Learning and Teaching

Writing Online
Strategies for Success

Edited by

Mary Deane
Teresa Guasch

leiden | boston

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

Contents

Foreword vii
Vince Connelly
List of Contributors ix

Introductory Chapter. Learning and Teaching Writing Online 1

Mary Deane and Teresa Guasch

part 1
Feedback in Online Environments

1 Collaborative Writing Online: Unravelling the Feedback Process 13

Teresa Guasch and Anna Espasa

2 Automated Feedback in a Blended Learning Environment: Student

Experience and Development 31
Damian Finnegan, Asko Kauppinen and Anna Wärnsby

3 Singular Asynchronous Writing Tutorials: A Pedagogy of Text-Bound

Dialogue 46
Dimitar Angelov and Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams

part 2
Supporting Collaborative Writing

4 Learning to Think and Write Together: Collaborative Synthesis Writing,

Supported by a Script and a Video-based Model 67
Carola Strobl

5 Online Collaborative Writing as a Learning Tool in Higher

Education 94
Teresa Mauri and Javier Onrubia

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

vi contents

part 3
Online Course Design

6 Freewriting Reprogrammed: Adapting Freewriting to Online Writing

Courses 113
Patty Wilde and Erin Wecker

7 The Experience of an Online University Course for Learning Written

Communication Skills in ict Studies 128
Maria-Jesús Marco-Galindo, Joan-Antoni Pastor-Collado and Rafael
Macau-Nadal

part 4
Interrogating Online Writing Instruction (owi)

8 Engaging Students in Online Learning Environments for Success in

Academic Writing in the Disciplines 151
Helen Drury and Pam Mort

9 Interrogating Online Writing Instruction 176

Scott Warnock

Afterword. Writing Pedagogy in Online Settings—a Widening of

Dialogic Space? 186
Olga Dysthe

Index of Authors 195

Index of Subjects 197

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

 chapter 1

Collaborative Writing Online:

Unravelling the Feedback Process

Teresa Guasch and Anna Espasa

1 Introduction

There are many studies which highlight the importance of feedback in stu-
dents’ learning (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). Many scholars argue
in favour of focusing on the quality of feedback to promote effective learn-
ing and teaching (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Yet, what is the best type
of feedback to give in an online learning environment in order for the stu-
dents to benefit from it and improve their essays? What do students actually
do with the feedback they receive? How can we ensure that students imple-
ment the feedback given and are then able to extrapolate it to other written
tasks?
These questions have been studied in various educational contexts (Gikandi,
Morrow, and Davis, 2011), but there are still some specific issues requiring
further examination in asynchronous online learning environments (Yang and
Carless, 2012); that is, in those contexts where teachers and students do not
coincide in time or space. This is the topic of our research, which examines
how technology-enhanced environments can overcome the challenges that
may arise in collaborative writing tasks. This chapter presents our findings
in answer to these questions, based on a dialogic conception of feedback
that integrates the process of giving/receiving-processing-implementing it in
an enhanced text. The key finding is that feedback should be designed in
such a way as to promote discussion amongst students and enable them to
amend their texts accordingly. In this regard, feedback should be epistemic and
suggestive; i.e., based on questions and proposals on how writers can improve
their assignments, in order to contribute to higher quality student learning.

Guasch, T., & Espasa, A. (2015). Collaborative Writing Online: Unravelling the Feedback
Process. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & M. Deane, & T. Guasch (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing:
Vol. 29, Learning and Teaching Writing Online, (pp. 13–30). Leiden: Brill.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi: 10.1163/9789004290846_003

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV
14 guasch and espasa

2 Collaborative Writing in Online Learning Environments

Writing is a key competence in higher education, and it becomes indispensable

in online learning environments based on written communication. Yet despite
being a routine activity, writing is not always taught explicitly, nor are students
given guidance to help them with their academic writing (Lonka, 2003). On the
contrary, all too often students are expected to know how to write in various
contexts.
According to Dysthe, ‘learning to become a better writer happens in the
same way that learning to become a better thinker does. Writing is thinking-
made-tangible’ (2001: 2). Consequently, it is essential for students to receive
support, including feedback, both from their teachers and their peers, so that
they are better able to handle the processes and products of academic commu-
nication. This is one of the main challenges universities are currently facing;
providing students with the appropriate knowledge and skill set to enable them
to communicate in academic and scientific contexts (Castelló et al., 2007). It is
with this challenge in mind, that this chapter offers evidence to support moves
towards positive change.
‘Writing’ is defined in this study as a learning tool that promotes language
development and knowledge construction (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987;
Castelló, Iñesta, and Monereo, 2009; Galbraith, 1999; Lindblom-Ylänne and
Pihlajamäki, 2003; Tynjälä, Mason, and Lonka, 2001). That is to say, it is a process
that contributes to learners becoming independent critical thinkers (Dysthe,
Lillejord, Vines, and Wasson, 2010). From this approach, writing is an iterative
process involving different techniques such as planning, drafting, peer or tutor
review, and revision (Coffin, Curry, Goodman, Hewing, Lillis, and Swann, 2003).
Writing is not necessarily posited as an individual activity in this chapter.
In many instances in their academic life, students will have to write collabo-
ratively, and this ability is a transversal competency that educators should aim
to develop in their university students. One of the challenges in collaborative
writing tasks is precisely this: working with others to produce a text, given that
writing tasks are usually self-planned, involves personal initiative and personal
effort. Amongst the objectives of collaborative writing, educators seek to pro-
mote the exchange of thoughts between writers.
From a socio-constructivist approach, we believe that the knowledge result-
ing from group discussions during cooperative tasks is essentially dialogic, and
is linked to the social influences in the development of reasoning (Reznitskaya,
Kuo, Glina, and Anderson, 2008). That is, it requires interaction between par-
ticipants and negotiation of ideas (Cerrato, 2003; Onrubia and Engel, 2009,
Strobl, in this volume). Therefore, interactions that occur between teachers and

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

collaborative writing online: unravelling the feedback process 15

students and among students themselves can become one of the key compo-
nents of good teaching (Vrasidas and McIssac, 1999). Interaction—understood
as the communicative exchange between teacher and students, and between
students themselves—is needed in online learning environments to evidence
and ascertain the learning process (i.e. Harasim, 1993; Haythornthwaite, 2002;
Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2002). This communicative exchange may have different
attributes, such as place-independence, time-independence, and text-based-
independence. In the specific case of this research, interaction is characterized
by asynchronicity and written communication. Following Vrasidas and McIs-
sac (1999), one of the factors that directly influence interaction in distance
education is feedback.
In this context, writing becomes one of the most important evidence of
student learning. Feedback thus acts as a learning support. How to design and
deliver feedback in order to enhance learning is one of the main challenges in
these asynchronous online settings.

3 Formative Feedback as a Dialogic Process:

Giving-Processing-Implementing Feedback

The influence of feedback in any teaching and learning setting has been well
documented by empirical research over the past few decades (for example:
Kulhaby and Stock, 1989; Black and William, 1998, Hattie and Timperley, 2007 in
face-to-face (f2f) settings; Azevedo and Bernand, 1995 and Mason and Bruning,
2001 in computer-based instruction; Espasa and Meneses, 2010; Gikandi, 2011 in
online learning environments). In this regard, feedback has become a powerful
tool which has a definite impact in the learning process.
Focusing on the influence of feedback in online teaching and learning envi-
ronments, Gikandi claims that ‘the adequacy and interactivity of feedback can
be enhanced by the uniqueness of online settings (as compared to f2f set-
tings) in relation to offering opportunities for revising previous contributions
by self and/or others within the online discourse’ (2011: 2347). Within the liter-
ature on the feedback process in online environments, Dysthe et al. differen-
tiate between two analytical feedback models: an authoritative model which
views the teacher as an expert who transmits knowledge to the students, and
a dialogic model where ‘new understandings are created through joint or par-
ticipatory activities’ (2010: 244). The latter approach is precisely the framework
for the research presented in this chapter (2010: 347).
According to this model based on feedback as a dialogue, Carless, Salter,
Yang and Lam define the characteristics of sustainable feedback as practices

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

16 guasch and espasa

that promote ‘dialogic interaction usually incorporating both peer and lecturer
critique’ and enhance ‘technology-assisted dialogue with the aim of promoting
student autonomy and reflective interaction’ (2011: 404). Sustainable feedback
is understood as the information students receive on their current task which
promotes and develops the ability to self-regulate their performance on future
tasks, that is, ongoing and autonomous. It is a holistic and socially-embedded
conceptualisation of feedback through student engagement (Price, Handley,
and Millar, 2011), where it serves as a promoter of dialogue between peers and
between peers and teacher, to facilitate the regulation of learning. This dialogue
is fostered by formative feedback, which is defined in this chapter as ‘the
information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify his or her
thinking or behaviour for the purpose of improving learning’ (Shute, 2008: 154).
Within the research on feedback and academic writing processes, the dia-
logue is produced between the writer and the reader (Dysthe et al., 2010). This
dialogic process can be understood as a loop, which includes giving feedback
and receiving it (by teachers and/or peers), processing it (discussing it with the
teacher and/or peers) and implementing it in an improved product (see fig-
ure 1.1.).
The first phase, giving-receiving feedback, relates to the characteristics of
feedback as it is delivered. The second refers to how feedback is processed,
i.e. what actions students do with the feedback received (they can perform
cognitive activities, metacognitive activities, etc.). The third phase of the loop
relates to feedback implementation, which is performed by the students by
making changes to their texts according to the feedback received.
Research on the feedback process has predominantly focused on the first
phase—giving feedback—rather than on how students process and imple-
ment it (Hattie and Gan, 2011). In view of this situation, our research group has
attempted to unravel the feedback process, not only from the perspective of giv-
ing feedback, but also from the perspective of processing and implementing it,
specifically in online learning environments.

4 Contributions of Our Research on Feedback in Collaborative

Writing in Online Environments

Formative feedback has been previously defined as a dialogue between the

writer and the reader (Dysthe et al., 2010). This dialogic process is based on a
loop, which includes three phases: giving/receiving feedback, processing it and
implementing it in an improved product.
This section summarises the contributions made by three studies carried out
through a research project to provide evidence on the different phases of this

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

collaborative writing online: unravelling the feedback process 17

figure 1.1 Feedback loop in a writing situation

loop. The studies respond to different aims and consequently have different
designs. In this sense, it is important to highlight that the first study, which was
exploratory, laid the foundation for the design of the next two. The research
questions were the following:

– What characteristics does teacher feedback have in a collaborative writing

assignment in an online learning environment?
– What effect does feedback have on the revision of a text in a collaborative
writing task?
– How do different types of feedback affect students’ processing of feedback
in collaborative writing?
– Which type of feedback and peer feedback best contributes to improving
students’ writing performance in an online learning environment?
– To what extent do different types of feedback affect feedback implementa-
tion?

5 Context of the Studies

The research project was carried out within the virtual campus of the Open
University of Catalonia (uoc). uoc’s pedagogical model is geared towards par-

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

18 guasch and espasa

ticipation and joint knowledge construction from an inter-subject approach.

It involves problem-solving, project development, joint product creation, dis-
cussion and enquiry. Evaluation is embedded in the learning environment.
Students have access to virtual learning spaces wherein they are provided not
only with content, activities and communicative tools but also with feedback
by teachers or peer learners via email or other online means such as wikis or
blogs.

6 Design

The project was based on a multi-method that integrates exploratory and

quasi-experimental studies. Participants of each study were students of a 6
European Credits module in the Psychology Bachelor’s degree programme at
the uoc. Students generally enrol in this course in their final bachelor semester,
which means that they already have experience working together in the virtual
campus.
Although each study has its specific design (see table 1.1), all students par-
ticipated in a module structured into three didactic sequences (dss), which is
the prototypical organisation of a degree module at uoc. Each ds included a
continuous assessment assignment, following the university’s own evaluation
model. The first ds was structured as an individual assignment, which served
as a pre-test, as it could be used to determine the student’s initial writing ability.
The second ds was the intervention and was performed in groups. The inter-
vention was part of the module’s curriculum and did not involve any significant
change in terms of how modules are generally designed in the virtual campus,
so as not to affect the learning activity taking place. The final ds was again indi-
vidual and served as a post-test, which could be compared to the pre-test to
determine if a qualitative ability change occurred. For each ds, students wrote
an essay.

7 Findings on Giving Feedback in an Online Learning Environment

In general terms, when referring to the process of giving feedback, two aspects
are involved: a) the type or nature of the feedback—that is, which type of
feedback best contributes to improving students’ writing performance, and b)
the feedback-giver—who delivers the feedback to the learner, and this could
be the teacher, the peers or a combination of both. However, as it has been
shown, there is a noticeable lack of research focusing on these issues in online

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

 collaborative writing online: unravelling the feedback process 19

table 1.1 Overview of the three studies: research questions, design and units of analysis

Studies & Research Question Design Conditions Units of analysis

1) Characteristics and effect Exploratory study Natural context First draft of the
of teacher feedback in The results were the assignment
a collaborative writing foundation to design Final document
assignment (writing product) study 2 and 3
Alvarez, Espasa, & Guasch,
2011

2) Type of feedback best Quasi-experimental Students were First draft of the

improves collaborative writing study randomly assigned assignment
products and effect of Pre-test and post-test to different Final document
teacher feedback (fb) and measures experimental groups:
peer feedback has on learning. a) Type of feedback:
Guasch, Espasa, Alvarez, & corrective,
Kirschner, 2013 epistemic,
suggestive and
epistemic +
suggestive
b) Feedback-giver

3) Students’ processing and Quasi-experimental Students were Students’ interaction

implementing the feedback study randomly assigned about the feedback
into the assignment (writing to different received (nature of
process). experimental groups: students learning).
Espasa, Guasch, & Alvarez, a) Type of feedback: First draft
2013 corrective, Final document
epistemic,
suggestive and
epistemic +
suggestive
b) Feedback-giver

learning environments. Therefore, two studies were developed to shed light on

the process of giving feedback that best contributes to learning.
The first study examined the characteristics and effect of teacher feedback in
a collaborative writing assignment in online learning environments (Alvarez,

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

20 guasch and espasa

Espasa, and Guasch, 2011; Guasch, Espasa, and Alvarez, 2010). This exploratory
study took place during the second assignment of a course, specifically during
the evaluation of the results of the assignment, which consisted of writing
a critical essay on the in-depth study of a case over a period of two weeks.
Students were distributed in virtual groups and had their own space within a
debate area in the virtual class to carry out their discussions. They were asked
to co-evaluate the assignment of another group. Students received the support
of an online application used for the collaborative processing of texts (for more
details of the application and the process see Alvarez, et al., 2011).
It is important to mention that this type of evaluation allows learners to
present a second version of the work being evaluated, which has been presum-
ably improved as a result of the feedback. This study also analysed the changes
made by the students to the second version of the work under review, with the
objective of assessing the changes and/or improvement to the text.
The results show that when the teacher made corrections to the text, the
majority of the student responses were geared towards confirming and/or com-
menting on the post. In this situation, the number of interventions of students
discussing the feedback received was significantly scarce. However, when the
feedback acted as a suggestion, there was a rise in the number of constructive
responses by the students; they discussed the proposals received and elabo-
rated on possible changes. The most relevant responses were produced when
the teacher’s message combined and associated her suggestions to a question,
or even to a correction.
These results laid the foundation for the design of a second study to inves-
tigate what type of feedback best improves the quality of collaborative writing
products and what effects teacher and peer feedback have on student learning
(Guasch, Espasa, Alvarez, and Kirschner, 2013). In this intervention, students
were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental groups, which varied with
regards to the type of feedback and the feedback giver. The types of feedback
were identified in the previous study:

Corrective: comments about the assignment requirements and the adequacy

of the content (e.g. This is not what is requested; The correct answer is …).
Epistemic: requests for explanations and/or clarifications in a critical way
(e.g. Do you think that this idea reflects what the author really highlights in
his/her study? Why do you think that a is an example of what the author
posits?).
Suggestive: advice on how to proceed or progress and invitation to explore
or expand, or improve an idea (e.g. The idea that you point out would be much
clearer if you provide an example at the end of this paragraph).

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

collaborative writing online: unravelling the feedback process 21

Epistemic and suggestive (i.e. Do you think that this sentence is convincing
enough? You should reread the article and identify the essential points between
the theories presented and the text. It will help you to carry out the task in a
more adequate way).

Concerning the feedback-giver, all students received teacher feedback and

half also gave and received feedback from peers. Peer feedback was given or
received by the group under the same condition (type of feedback).
Results show that the quality of collaborative writing performance was most
improved by providing the students with epistemic or epistemic + suggestive
feedback. As Guasch et al. (2013) concluded:

Reflecting on what they had written as induced by epistemic questions in

the epistemic or epistemic and suggestive feedback affected the quality of
the writing product more than either being instructed on what could be
done better (i.e., corrective feedback) or, more importantly, only receiving
suggestions as to how to proceed (i.e., suggestive feedback). Properly
dealing with epistemic questions required the groups to be more active
in reviewing and rewriting their work (i.e., self evaluating what they had
done and what they needed to do), which apparently contributed to
better collaborative written products.
p. 300

This is consistent with our first study (Alvarez, Espasa, and Guasch, 2011), which
found a significant correlation between text improvement and students’ dis-
cussions about the comments received from the teacher. Epistemic feedback or
epistemic and suggestive feedback seems to best contribute to higher quality
interaction between students. Since they are questioned about their decisions,
they need to reach agreement together to decide how to proceed.
Despite some limitations in the research detailed in both studies (i.e. the
effect of peer-feedback on students’ writing per se was not tested in isolation
due to ethical issues), the results presented form the basis for a definition
of how feedback should be designed and given in order to improve student
writing in online learning environments.

8 Findings on Processing and Implementing Feedback

As previously mentioned, research on feedback has focused more on giving

feedback, on feedback design, than on how students receive feedback and con-

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

22 guasch and espasa

sequently on how they process and implement it (Hattie and Gan, 2011). While
numerous studies have focused on the effect of feedback on revisions (i.e. Allal,
Chanquoy, and Largy, 2004) there are also several studies that suggest that stu-
dents do not know what to do with the feedback received and consequently
they do not implement it (Havnes, Smith, Dysthe, and Ludvingsen, 2012).
To measure how students process feedback in the specific context of aca-
demic writing assignments, Nelson and Schunn use the feedback implementa-
tion concept. These authors point out that ‘while writing quality is very impor-
tant, there is likely to be an intermediate step that leads to writing quality
changes: feedback implementation’ (2008: 377). This is precisely the aim of the
third study we will present next: to focus on receiving feedback, and on how
students process the feedback received, and on implementing feedback, what
changes students make to their texts. These two phases correspond to phases
2 and 3 of the feedback loop shown in figure 1.1. However, this type of research
requires a holistic approach to analyse multiple processes, such as interaction
between students while they write, feedback implementation, and the writing
process.
To achieve this aim, a review of different models was carried out to define
a methodological approach which could be adjusted to the analysis of stu-
dents’ interaction in a written and asynchronous environment when receiving
the feedback on a text and the changes incorporated into the final text (see
Espasa, Guasch, and Alvarez, 2013). The model includes the following dimen-
sions (see Figure 1.2): 1) student participation (quantity of student participation
and heterogeneous/homogeneous student participation) (Henri, 1992; Wein-
benger and Fischer, 2006), 2) nature of student learning (cognitive, affective
and metacognitive activities) (Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2002; Veldhuis-Diermanse
et al., 2006), and 3) student learning, explained by the quality of students’ argu-
mentation performance on written tasks (Rezniskaya, et al., 2008). The reli-
ability of this categorization model was analysed by inter-judges agreement
(for further information on the methodological model, please check Espasa,
Guasch, and Alvarez, 2013).
The analysis of the nature of students’ learning enabled us to explain how
students use or process the feedback received. This analysis included students’
interactions, such as messages they exchanged, from the moment they received
the feedback until they submitted their final documents. Students’ interactions
were categorised into three different learning activities, cognitive, affective and
metacognitive.

1. Cognitive refers to the content of the task students carry out, such as debat-
ing (e.g. The educational approach of a study case doesn’t correspond to a

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

collaborative writing online: unravelling the feedback process 23

figure 1.2 Methodological model for the analysis of asynchronous and written interaction in
collaborative writing activity (espasa, guasch, & alvarez, 2013).

socio-constructive approach of learning because …); using external informa-

tion and experiences (e.g. See for example the article by Nicol and Macfarland-
Dick, 2006, where they set up seven principles of how to deliver formative feed-
back to enhance self-regulation of learning); and linking or repeating internal
information (e.g. As we mentioned, results obtained are coherent with …).
2. Affective activities refer to students’ feelings about their tasks, such their
task of giving feedback to peers, quick consensus, responses or opinions
from fellow students, etc. (e.g. Sorry for not being online until now; I agree
with Tom opinion, what do you think Terry?).
3. Metacognitive activities refer to the process of organizing and monitoring
tasks, such as planning, ensuring clarity, and monitoring the writing process
(e.g. In order to answer this assignment I can write down a first draft and from
this, each of you, can complete the section you want. What do you think?).

The analysis of the quality of the assignments written by the students enabled
us to explain their feedback implementation. Texts were analysed based on the
categories proposed by Reznitskaya, et al. (2008) and validated in previous stud-
ies. Their model was created to assess the quality of jointly constructed argu-
ments and it differentiates four modalities; namely, textual (ideas extracted
more or less literally from readings); hypothetical (statements referring to prob-
able actions); abstract (generalisations about cause and/or effect of given per-
formances), and contextualised (statements which reconstruct the situation,

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

24 guasch and espasa

paying attention to context, audience,). From these categories, a rubric was

designed taking into account six values (a+, a, b+, b, c and d) and scored from
1 to 6.
After defining the methodological model, a quasi-experimental study was
carried out to analyse students’ processing of feedback and its implementation.
Students were asked to create a first document (draft) in collaborative groups
(4–5 students). Then each group received feedback on this draft and they
had five days to use the feedback and deliver a final document. The whole
process was registered taking the messages and all the documents delivered
and exchanged by the group. All the texts were analysed with a multi-method
integrated strategy (based on qualitative and quantitative analysis), with the
aim of achieving richer data corpus and its interpretation.
The analysis of the results from this study is still preliminary (see Guasch,
Espasa, Alvarez and Kirschner, 2013). Concerning how feedback is processed,
results show that when students received corrective feedback, there are fewer
cognitive activities than affective and metacognitive activities. Epistemic and
suggestive feedback produces generally the opposite results; it significantly
increases the percentage of students engaging in cognitive activities. When
taking into account all students receiving suggestive feedback, that is, groups
that received suggestive and epistemic and suggestive feedback, there was a
significant increase in the percentage of students that react in a metacognitive
way, especially using planning and monitoring activities.
The results show the importance of providing a combination of epistemic
and suggestive feedback in a collaborative writing task. This type of feedback
that combines questioning, requests for information and suggestions includes
both the verification and the elaboration of feedback components (Kulhavy
and Stock, 1989; Narciss, 2008; Mason and Brunning, 2001). The verification is
provided implicitly by the epistemic feedback, because through a question the
student is told that there is something to be corrected in the text (e.g., Are
you sure that the idea of this author is clear enough?) The elaboration compo-
nent is provided by the suggestive feedback, since it advises and encourages
the student to work on the comments received. This type of feedback includes
advice on how to proceed or progress and invites exploration, expansion or
improvement of an idea. (e.g., ‘I recommend that you read the next article and
clarify the main concept’). This would be the formative quality of the feed-
back.
Concerning the findings about feedback implementation, although there is
no significant relationship between the type of feedback and the quality of
students’ argumentation in a general way, when we look at a specific condi-
tion, results show that students receiving epistemic and suggestive feedback

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

collaborative writing online: unravelling the feedback process 25

obtained significantly higher final marks. Moreover, the results show that there
is no correlation between the quantity (percentage) of learning activities that
students perform when they interact into the groups and the type of feedback
they receive (corrective, epistemic, suggestive or combined) but there is specif-
ically a correlation between the nature of the learning activities and the type
of feedback received. That is, students that receive epistemic or epistemic and
suggestive feedback have discussions with a higher number of cognitive activ-
ities than the students that receive corrective feedback, as the results show the
relevance of the combination of both types.
The findings also prove that epistemic feedback alone, as well as suggestive
feedback alone, is not effective in academic assignment writing. Even sugges-
tive feedback alone can be counterproductive, in the sense that students do
not receive comments about the correctness of the task. Although this is still
work in progress, we can highlight the need to plan activities which will allow
teachers to gather evidence that students implement feedback into their texts,
and design epistemic and suggestive feedback that contribute to students’ dis-
cussion.

9 Conclusions and Further Research

The results presented here provide a better representation of the dialogic pro-
cess of feedback, highlighting its formative function during the writing process
in online environments. We understand that this dialogic feedback fosters pro-
ductive student learning (Yang and Carless, 2012). Consequently, this chapter
provides evidence on the whole process of giving-processing-implementing
feedback in a collaborative context, based on asynchronous and written com-
munication, in order to contribute to better writing and thus better learn-
ing.
Feedback provided by the teacher should be designed to promote discussion
among students because they will then be more able to introduce changes in
their texts. In this regard, feedback should be epistemic and suggestive; based
on questions and proposals on how they can improve learning, in order to gen-
erate cognitive activity and to contribute to producing high quality of student
learning. Therefore, feedback based only on correction should be avoided in
this kind of assignments.
The following excerpt is an excellent example of what students request:

With this type of feedback, we start a dialogue with the teacher and/or
peers about your own work, which is not often found in other courses.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

26 guasch and espasa

This dialogue helps to reduce the number of emails exchanged with

your tutor or peers, as you get the information you need to go on and
progress.
Undergraduate student, Bachelor in Educational Psychology

Whilst we now have more evidence of how feedback should be delivered,

designing and giving epistemic and suggestive feedback increases teachers’
workload. As Nicol (2010) points out:

Although research suggests that significant learning gains are possible

when students receive regular teacher comments on their writing, most
teachers feel overwhelmed by the workload associated with providing
such feedback when student numbers are large.
p. 511

How to reduce teachers’ workload is a longstanding concern and it is the

next issue to tackle by harnessing the potential of technology. Following Yang
and Carless (2012), we agree the need to answer the following fundamental
questions:

Under what circumstances does technology-enhanced assessment serve

as a facilitator for effective feedback and when is the technology as much
a distraction as an asset?
What are workload-efficient means of technology-enhanced feedback?
p. 294

Consequently, the challenge is to provide tools and resources which enable

teachers and peers to deliver sustainable, effective and personalised feedback
that helps learners to become self regulators in the writing process and there-
fore better thinkers.

Acknowledgements

The project reported in this chapter, ‘E-feedback in Collaborative Writing pro-

cesses: development of teaching and learning competences in online environ-
ments’ was supported by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain (2011–
2013) edu2010–1940. More information in: EdOnline Research Group (http://
edon.wordpress.com/)

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

collaborative writing online: unravelling the feedback process 27

References

Allal, L., Chanquoy, L. & Largy, P. (Eds.) (2004). Studies in Writing: Vol. 13. Revision:
Cognitive and Instructional Processes. Dordrecht, nl: Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers.
Alvarez, I.M., Espasa, A. & Guasch, T. (2011). The value of feedback in improving
collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in
Higher Education, 37(4), 387–400. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.510182
Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based
writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review
of educational research, 74(1), 29–58. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001029
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale,
nj: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carless, D., Salter, D. Yang, M. & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback prac-
tices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. doi: 10.1080/03075071003642449
Castelló, M. (Ed.), Iñesta, A., Miras, M., Solé, I., Teberosky, A., & Zanotto, M. (2007).
Escribir y comunicarse en contextos científicos y académicos. Conocimientos y estrate-
gias [Writing and communicating in scientific and academic contexts. Knowledge and
Strategies]. Barcelona: Graó.
Castelló, M., Iñesta, A., & Monereo, C. (2009). Towards self-regulated academic writ-
ing: an exploratory study with graduate students in a situated learning environ-
ment. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(3), 1107–1130. http://
www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/19/english/Art_19_367
.pdf
Cerratto, T. (2003). Collaborating with writing tools. An instrumental perspective on
the problem of computer-supported collaborative activities. Interacting with Com-
puters, 15(6), 737–757. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2003.09.003
Coffin, C., Curry, M.J., Goodman, S., Hewing, A., Lillis, T.M., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching
academic writing. A toolkit for Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Dysthe, O. (June, 2001). “The mutual challenge of writing research and the teaching of
writing”. eataw: The European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing&
ewca: The European Writing Centre Association. University of Groningen, Neder-
land. 18-June-2001. Keynote Address.
Dysthe, O., Lillejord, S., Vines, A., & Wasson, B. (2010). Productive E-feedback in higher
education—Some critical issues. In. S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö
(Eds.). Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 243–259).
Oxford, uk: Pergamon Press.
Espasa, A., & Meneses, J. (2010). Analysing feedback processes in an online teaching
and learning environment: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 59(3), 277–292.
doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9247-4

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

28 guasch and espasa

Espasa, A., Guasch, T., & Alvarez, I.M. (2013). Analysis of feedback processes in online
group interaction: a methodological model. Digital Education Review, 23, 59–73.
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In G. Rijlaarsdam
(Series Ed.) & M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Vol. Eds.), Knowing what to write. Concep-
tual process in text production. Studies in Writing vol. 4. (pp. 139–160). Amsterdam:
University Press.
Gikandi, J.W., Morrowa, D., & Davis, N.E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher
education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57, 2333–2351. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., & Alvarez, I.M. (2010). Formative e-feedback in collaborative
writing assignments: the effect of the process and time. eLC Research Paper Series, 1,
49–59.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I.M., & Kirschner, P.A. (2013). Effects of Teacher and Peer
Feedback on Collaborative Writing in an Online Learning Environment. Distance
education, 34(3), 324–338. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.835772
Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using computer conferences as a group
learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 119–130.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Re-
search, 77 (1), 81–112. doi: 10.1080/1049482930030202
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R.E. Mayer, & P. Alexander
(Eds.). Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). NewYork:
Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group.
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvingsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and
feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 21–27. doi:
10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks. Creating
and sustaining distributed learning communities. In A.K. Renninger & W. Shumar
(Eds.), Building learning communities. Learning and change in cyberspace (159–190).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.), Col-
laborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers, pp. 115–
136. New York: Springer.
Kulhavy, R., & W. Stock. 1989. Feedback in written instruction: The place of response
certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4) 279–308. doi: 10.1007/BF01320096
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Pihlajamäki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environ-
ment enhance essay-writing processes? British Journal of Educational Technology,
34(1), 17–30. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.d01-3
Lonka, K. (2003). Helping Doctoral Students To Finish Their Theses. In G. Rijlaarsdam
(Series Ed.) & L. Björk, G. Bräuer, L. Rienecker, G. Ruhmann, & P. Stray Jørgensen,
(Vol. Eds.) Studies in Writing: Vol. 12, Teaching Academic Writing in European Higher
Education. (pp. 113–131). Dordrecht, nl: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

collaborative writing online: unravelling the feedback process 29

Mason, J., & Brunning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction:

what the research tell us. Centre of Instructional Innovation, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln. Retrieved April 05, 2012 from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning
.html
Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J.M. Spector,
M.D. Merrill, J. Van Merriënboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Mawah, nj:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nelson, M. & Schunn, C. (2008). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer
feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401. doi 10.1007/
s11251-008-9053-x
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in
mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517.
doi: 10.1080/02602931003786559
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learn-
ing: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Edu-
cation, 31(2) 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090
Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowl-
edge construction in cscl environments. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1256–1265.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.008
Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback—focussing attention on engage-
ment. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.483513
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-J., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. (2008). Measuring argumentative
reasoning: What’s behind the numbers? Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2),
219–224. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001
Shute, V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1),
153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795
Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (Eds) (2001). Studies in Writing: Vol. 7. Writing as
a Learning Tool: Integrating theory and practice. Dordrecth, nl: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Veldhuis-Diermanse, A.E. (2002). CSCLearning? Participation, learning activities and
knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning in higher
education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University, The Nether-
lands.
Veldhuis-Diermanse, A.E., Biemans, H.J.A., Mulder, M., & Mahdizadeha, H. (2006).
Analysing Learning Processes and Quality of Knowledge Construction in Networked
Learning. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 12(1), 41–57. doi: 10
.1080/13892240600740894
Vrasidas, Ch., & McIsaac, M.C. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online
course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36. doi: 10.1080/
08923649909527033

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

30 guasch and espasa

Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge

construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Educa-
tion, 46, 71–95. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2012). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic
feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. doi: 10.1080/
13562517.2012.719154

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV