See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306107989

Online Collaborative Writing: Students' Perception

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS
9 1,544

2 authors, including:

Mohammed A A Farrah
Hebron University
47 PUBLICATIONS 416 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

askinf for clarification & circumlocution strategies to enhance speaking skills View project

Using cartoon in language classroom View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed A A Farrah on 15 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Online Collaborative Writing: Students’ Perception

Mohammed Abdel Hakim Farrah

[email protected]
[email protected]
Applied Linguistics
English Department
Faculty of Arts
Hebron University

ABSTRACT
This study investigated the attitudes of an English writing class towards online collaborative
learning activities. A 20-item questionnaire was used to assess the students’ attitudes towards
this experience. The participants of the study consisted of 55 students studying a Writing II
course. There were two sections; one control and the other is experimental. The researcher
investigated whether there were significant differences in the attitudes of the students pertaining
to, group (experimental vs. control), gender, grade (GPA), access to the Internet and anxiety.
The results indicated that the experimental group held positive attitudes towards the online
collaborative learning experience. Moreover, the results showed that there were statistically
significant differences between anxious learners and the learners who do not have anxiety
towards online collaborative activities. In addition, students who had regular access to the
Internet had better attitudes for the online collaborative activities. However, no statistically
significant differences were revealed regarding the grade of the students. This means that low
achievers and advanced learners held similar attitudes towards the online experience. Finally,
no statistically significant differences were shown based on gender.

Keywords: online, writing, collaborative learning, learner-centred teaching, gender, anxiety

INTRODUCTION
This paper addresses online collaborative learning within three major theoretical frameworks:
social context, interactivity, and technologies. It is important to point out that interactivity and
collaboration complement each other. In other words, collaboration and interaction are more
likely to take place in environments where learners have authority over their learning activities
and are socially engaged in a collaborative learning environment. New technologies are likely to
facilitate this online interactive collaborative learning environment.

Online collaborative learning is deeply rooted in social constructivism. Hence,

knowledge is socially constructed. Learners are viewed as active participants in the construction
of knowledge and creative language users. Moreover, they work within teams of social groups
that shape the learning process (Allwright, 1984, Gokhale, 1995; Brodahl & Hansen, 2014;

17
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Aydin & Yildiz, 2014). They are involved in authentic communication. They learn in less
stressful environments where learners collaborate with each other and support each other. They
learn, reflect, teach, share and question. They learn from other students in a friendly atmosphere.

In this atmosphere, anxiety is reduced as learners interact with each other to solve tasks.
They work on tasks collaboratively rather than competitively (Farrah, 2011; Farrah, 2012). The
learners negotiate the meaning with real audience and authentic tasks and experiences. They get
feedback from their peers and respond to this feedback. The more knowledgeable learners can
help less knowledgeable learners and thus creating a conducive educational environment.
Therefore, motivation and participation are maximized as learners apply active social interaction.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
Learning is a social process means that for successful learning to take place it should be in
conducive collaborative environments. Learners have authentic audiences and tasks similar to the
real world. Collaborative learning theorists emphasized the importance of this type of learning.
Johnson and Johnson (1986) deemed that when learners and teachers negotiate the meaning
while listening to each other, they gain a deeper understanding of the content and thus creating
necessary optimal conditions for successful learning. The principles of collaborative learning are
based on the theories of Dewey (1938), Bloom (1956), Vygotsky (1986) who deemed that
learning is a social act and cannot be successful in isolation. Other researchers discussed similar
concepts like community language learning (Curran, 1976), cooperative learning (Johnson,
Johnson, & Smith, 1991), and communicative language learning (Brown, 1994). All the above
mentioned theorists and scholars believe that learners can not learn content and skills in isolation
from their background knowledge and their life experiences. On the contrary, they learn new
skills and concepts when they socially interact with peers and reflect on their own experiences.

Online collaborative learning is also strongly rooted in the interactionist theories. In this
context of online learning, and according to Palloff and Pratt (1999) “it is the relationships and
interactions among people through which knowledge is primarily generated”, p.15). One of the
most essential requirements of successful collaboration is granting power to learners to facilitate
the process of engaging them in online interactive collaborative learning activities. Online
interactive collaborative learning activities are most likely to succeed when learners are granted
the opportunities to have the maximum control over the learning process.

This paves the way for the educational process to move form teacher-centered to learner-
centered. Learners learn in learner-centered learning environments that put them at the hub of
instruction. Thus, there is a mutual responsibility and sharing for the authority over learning.
This is achieved through the social interactive collaborative activities which transfer the
authority and responsibility to the learners. Therefore, the teacher's role is not ignored. On the
contrary, teachers have greater responsibilities to create the collaborative learning environment
and to create opportunities that engage learners in group work activities. Learners in the various
groups respect each other and share responsibility. They work collaboratively and engage
intellectually, cognitively and socially to achieve their learning objectives.

18
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Stein (2001), in the report of the National director of The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL),
identified four purposes in NIFL's essays for learners: Access, Voice, Action, and Bridge to the
Future:

Access: Learners gain access to information and resources so they can orient themselves in the
world. They obtain physical, geographic, psychological or social orientation. They develop an
understanding for the world and become better informed learners.

Voice: Learners develop their confidence through expressing their ideas and opinions to real
audiences who take their voice into account. They are real reasons for communication and
exchanging ideas.

Action: Learners develop the ability to become independent and responsible learners who solve
problems and make informed decisions on their own, and act independently.

Bridge to the Future: Learners prepare themselves for lifelong and keep on learning in order to
keep up with a rapidly changing world.

Similarly, Salmon (2000) proposed a five-stage framework for collaborative online

learning environment:

 Orientation: Becoming familiar with the environment

 Introduction: Getting to know one another
 Socialisation: Developing relationships
 Information: Sharing through interaction and participation
 Knowledge construction: Learning with others
 Collaboration: Working with others

Salmon’s model tries to suggest progression stages for successful e-moderating. In each
stage, the role of the e-moderator is highlighted along with the nature of the technology involved.
In addition, the model emphasizes the importance of interaction and socialization in online
learning. In this model, Salmon gives emphasis to a mixture of constructivist learning structure
and e-moderating.). Similarly, Palloff and Platt (2005) emphasized the importance of
maximizing the community teams in e-learning to promote creativity and critical thinking.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Writing is an important skill for learners as it is a means through which they develop their
academic writing skills, stimulate their critical thinking and enhance their creativity in order to
survive at the university level. Specifically, it is essential for university students as it enables
them to write essays and conduct their research papers. The technological advancement can be
applied in order to achieve better writing outcomes especially if it is built around constructivist
principles that involve constructing knowledge in social interactionist environments. As there are
a number of principles and concepts are involved in the process of writing, there is a necessity to

19
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

examine the attitudes of the learners towards online collaborative activities in such social
constructed environments. Despite the time limitations of the study, one academic semester, it is
expected that its outcome will contribute in some contemplations on the impact of collaborative
online learning on the writing classroom.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to:
1. Examine if there are any statistically significant differences in students’ attitudes in the
experimental and control groups.
2. Examine if there are statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents
based on their gender, and GPA towards online collaborative learning.
3. Examine if there are statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents
towards online collaborative learning and anxiety.
4. Examine if there are statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents
towards online collaborative learning and their access to the Internet.
5. Examine the general attitudes of the respondents towards online collaborative learning.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Are there any statistically significant differences in students’ attitudes in the experimental
and control groups between the pre and post questionnaires?
2. Are there statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents based on
their gender, and GPA towards online collaborative learning?
3. Are there statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents towards
online collaborative learning and anxiety?
4. Are there statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents towards
online collaborative learning and their access to the Internet?
5. What are the general attitudes of the respondents towards online collaborative learning?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Educational institutions are currently in the midst of significant changes in the way learners and
learning is delivered. Using technology for interacting in a social collaborative writing
environment is, of course, an inseparable and significant part of this paper. Of course there are a
number of factors and conditions that should be taken into consideration to enable this
collaborative online environment to work successfully. This study is the first empirical study
conducted in Palestine on the effect of using online collaborative activities in writing courses at
the university level. This study is relevant and timely for the higher education institutions,
curriculum designers, and Instructors. The contributions of this study would be of interest to

20
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

scholars in language learning who are concerned with social context, interactivity, collaboration
and technologies particularly in teaching the writing skill. Studies on online learning,
collaboration and social interaction are rare in this field, the thing that makes this study to be
significant. The findings of this paper will definitely have important implications on English
language teaching in general and teaching writing in particular as it is likely to engender extra
worthwhile perceptions in the future.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Numerous research studies confirmed the educational advantages of online collaborative
learning. Yoshida, Tani, Uchida, Masui and Nakayama (2014) found that online cooperative
learning promotes learners’ intrinsic motivation, interest and/or enjoyment. Similarly, Ezza and
Bakry (2014) reported that learners held positive attitudes towards the use of educational
technology to support traditional teaching and they encouraged to integrate it in all teaching
practices.

Suwantarathip and Wichadee (2014) compared writing abilities of students who

collaborated on writing assignments using Google Docs with those working in groups in a face-
to face classroom. They reported statistically significant differences between the two groups’
writing mean score after the experiment. The experimental group obtained higher mean scores
than those working in groups in a face-to-face classroom. In addition, online students indicated
that they had positive attitudes towards online collaborative activities and high collaboration in
their groups.

Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi, (2012) assessed the effectiveness of using Google Docs in
an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. They reported that Google Docs was a useful tool
for collaborative writing and influenced student learning.

Ciftci and Zeynep (2012) conducted a study on two groups (control and experimental) to
examine the impact of online peer feedback on the writing performance and perceptions of the
participants. From one hand, they found that the learners in both the control and experimental
group improved their writing in their revised drafts. On the other hand, they found that revised
drafts of the learners in the experimental group were of higher quality. Moreover, they indicated
positive perceptions on the use of online writing activities.

Chou and Chen (2008) implemented a two-week wiki activity in a programming

language class. They reported that this new teaching method could motivate students to engage
in collaborative learning and could support learning outcomes. Grami (2012) described a
collaborative interactive online writing experience among seven Saudi students. Results showed
that the experience helped the students to build a positive culture of collaborative writing and
peer feedback. In addition to that, the experience also promoted critical thinking among the
students and helped them to write to authentic audience. Finally, because the students had
positive attitudes, they welcomed incorporating similar tasks in future ESL writing classes.
New technological tools and applications allow for such purposes to be achieved easily and
rapidly. Jeon-Ellis et al. (2005: 121) describe a project oriented CALL that they perceive “a
21
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

holistic learning approach to act with words and create social realities in and out of the
classroom, and thus facilitate learning”.

Porter (2001) emphasized the role of online learning activities in facilitating interaction
and collaboration among earners who share common interests. Khalsa, Maloney-Krichar, and
Peyton (2007) listed a number of benefits for computer mediated interaction. The benefits
included the following: authenticity, voice, equal learning opportunities, individual attention, and
freedom of expression, convenience and accessibility, engagement, collaboration, and
technological literacy (pp: 22-23). All of these benefits are very important elements in successful
learning environment.

Using technology in language learning and teaching enables learners to adopt their own
learning styles and strategies (Smith, 1989). Moreover, online collaboration provides greater
number of opportunities for interacting with the teacher, classmates and the content (Bruner,
1985; Farrah, 2012). Collaborative online interaction is achieved through delegating autonomy to
learners. However, this autonomy does not mean learning individually but within a community.
Through democracy in education it becomes student-driven rather than teacher centered learning.
Teachers should not leave learners to work alone. Teachers should set the learning goals, create
the learning opportunities and work on achieving the learners’ goals. It is a mutual process where
learners are sharing some responsibility and teachers delegating some authority. Technology by
itself doesn’t promote learning. The tasks and activities and the ways of utilizing technology by
the teachers and learners have greater effects on enhancing learning. As Sinclaire (2011: 11)
concluded the satisfaction of learners "with online learning is linked to interaction a
communication, course design, the learning environment, and individual student factors of
computer self-efficacy and the ability to control an individual learning pace."

Online collaborative learning and gender

There are several studies that examined online learning and gender. Certain studies reported
statistically significant differences in the attitudes or performance of the learners (Caspi, et al,
2008; Cook et al, 2001, Stewart et al, 1999). However, there are other studies that reported no
significance (Torkzadeh and Van Dyke, 2002; Letchumanan and Tarmizi, 2011; Griffiths, 2003;
Farrah, 2014; Yukselturk and Bulut, 2009). For example, Letchumanan and Tarmizi, 2011; Cole,
et al. 2014).) found that gender appeared to have no significant effects either on perceived ease
of use or perceived usefulness. Similarly, Torkzadeh and Van Dyke (2002) did not find gender
differences seem to influence attitudes toward computer usage. It is hoped that the results of this
study will contribute to the literature on online learning and gender.

Online collaborative learning and anxiety

Numerous studies reported that Internet anxiety seems to be a crucial factor that may have an
impact on online learning (Elasmar & Carter, 1996; Farrah and Tushyeh, 2010). For example,
Wang, Newlin, and Tucker (2001) reported that many internet users expressed feelings of
anxiety about the technology.

22
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

METHODOLOGY
The section discusses the population, research instrument, procedure, developing the
questionnaire and its reliability.

Population
Fifty five Hebron University sophomores (46 females and 9 males) enrolled in the second
semester of the academic year 2012/13 served as the participants for this study. They came from
two sections of undergraduate Writing II class taught by two different instructors.

Research Instruments
In order to achieve the objectives of the study and answer the stated research questions of the
study, a questionnaire (see Appendix A) was developed based on the literature review conducted
by the researcher. The questionnaire aimed to examine attitudes towards online collaborative
learning.

The questionnaire consisted of 20 statements with a 5 point Likert scale, (strongly agree,
agree, neutral, tend to disagree and strongly disagree). A pre-treatment questionnaire was
distributed at the beginning of the spring semester of the academic year 2012/2013 and a post-
treatment questionnaire was distributed at the end of that semester. Quantitative data was
analyzed statistically by using the SPSS program.

Procedure
Throughout this semester the students were divided into groups consisting of five to six students
per group. Then, they were asked to write essays throughout the spring semester and to work on
them online within the established groups. There were face-to-face sessions in the classroom but
the students continued their work in groups online. They were instructed to write about different
topics such as Combining work and college/marriage, description of a favorite place, comparing
two instructors/cities/universities restaurants, studying for a final exam, etc.. They were
encouraged to work online and within groups to brainstorm, free write, revise drafts until they
reach the final stage of editing.

Reliability of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire reliability was examined. The result showed that the overall Cronbach Alpha
Coefficient of the questionnaire is (r=0.89) indicating a very high degree of internal consistency.
In other words, the questionnaire is considered a reliable instrument. To make sure that the
students in the experimental and control groups have the same attitudes towards online
collaborative activities, a t-test was carried out using the pre-questionnaire. The results are
shown in Table 1.

23
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Table 1
t-test for Equality of Means
Group N M SD T Df Sig.
Attitudes Experimental 29 3.91 .40635 .891 53 0.377
Control 26 4.00 .33301

The t-test reveals that there are no statistically significant differences at (α ≤ 0.05) on pre-
attitudes results due to the group (experimental and control), which means that the two groups
are quasi-equivalent in their attitudes towards online learning activities as shown in Table 1.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The following section aims at answering the following research questions:

Question 1: Are there any statistically significant differences in students’ attitudes in the
experimental and control groups between the pre and post questionnaires?

A t-test was carried in order to see if there are statistically significant differences between the
experimental and control groups using the post-questionnaire. The results are shown in Table: 2.

Table 2
t-test for Equality of Means
Group N M SD T d.f Sig.
Attitudes Experimental 29 4.01 0.37 -4.6 53 0.000
Control 26 3.48 0.48

As shown in Table 2, there are statistically significant differences at α = 0.005 in

students’ attitudes between the control group and the experimental group. This is in line with
Ciftci and Zeynep (2012) who found that the learners in the experimental group indicated
positive perceptions on the use of online writing activities and their revised drafts were of higher
quality. Similarly, El-Dali (2015), reported that his subjects considered technology very
important in foreign language learning and teaching.

Question 2: Are there statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents
based on their gender, and GPA towards online collaborative learning?
Online collaborative learning and gender:
In order to examine whether there were significant differences between the male and female
students and online collaborative learning, a t-test was carried out and Table 3 shows that there
are no significant differences at 0.05.

24
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Table 3
t-test for Equality of Means
Gender N M SD T df Sig.
Attitudes Female 46 3.74 .51947 -.825 53 0.412
Male 9 3.88 .38115

This means that female and male students held almost the same perception of online
collaborative writing activities. This is in agreement with several studies that investigated the
students’ attitudes towards online collaborative environment (Al-Jamal (2009, Sulisworo, 2012;
Griffiths, 2003; Farrah, 2014; Yukselturk and Bulut, 2009; Ezza and Bakry, 2014, Torkzadeh
and Van Dyke, 2002; Letchumanan, and Tarmizi, (2011). For example, Al-Jamal (2009) and
Sulisworo (2012) found that gender does not affect the learning motivation. Similarly, Ezza and
Bakry (2014) reported no attitudinal differences attributable to the students' genders toward the
use of technology in the classroom.

Online collaborative learning GPA

A t-test was carried out in order to examine whether there are significant differences between the
high-achieving students and low-achieving students regarding online collaborative activities.
Table 4 shows that there were no statistically significant differences at 0.05.

Table 4
t-test for Equality of Means
GPA N M SD T df Sig.
Attitudes Less than 80 23 3.82 .53132 -.741 53 .462
More than 80 33 3.72 .48122

This means that low achievers and high achievers maintained similar attitudes towards
online collaborative activities.

Question 3: Are there statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents
towards online collaborative learning and anxiety?

In order to examine whether there were statistically significant differences between students
attitudes towards online collaborative activities and anxiety, a t-test was carried out and Table 5
shows that there are statistically significant differences at 0.05.

Table 5
t-test for Equality of Means
Anxious N M SD T df Sig.
When the instructor asks Yes 24 3.52 .49563 - 33 .001
me to do collaborative No 31 3.95 .42066 3.490
online activities I become
nervous

25
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

This means that there were statistically significant differences between anxious learners
and the learners who do not have anxiety towards online collaborative activities. This is in line
with several studies that reported association between anxiety and online learning (Farrah and
Tushyeh, 2010; Elasmar and Carter, 1996, Farrah, 2014). This means that less anxious students
are more likely to be satisfied in a collaborative online learning environment.

Question 4: Are there statistically significant differences in the attitudes of the respondents
towards online collaborative learning and their access to the Internet?

In order to examine whether there are significant differences between students attitudes towards
online collaborative activities and access to the Internet at home, a t-test was carried out and
Table (6) shows that there were statistically significant differences at 0.05.

Table 6
t-test for Equality of Means
I have access to the Internet N M SD t df Sig.
at home
Attitudes Yes 42 3.85 .46949 2.229 53 0.030
No 13 3.50 .52315

This means that the students who have regular access to the Internet have better attitudes
towards the online collaborative activities.

Question 5: What are the general attitudes of the respondents towards online collaborative
learning?

In order to answer this question, descriptive statistics were calculated to examine the views
towards online collaborative activities as perceived by the respondents. See Table (7) for the
calculated means of items and their standard deviation for each statement).

Table 7
Means and standard for all items in the questionnaire
No Statement No. M SD
20 Working online in groups is a waste of time 55 4.25 0.90
Collaborative online activities should be
10 encouraged 55 4.21 0.78
Collaborative online activities help me to have
5 a greater responsibility - for myself & my group 55 4.14 0.65
Collaborative online activities enhance my
6 communication skills 55 4.09 0.61
Collaborative online activities enable me to
12 learn new ways to plan & edit my essays 55 4.07 0.66
Collaborative online activities make problem-
2 solving easier 55 4.07 0.76

26
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Collaborative online activities help me acquire

18 relevant computer knowledge and skills. 55 4.05 0.67
Collaborative online activities foster exchange
1 of knowledge, information & experience 55 4.01 0.59
Overall, collaborative online activities is a
17 worthwhile experience 55 4 0.60
Collaborative online activities give me the
13 chance to express my ideas in the group 55 3.96 0.69
Collaborative online activities help me to
4 receive useful feedback 55 3.96 0.71
Collaborative online activities enable me to
have more confidence working with other
11 students 55 3.94 0.65
Collaborative online activities make me a better
19 user of computer and technology. 55 3.92 0.66
Collaborative online activities enhance my
8 Interpersonal skills. 55 3.90 0.61
Collaborative online activities improve my
9 performance 55 3.90 0.64
Through the collaborative online activities we
16 write better essays 55 3.85 0.80
Collaborative online activities enhance my
7 negotiation skills. 55 3.83 0.68
Collaborative online activities stimulate my
3 critical thinking skills 55 3.8 0.77
I enjoy writing more than I did before due to
14 collaborative online writing 55 3.8 0.80
15 I get more work done when I work with others 55 3.49 0.95

The above table reveals that the students have very positive attitudes towards the
collaborative online learning experience. Great numbers of students regarded the experience a
rewarding one and not a waste of time as seen in item 20 (4.25, recoded). And due to this
rewarding experience they agree with item 10 that collaborative online activities should be
encouraged.

Item 10 is given a very high rating (M=4.21). The students encouraged this type of
experience as they felt that the collaborative online activities help them to have a greater
responsibility - for myself & my group as expressed in item 5 (M=4.14). They favored this
approach to learning as it enhances their communication skills, enables them to learn new ways
to plan and edit their essays, make problem-solving easier, helps them acquire relevant
computer knowledge and skills, and fosters exchange of knowledge, information and experience
as expressed in items 6, 12, 2, 18, and 1 that got very high ratings.

Table 7 also reveals that collaborative online activities have the following benefits:

27
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

 Learners get the chance to express ideas in the group

 learners receive useful feedback
 learners build confidence while working with each other
 learners become better user of computer and technology.
 learners enhance their interpersonal skills.
 learners improve their performance
 learners write better essays
 learners enhance their negotiation skills.
 learners stimulate their critical thinking skills
 learners enjoy writing more than they did before due to collaborative online
writing

All these benefits make the experience worthwhile experience as expressed in item 7.
This is in agreement with several studies that indicated that students held positive attitudes
towards online collaborative learning and it improved their learning outcomes (Zhou, Simpson,
& Domizi, 2012; Chou & Chen, 2008; Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014; Brodahl & Hansen,
2014; Aydin & Yildiz, 2014). For example, Gokhale (1995), Palloff and Platt (2005), and Grami
(2012) reported that such environments promote creativity and critical thinking. Moreover,
Grami (2012) indicated that students had positive attitudes and welcomed the idea of
incorporating similar tasks in future ESL writing classes. Similarly, Chou and Chen (2008)
maintained that online collaborative learning motivates learners to engage in collaborative
learning and could support learning outcomes. Finally, Ciftci, and Zeynep (2012) reported that
their students showed higher quality in revised drafts and indicated positive perceptions on the
use of online writing activities.

However, students gave lower ratings to item number 15 which discusses performing
more work (I get more work done when I work with others). As the table shows, this item got a
relatively low rating. Students think that working with others online does not help them to
conclude more work. This is not strange since one of the main disadvantages of the
communicative approach is that it is time consuming. As such it is not strange to see that the
students don’t feel that the online collaborative activities help them to do a lot of homework.
Nevertheless, looking at the great benefits that can be achieved from this experience, allow us to
tolerate these minor disadvantages. Most of all, the advantages are more than the disadvantages
and quality is more important than quantity.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, online collaborative writing is one of the main factors to enhance learning
motivation and to improve the learners’ performance. The collaborative online learning
experience gave an indication that the learners’ motivation increased. The participants held
positive attitudes towards this experience as it helped them to develop their personal
communication skills, express ideas in the group, receive and offer useful feedback, improve
performance by writing better essays, and stimulate their critical thinking skills. All these factors
contributed to the fact that collaborative online learning was perceived to be an enjoyable and a

28
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

worthwhile experience. It is necessary to present learners with collaborative learning

environments inside the university and outside the university. The participants in this study
revealed an enthusiasm to learn from each other through the online collaborative environment
and recommended that such learning environments should be encouraged. Based on the results of
this study, the researcher recommends the following:

 As there is an encouraging outcome of using online collaboration in writing

classes, communication, it should be implemented and supported in EFL learning
and teaching contexts.
 Online collaborative activities should be incorporated as an essential ingredient in
skill-based courses, such as oral communication, writing, and integrated language
skill.
 Collaborative online activities should be stated as course outcome and learners
should be trained on how to collaborate and how to interact online.
 Palestinian universities should be equipped with technological facilities and
infrastructure to promote online collaborative activities.
 Palestinian universities should train English department instructors who teach
English skill-based courses on the use of the technological facilities and online
delivery.

REFERENCES
Al-Jamal, D. (2009). “The Impact of Peer Response in Enhancing Ninth Grader's Writing Skill”.
Umm Al-Qura University Journal of Educational & Psychologic Sciences. Vol. 1-N0. 1
January 2009.
Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied
Linguistics 5, 156-171.
Aydin, Z., & Yildiz, S. (2014). Using Wikis To Promote Collaborative Efl Writing Language
Learning & Technology. February 2014, Volume 18, Number 1pp. 160–180
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2014/aydinyildiz.pdf
Brodahl, C., & Hansen, N. K. (2014). Education students’ use of collaborative writing tools in
collectively reflective essay papers. Journal of Information Technology Education:
Research, 13,91-120. Retrieved from
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13ResearchP091-120Brodahl0463.pdf
Brown, Douglas H. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Integrative Approach to Language
Pedagogy. USA: Prentice Hall Regents.
Caspi, A. Chajut, E. Saporta, K. (2008). Participation in class and in online discussions: Gender
differences. Computers & Education 50,(3), 718–724
Ciftci, H. & Kocoglu, Zeynep. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students'
writing performance. Journal of Education Computing Research, 46(1), 61-84.
Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., and Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online Instruction, E-Learning, and
Student Satisfaction: A Three Year Study. Retrieved on 22nd august 2015 from
http://elearningfeeds.com/online-instruction-e-learning-and-student-satisfaction-a-three-
year-study-2/

29
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Cook, J. Leathwood, C. & Oriogun, P. (2001). Monitoring gender participation and promoting
critical debate in an online conference. Retrieved 15th August 2014 from
www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/cookj.pdf
Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, IL: Apple River
Press.
David W. J., Roger T. J, and Karl A. S. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College
Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
El-Dali, H. M. (2015). Integrated EFL Skills and Technology: Focus on Learners’ Perceptions
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL No.2 July, 2015. Pp.91 –
115
Ezza, S., & Bakry, S. A. (2014). Technology-Enhanced Instruction in a Saudi EFL Classroom.
Arab World English Journal. Special Issue on CALL No.1 July, 2014. Pp. 55-66
Farrah, M. (2011). Attitudes Towards Collaborative Writing Among English Majors in Hebron
University, Arab World English Journal, Vol.2 No. 4 December, pp. 136-170
Farrah, M. (2011). Online Communication and Enhancing Language Skills, Motivation, and
Cultural Understanding. The AUC TESOL Journal (AUCTJ). Issue 2. Retrieved from
http://www.aucegypt.edu/huss/eli/TESOL/issues/Pages/Home.aspx
Farrah, M (2012). The impact of peer feedback on improving the writing skills among Hebron
University students. An-Najah Uni.J. Res. (Humanities), 26(1), 180-210.
Farrah, M. (2014). The Role of Demographic and Personal Variables on the Palestinian Students’
Perceptions of a Blended Learning English Class. An - Najah Univ. J. Res. (Humanities).
Vol. 28(4), 994-1026
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31 (3), 367–383.
Chou, P. N., & Chen, H. H. (2008). Engagement in online collaborative learning: A case study
using a web 2.0 tool. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 574-582.
Gokhale, A. (1995). Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology
Education Volume 7, Number 1.
Grami, G. (2012). Online Collaborative Writing for ESL Learners Using Blogs and Feedback
Checklists. English Language Teaching; Vol. 5, No. 10; 2012.
Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R. & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the
project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning & Technology September 2005,
Volume 9, Number 3 pp. 121-145.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the
classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Johnson, J. (2007). Theory and Research: Classroom Atmosphere. In Egbert, J., & Hanson-
Smith, E. (Eds.) (2007). CALL Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues
(2nd Edition). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science
classroom. Science and Children, 24(2), 31–32.
Khalsa, D., Maloney-Krichar, D. & Peyton, J. (2007).Theory and research: Interaction via
computers. In Egbert and Hanson-Smith (2nd edition). CALL environments, research,
Practice, and Critical issues. TESOL.

30
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

Letchumanan, M. and Tarmizi, R. (2011). Assessing the intention to use e-book among
engineering undergraduates in Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia. Library Hi Tech,
29(3), 512-528.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective
Strategies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Porter, L. (2001). Planning a Community: The Value of Online Learning Communities in
Technical Communication. Paper presented at the Society for Technical Communication
(STC), Chicago.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan
Page.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning, London: Kogan Page.
Smith, W. F. (1989) Modern Technology in Foreign Language Education. Lincolnwood, IL:
National Textbook, pp. 235-248.
Sinclaire, J.K. (2011). Student satisfaction with online learning: Lessons from organizational
behavior. Research in Higher Education Journal, 11, 1-20.
Stein, S. (2001)). Equipped for the Future Content Standards. What Adults Need to Know and
Be Able to Do in the 21st Century. Sondra Stein: National Director: The National
Institute for Literacy (NIFL) http://eff.cls.utk.edu/pdf/standards_guide.pdf
Stewart, C.M. Shields, S.F. Monolescu, D. & Taylor, J.C. (1999). Gender and participation in
synchronous CMC: An IRC case study. Interpersonal computing and technology: An
electronic journal for the 21st Century 7.
Sulisworo, D. (2012).The Effect of Gender and Online Collaborative Learning Strategy to
Student Learning Motivation. International Journal of Learning & Development. Vol. 2,
No. 6.
Suwantarathip, O. & Wichadee, S. (2014). The Effects Of Collaborative Writing Activity Using
Google Docs On Students’ Writing Abilities. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology – April 2014, volume 13 issue 2.
Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. P. (2002). Effects of training on Internet self efficacy and
computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 479-49
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wang, A.Y., Newlin, M.H, & Tucker, T.L. (2001). A discourse analysis of online classroom
chats: Predictors of cyberstudent performance. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 222226.
Yoshida, H., Tani, S., Uchida, T., Masui, J. and Nakayama, A. (2014). Effects of Online
Cooperative Learning on Motivation in Learning Korean as a Foreign Language.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 4, No. 6, December
2014 .
Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. (2012). Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative
writing activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24
(3), 359-375.

31
 Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 3, Number 2, 2015

About the Author

Mohammed Farrah is an Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics. He has a number
of publications in the field of online learning and English language teaching methodology and
presented papers in local and international conferences. He supervised and examined a number
of MA theses. Administrative positions included Chair of the Eng. Dep. from 2009 until 2013.
He is an active member at AWEJ Journal, the Arab Society of English Language Studies, and the
APETAU Association.

32

View publication stats