikis in the pro- cess of collaborative writing is effective, and students in the WG group outperformed those in the CG group, according to the results. Ac- cording to Cohen (1988), a small effect size is indicated by the partial eta-square for this case, which is 0.65. The covariate's significant level is 0.000. This suggests that, after adjusting for the independent variable, there is a meaningful relationship between the covariate and the flu-

ency of the collaborative writing. The covari- ate's impact is noteworthy because the p-value is less than .05. In actuality, it accounted for 26% of the variation in the dependent variable's variance. The obtained results from table 16 thus demonstrated that there are appreciable differences between the participant perfor- mances under various treatment scenarios. Ad- ditionally, the results revealed a minor covari- ate intervention (meaningful variation in flu- ency performance between learners in WG and CG conditions).

 

 

Table 16

Grand Mean Dependent Variable: Fluency of the Collaborative Writing

Mean	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval
		Lower Bound	Upper Bound
15.865a	.146	15.572	16.158

 

 

Table 16 shows the mean scores for each condition in case of removing the intervention of the covariate.

 

DISCUSSION

Justification for the findings of this research can be found in the traits of writing complexity. Speaking is easier than writing because there are far less constraints on writing. Written texts, which are generally shorter, use longer, more complicated words and sentences. They have more lexical variety, nominalizations, and noun-based sentences. Written texts are more lexically rich than spoken language, according to Fathi and Rahimi (2020), since they contain proportionately more lexical words than grammatical words. Students can produce written texts with observable complexity when they use Google Doc in cooperation with peers to assist them get beyond the dif- ficulties that are traditionally associated with writing complexity.

One observable aspect of Vygotsky's socio- cultural theory that is supported is the structur- ing of Google Docs. Learners who use Google Docs for writing have been observed to reflect on their own and others' language use, ask for and give clarifications to others, as well as to offer criticism and recommendations. They have also been shown to work together to address linguistic issues by supporting one another (Lee, 2010; Li, 2013, 2014; Nami & Marandi, 2014). In other words, mutuality was observed in the discussion style, which included group writing, in several investigations. They worked closely together, thus their writing would be complicated in the way that proficient language users are expected to be.

The majority of relevant research that has been done in the past has discovered findings that are similar to those of this study. The best feature of Google Docs is peer editing, which improves writing complexity through repetition (Brodahl et al., 2011; Sharp, 2009). Google

Docs is a particularly promising tool for peer collaboration and that it enables the learners to engage in useful and genuine learning activi- ties, according to Goold, Coldwell, and Craig (2010), who cited Gralla (2010) and Morales and Collins (2007) in their analysis. Riley-Huff (2010) asserts that the use of Google Docs can considerably and favorably increase group col- laboration and hence save time and effort. Ad- ditionally, Ishtaiwa and Aburezeq (2015) assert that Google Docs enhances student-student re- lationships after studying how using Google Docs affected those interactions. By comparing their work to that of their peers, giving and get- ting criticism on complex writing components, quickly transferring information, etc., the stu- dents' learning abilities could be improved.

The process of working together on a project would provide a social learning setting where less proficient peers might encourage more pro- ficient peers while also utilizing their own lin- guistic abilities. One can contend that the ZPD can be utilized to cooperatively combine the learners' talents, improving the language that is created. Other studies have shown that texts created collaboratively are more accurate than texts written alone. (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2007; Dobao,

2012; Storch, 1999, 2005). These studies used texts produced under two distinct settings (i.e., both separately and collectively). They discov- ered that cooperatively authored texts were both more accurate and of greater overall quality when compared to those written independently (well- structured and focused.

Storch (2005) investigated both the process and output of collaborative writing as well as students' views toward it. At an Australian uni- versity, she gathered data from adult ESL stu- dents enrolled in degree programs. Students could write individually or in couples. 18 pupils preferred to work in pairs, compared to 5 who preferred to work alone. She then compared the texts produced by pairs of pupils with those by

 

 

 

individual students. She also examined how students observed and evaluated the group writ- ing process. The results showed that pairs were able to create shorter but better texts in terms of goal fulfillment, grammatical accuracy, and structural complexity, which allowed them to perform the assignment more skillfully.

 

CONCLUSION

Writing is an important part of language acqui- sition. Due to the time restrictions that charac- terize in-person courses, restricting writing ed- ucation to a classroom environment would not result in the proper development of this valua- ble skill. Language instructors may now include Web 2.0 technologies into their teaching strate- gies to enhance their pedagogical approaches and their students' writing skills, owing to tech- nological improvements (Kessler et al., 2012). Students may work more effectively with their classmates utilizing Web 2.0 technologies re- gardless of where they are or when they need to complete an assignment. As a consequence, students have several opportunities to practice writing, which is critical for improving their writing skills.

Google docs is one of several technological tools that may be used to enhance students' writing. The majority of EFL students, regard- less of their level of ability, like reading digital texts to develop their language abilities, partic- ularly their writing skills. Because of its mobil- ity, affordability, and ability to be saved on their laptops or mobile devices, learning with digital texts looks to be enjoyable and effective for them. Google docs allow students to check their writing talents for free, making learning

more inexpensive. However, there are specific Google docs pages where students may access digital literature for instructional reasons. It is crit- ical for the integration of language acquisition.

As previously said, the present research aimed to compare the development of writing abilities among Iranian EFL students using Google docs as a technical tool. The study's goal was to see whether using Google docs instead of traditional teaching tactics had any influence on the writing abilities of EFL students. When compared to traditional meth- ods, the study's results indicated that this tool is fundamentally beneficial and successful at improving writing abilities. The results sup- port the hypothesis that support the use of tech- nology-based techniques in EFL writing in- struction. The results back up Zou's (2006) claim that computer technology assists in the development of writing skills and Hyland's (2002) claim that computer-mediated training may increase writing abilities.

This research adds to the body of knowledge in the area of second language acquisition by showing how the usage of Google docs as a platform for collaboration and criticism improves writing quality. This is congruent with the re- sults of Achterman (2006), who emphasized the Google docs’ role to improving the character of student engagement. Lamb (2004) came to similar results, recommending Google docs as a source that is more interesting in the writing process than the completed product. According to the study's deductions and findings, Google docs have tremendously aided individuals in improving their writing abilities by giving possibilities for online critique.

 

 

 

References

Abdel, M., & Farrah. (2015). Online collabora- tive writing: Students’ perception. Jour- nal of Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 17–32.

Abrams, Z. (2016). Exploring collaboratively written L2 texts among first-year learn- ers of German in Google Docs. Com- puter Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1259–1270.

Al Ajmi, A., & Ali, H. (2014). Collaborative writing in group assignment in an EFL/ESL classroom. English Linguistics Research, 3(2), 1-17.

Arnold, N., Ducate, L., Lomicka, L., & Lord,

G. (2009). Assessing online collabora- tion among language teachers: A cross- institutional case study. Journal of In- teractive Online Learning, 8(2), 121-

139.

Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyz- ing group dynamics and revision pro- cesses in Wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(2), 224–248.

Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on in- dividual L2 writing development. Lan- guage Learning & Technology, 20, 79–

99.

Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with web

2.0 technologies: Education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 10, 73–103.

Brodahl C, & Kristian Hansen, N.K. (2014). Education students’ use of collaborative writing tools in collectively reflective es- say papers. Journal of Information Tech- nology Education and Research, 13, 1–

30.

Byrad, D. (2010). Framing, reflecting on and at- tending to a rationale of teaching of writ- ing in the second language classroom via journaling: A case study. System, 38, 200-210.

Carmen Helena, G. N. (2007). Applications of Vygotskyan concept of mediation in SLA. Colombian Applied Linguistics

Journal, (9), 213–228.

Dabao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learn- ers' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365-378.

Dale, H. (1994). Collaborative writing interac- tion in one ninth-grade classroom. Jour- nal of Educational Research, 87(6), 334-

344.

Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 787–815.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing convention development. Lan- guage Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.

Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2020). Examining the impact of flipped classroom on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A case of EFL students. Computer Assisted Language        Learning.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020. 1825097

George, D.R. (2012). Using Google Docs to en- hance medical student reflection. Medi- cal Education, 46(5), 504–5.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging technolo- gies web-writing 2.0: Enabling, docu- menting, and assessing writing online. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 7–13.

Gralla, P. (2010). Google Docs better: Ready to take on office. Computerworld. Re- trieved from http: //www.cio.com.au /ar- ticle/34 4145/googledocsbetterready- takeoffice

Gutierrez, A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative ac- tivity in Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 120-148.

Ishtaiwa, F. F., & Aburezeq, I. M. (2015). The impact of Google Docs on student col- laboration: A UAE case study. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 7, 85–96. Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second lan-

guage learners in academic web-based

 

 

 

projects. Language Learning & Technol- ogy, 16(1), 91– 109.

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second lan- guage development. Oxford, UK: Oxfod University Press.

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In B. V. Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201-224). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Lave J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic in- quiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Liu, S. H. J., & Lan, Y. J. (2016). Social con- structivist approach to web-based EFL learning: Collaboration, motivation, and perception on the use of Google Docs. Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 171–186.

Mansor, A. Z. (2012). Google docs as a collab- orating tool for academicians. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 411–419.

Mays, C. (2017). Writing complexity, one sta- bility at a time: Teaching complexity as a complex system. College Composition and Communication, 68, 559– 585.

Mutsuda, P. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of second language writing, 12(1), 65-83.

Perron, B. E., & Sellers, J. (2011). Book re- view: A review of the collaborative and sharing aspects of Google Docs. Re- search on Social Work Practice, 21, 489–490.

Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer-interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical poten- tial and research agenda (pp. 267– 290). Philadelphia, PA: John Benja- mins Publishing Company.

Sarah Hsueh-Jui, L., & Yu-Ju, L. (2016). Social constructivist approach to web-based EFL learning: Collaboration, motivation, and perception on the use of Google

Docs. Journal of Educational Technol- ogy & Society, 19(1), 171–186.

Schwieter, J. W. (2010). Developing second language writing through scaffolding in the ZPD: A magazine project for an authentic audience. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(10), 31–45.

Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London, England: Penguin Books.

Seyyedrezaie, Z. S., Ghonsooly, B., Shahriari, H., & Fatemi, H. H. (2016). A mixed methods analysis of the effect of google docs envi- ronment on EFL learners’ writing perfor- mance and causal attributions for success and failure. Turkish Online Journal of Dis- tance Education, 17(3), 90–110.

Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and students’ per- ceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305.

Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accu- racy. System, 27(3), 363-374.

Storch, N. (2001a). Comparing ESL learners' attention to grammar on three different collaborative tasks. RELC Journal, 32(2), 104-124.

Storch, N. (2001b). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Research Forum, 5(1), 29-53.

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

Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in pair work activ- ity: Level of engagement and implica- tions for language development. Lan- guage Awareness, 17 (2), 95-114.

Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and fu- ture directions. Annual Review of Ap- plied Linguistics, 31, 275-288. doi:10.1017/ S0267190511000079.

Storch, N. (2012). Collaborative writing as a site for L2 learning in face-to-face and online modes. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz &

I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writ- ing contexts and tasks (pp. 113-129). Texas: Texas State University.

 

 

 

Storch, N. (2013a). Collaborative Language Learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The en- cyclopedia of applied linguistics. Ox- ford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell publishing.

Storch, N. (2013b). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: New perspectives on lan- guage and education. Bristol, UK: Multi- lingual Matters

Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31-48.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake and reten- tion of corrective feedback on writing. Case studies. Studies in Second Lan- guage Acquisition, 32, 303–334.

Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google Docs on students’ writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Edu- cational Technology, 13(2), 148–156.

Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44–63.

Wenyi, Z., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. Interna- tional Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359–375.

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pairs versus individual writing: Effects on flu- ency, complexity and accuracy. Lan- guage Testing, 26, 445-466.

Yang, C. R. (2010). Using Google Docs to fa- cilitate collaborative writing in an Eng- lish language classroom practice. Tesl- Ej, 14(3), 1–8.

Yates, N. (2008). Wikis and constructivism: Exploring the links. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(3), 15-28.

Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. Interna- tional Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359–375.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35-5

 

Biodata

Zaynab Cheraghpoor is a Ph.D. Candidate of TEFL at the Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran. Her Ph.D. dissertation is on online collaborative writing tasks. She is inter- ested in research on language teaching and learning skills.

Email: [e-mail]

 

Dr. Nafiseh Hosseinpour is an assistant pro- fessor of TEFL at the English Department, Falavarjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Esfahan, Iran. She has published a number of articles on Task-based language teaching and learning, Motivation in SLA, and Discourse Analysis.

Email: [e-mail]

 

Dr. Sajad Shafiee is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Department of Eng- lish, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad Univer- sity, Shahrekord, Iran. He has published a good number of articles on testing and research is- sues in local and international journals. His re- search interests include testing, research, and materials development.

Email: [e-mail]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---