SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

A Case Study regarding the Comparison of Collaborative Writing in Digital and Face-to-Face Environments

Osman Özdemir(ISTANBUL SABAHATTIN ZAIM UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0627-0768
Pages
246–258
Publication Date
2021-04-21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, it was detected that online texts were more successful than F2F texts and students’ achievement perceptions were higher in their Padlet texts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present case study aims to compare collaborative writing activities produced on the Padlet website on the internet and in a face-to-face (F2F) environment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the triangulation of the case study, texts produced F2F and online, video recordings of the F2F writing process and records of the group interviews conducted after the internet practice.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, it was detected that online texts were more successful than F2F texts and students’ achievement perceptions were higher in their Padlet texts.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Collaborative writing · online collaborating · writing environments

Abstract

The present case study aims to compare collaborative writing activities produced on the Padlet website on the internet and in a face-to-face (F2F) environment. This study for which criterion sampling was used included two different groups, both of which were formed with four people. For the triangulation of the case study, texts produced F2F and online, video recordings of the F2F writing process and records of the group interviews conducted after the internet practice. Thus, comparative evaluation regarding various components, such as writing processes, writing achievement, group interaction, creativity, and opinions of participants was performed depending on different data types. the findings suggest that the online environment shone out with advantages, such as time, flexibility, supporting creativity through and multimedia tools, whereas F2F writing offered advantages in communication and simultaneous changes by group members. However, it was detected that online texts were more successful than F2F texts and students’ achievement perceptions were higher in their Padlet texts.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özdemir, O. (2021). A Case Study regarding the Comparison of Collaborative Writing in Digital and Face-to-Face Environments. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 246–258. https://ajindex.com/articles/1497433

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Alshalan, A. M. (2016). The effects of wiki-based collaborative writing on ESL student’s individual writing performance [Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan]. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2508&context=oa_dissertations
  2. Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. Calico Journal, 29(3), 431-448. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.3.431-448
  3. Awaludin, F. A., Karim, R., & Saad, N. H. (2017). Padlet: A digital collaborative tool for academic writing. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 8(1), 179-184. https://www.jesoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/KC8_84.pdf
  4. Baker, E. B. (2000). Integrating literacy and tool-based technologies: Examining the successes and challenges. Computers in the Schools, 16(2), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v16n02_08
  5. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2
  6. Bikowski, D. (2015). The Pedagogy of Collaboration: teaching effectively within an evolving technology landscape. Innovation in English language teacher education, 223-231. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_Tec14%20Papers%20Final%20online.pdf#page=223
  7. Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79-99. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2016/bikowskivithanage.pdf
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. 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(18), 73-103. https://doi.org/10.28945/1384
  10. Chao, Y. C. J., & Lo, H. C. (2011). Students' perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for learners of English as a foreign language. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820903298662
  11. DeWitt, D., Alias, N., & Siraj, S. (2015 May). Collaborative learning: Interactive debates using padlet in a higher education institution. In International Educational Technology Conference (IETC 2015), Istanbul, Turkey. http://eprints.um.edu.my/13630/1/971662_Journal-Submission_WN.pdf
  12. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of second language writing, 21(1), 40-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
  13. Dobao, A. F. (2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(2), 158-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1768
  14. Ellis, D. (2015, October). Using Padlet to increase student engagement in lectures. In 14th European Conference on e-Learning: ECEl2015 (pp. 195-198). Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited. http://www.academic-conferences.org/conferences/ecel/
  15. Elola, I., Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/52235/
  16. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College composition and communication, 28(2), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
  17. Fey, M. H. (1997). Sharing writing through computer networking. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(4), 383-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130408
  18. Fisher, C. D. (2017). Padlet: An Online Tool for Learner Engagement and Collaboration, Available at https://padlet.com.
  19. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
  20. Frangou, S. M., Wikgren, J., Sintonen, S., Kairaluoma, L., & Vasari, P. (2019). The effect of writing modality on recollection in children and adolescents. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2239
  21. Fuchs, B. (2014). The writing is on the wall: using Padlet for whole-class engagement. LOEX Quarterly, 40(4), 7-9.
  22. Garnham, W. A., Betts, T., & Hole, A. (2018). The Padlet project: fostering creativity, engagement and digital literacy in seminar teaching. HEA Action-Research: Sector Case Studies, 59-64.
  23. Hadjerrouit, S. (2011). A collaborative writing approach to wikis: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 8(30) 431 – 449. https://doi.org/10.28945/1432
  24. Hron, A., & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of web‐based collaborative learning: factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00007.x
  25. Jeong, K. O. (2016). A study on the integration of Google Docs as a web-based collaborative learning platform in EFL writing instruction. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(39), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i39/103239
  26. 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
  27. Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2007). An information skills workout: Wikis and collaborative writing. Teacher Librarian, 34(5), 57 – 71.
  28. Li, X., Chu, S. K., & Ki, W. W. (2014). The effects of a wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy on writing ability and attitudes among upper primary school students in Mainland China. Computers & Education, 77, 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.019
  29. Lowe, T., & Humphrey, O. (2018). A Platform for Partnership: A Technology Review of the Padlet sharing platform. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.21100/jeipc.v4i1.706
  30. Mangen, A., Anda, L. G., Oxborough, G. H., & Brønnick, K. (2015). Handwriting versus keyboard writing: effect on word recall. Journal of writing research, 7(2), 227-247. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.1
  31. Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard educational review, 62(3), 279-301. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826
  32. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  33. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. California: Sage.
  34. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. California: Sage.
  35. Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In Charles A. McArthur, Steve Graham and Jill Fitzgerald (Ed) Handbook of writing research, (pp.11-27). Newyork: Guilford Press.
  36. Özdemir, O., & Açık, F. (2019). Development of written expression skills with flipped learning instruction: an embedded mixed method study. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(4), 1075-1091.
  37. Passig, D., & Schwartz, G. (2007). Collaborative writing: Online versus frontal. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 395-412. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/22819/
  38. Ramachandiran, C. R., & Mahmud, M. M. (2018). Padlet: A Technology Tool for the 21st Century Students Skills Assessment. vol, 1, 8. https://doi.org/10.26499/iceap.v1i1.81
  39. Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory. In Charles A. McArthur (Ed). Handbook of writing research, (41-53). Newyork: Guilford Press.
  40. Scanlon, E. (2000). How gender influences learners working collaboratively with science simulations. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00009-8
  41. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), 465-478. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049900500402
  42. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning. Towards the Virtual University: International Online Learning Perspectives, 217-232.
  43. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of second language writing, 14(3), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
  44. Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual review of applied linguistics, 31, 275-288.
  45. Tekobbe, C., Lazcano-Pry, Y., & Roen, D. (2012). Collaborative learning and writing in digital environments. In K. M. Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small groups in teaching English and composition (pp. 87–98). Jefforson: McFarland & Company, Inc.
  46. Tompkins, G. (2000). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. 3rd Edition, New Jersey: Prentice – Hall Inc.
  47. Vaismoradi, M., & Snelgrove, S. (2019, September). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 20, No. 3). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/3376/4471
  48. Vanderburg, R. M. (2006). Reviewing research on teaching writing based on Vygotsky's theories: What we can learn. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(4), 375-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560500455778
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  50. Wang, L. (2007). Sociocultural learning theories and information literacy teaching activities in higher education. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(2), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.47n2.149
  51. Wang, Y. C. (2015). Promoting collaborative writing through wikis: A new approach for advancing innovative and active learning in an ESP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 499-512.
  52. Weller, A. (2013). The use of Web 2.0 technology for pre-service teacher learning in science education. Research in Teacher education, 3(2), 40-46.
  53. Williams, L., Scott, K., & Simone, D. (2015). SocialNetworks: Making nonfiction trend in your classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1357