Judith S. Olson
Dakuo Wang
Gary M. Olson
Jingwen Zhang
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Today's commercially available word processors allow people to write collaboratively in the cloud, both in the familiar asynchronous mode and now in synchronous mode as well. This opens up new ways of working together. We examined the data traces of collaborative writing behavior in student teams’ use of Google Docs to discover how they are writing together now. We found that student teams write both synchronously and asynchronously, take fluid roles in the writing and editing of the documents, and show a variety of styles of collaborative writing, including writing from scratch, beginning with an outline, pasting in a related example as a template to organize their own writing, and three more. We also found that the document serves as a place where they share a number of things not included in the final document, including links or references to related materials, the assignment requirements from the instructor, and informal discussions to coordinate the collaboration or to structure the document. We computed a number of measures to depict a group's collaboration behavior and asked external graders to score these documents for quality. We found that the documents that included balanced participation and/or exhibited leadership were judged higher in quality, as were those that were longer. We then suggested system design implications and behavioral guidelines to support people writing together better, and concluded the paper with future research directions.
- P. André, R. E. Kraut, and A. Kittur. 2014. Effects of simultaneous and sequential work structures on distributed collaborative interdependent tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). 139--148. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. Arslan and A. ahin-Kizil. 2010. How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning 23, 3, 183--197.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. B. Baecker, D. Nastos, I. R. Posner, and K. L. Mawby. 1993. The user-centered iterative design of collaborative writing software. In Proceedings of INTERACT’93 and CHI’93. 399--405. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. E. Beck. 1993. A survey of experiences of collaborative writing. In Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, S. Easterbrook (Ed.). Springer, London, 87--112.Google Scholar
- M. S. Bernstein, G. Little, R. C. Miller, B. Hartmann, M. S. Ackerman, D. R. Karger, D. Crowell, and K. Panovich. 2016. Soylent: A word processor with a crowd inside. Communications of the ACM 58, 8, 85--94. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Birnholtz and S. Ibara. 2012. Tracking changes in collaborative writing: Edits, visibility and group maintenance. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’12). 809--818. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Birnholtz, S. B. Steinhardt, and A. Pavese. 2013. Write here, write now: An experimental study of group maintenance in collaborative writing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13). 961--970. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Blau and A. Caspi. 2009. What type of collaboration helps? psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration using Google Docs. In Proceedings of the Chais Conference on Instructional Technologies Research. 48--55.Google Scholar
- T. Boellstorff, B. Nardi, C. Pearce, and T. L. Taylor. 2013. Words with friends: Writing collaboratively online. Interactions 20, 5, 58--61. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Brodahl, S. Hadjerrouit, and N. K. Hansen. 2011. Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies: Education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education 10, 73--103.Google Scholar
- S. K. Card and A. Jr. Henderson. 1987. A multiple, virtual-workspace interface to support user task switching. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’87). 53--59. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Chemers. 1997. An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. ISBN 978-0-8058-2679-1Google Scholar
- R. Cheung and D. Vogel. 2013. Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers and Education 63, 160--175. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. K. W. Chu and D. M. Kennedy. 2011. Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge. Online Information Review 35, 4, 581--597.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Cockburn and L. Williams. 2000. The costs and benefits of pair programming. Extreme Programming Examined, 223--247. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Diehl and W. Stroebe. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 3, 497--509.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. S. Ede and A. A. Lunsford. 1990. Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. SIU Press.Google Scholar
- C. A. Ellis and S. J. Gibbs. 1989. Concurrency control in groupware systems. In Proceedings of the 1989 SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 399--407. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Field. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage publications.Google Scholar
- R. S. Fish, R. E. Kraut, M. D. P. Leland, and M. Cohen. 1988. Quilt: A collaborative tool for cooperative writing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Office Information Systems, 30--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Glushko. 2015. Collaborative authoring, evolution, and personalization for a “Transdisciplinary” textbook. Companion to the Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, 10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Haake and B. Wilson. 1992. Supporting collaborative writing of hyperdocuments in SEPIA. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’92), 138--146. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. A. Harrison and K. J. Klein. 2007. What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review 32, 4, 1199--1228.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. F. Hayes and K. Krippendorff. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 1, 77--89.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. A. Henderson Jr. and S. K. Card. 1986. Rooms: The use of multiple virtual workspaces to reduce space contention in a window-based graphical user interface. ACM Transactions on Graphics 5, 3, 211--243. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. C. Hill, J. D. Hollan, D. Wroblewski, and T. McCandless. 1992. Edit wear and read wear. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’92). 3--9. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Kim and K. S. Eklundh. 2001. Reviewing practices in collaborative writing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 10, 247--259. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kittur, B. Suh, B. A. Pendleton, and E. H. Chi. 2007. He says, she says: Conflict and coordination in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’07). 453--462. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. B. Lowry, A. Curtis, and M. R. Lowry. 2004. Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication 41, 1, 66--99.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Mak and D. Coniam. 2008. Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary students in Hong Kong. System 36, 3, 437--455.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Mark, V. Gonzalez, and J. Harris. 2005. No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05). 113--120. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Massey, T. Lennig, and S. Whittaker. 2014. Cloudy forecast: An exploration of the factors underlying shared repository use. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2461--2470. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. McGuffin and G. M. Olson. 1992. ShrEdit: A shared electronic workspace. CSMIL Technical Report 45. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
- A. Michailidis and R. Rada. 1996. Groupware and Authoring. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
- M. Nebeling, A. To, A. Guo, A. A. de Freitas, J. Teevan, S. P. Dow, and J. P. Bigham. 2016. WearWrite: Crowd-assisted writing from smartwatches. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). 3834--3846. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. M. Neuwirth, D. S. Kaufer, R. Chandhok, and J. H. Morris. 1990. Issues in the design of computer support for co-authoring and commenting. In Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’90). 183--195. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. M. Neuwirth, D. S. Kaufer, R. Chandhok, and J. H. Morris. 2001. Computer support for distributed collaborative writing: A coordination science perspective. In Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology, G. M. Olson, T. W. Malone, and J. B. Smith (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 535--557.Google Scholar
- S. Noël and J.-M. Robert. 2003. How the web is used to support collaborative writing. Behaviour and Information Technology 22, 4(2003), 245--262.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Noel and J.-M. Robert. 2004. Empirical study on collaborative writing: What do co-authors do, use, and like? Computer Supported Cooperative Work 13, 63--89. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Olenewa, G. M. Olson, J. S. Olson, and D. M. Russell. (in press). Now that we can write simultaneously, how do we use that to our advantage? Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
- J. S. Olson, G. M. Olson, M. Storrosten, and M. Carter. 1993. Groupwork close up: A comparison of the group design process with and without a simple group editor. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 11, 4, 321--348. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. R. Posner and R. M. Baecker. 1992. How people write together. In Proceedings of the 25th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS’92). 127--138.Google Scholar
- S. W. Raudenbush and A. S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 1, Sage.Google Scholar
- A. Sarma, A. Van der Hoek, and D. Redmiles. 2010. The coordination pyramid: A perspective on the state of the art in coordination technology. IEEE Computer. 43, 6, 61--67. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Sharples (Ed.): 1993. Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. Springer-Verlag, London.Google Scholar
- C. Strobl. 2014. Affordances of Web 2.0 technologies for collaborative advanced writing in a foreign language. Calico Journal 31, 1, 1--18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Sun, D. Lambert, M. Uchida, and N. Remy. 2014. Collaboration in the cloud at Google. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Web Science. 239--240. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. G. Tammaro, J. N. Mosier, N. C. Goodwin, and G. Spitz. 1997. Collaborative writing is hard to support: A field study of collaborative writing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 6, 19--51. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. W. Taylor. and D. S. Hunsinger. 2011. A study of student use of cloud computing applications. Journal of Information Technology Management 22, 3, 36--50.Google Scholar
- F. B. Viégas, M. Wattenberg, and K. Dave. 2004. Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’04). 575--582. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Voida, J. S. Olson, and G. M. Olson. 2013. Turbulence in the clouds: Challenges of cloud based information work. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13). 2273--2282. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Wang, J. S. Olson, J. Zhang, T. Nguyen, G. M. Olson. 2015. DocuViz: Visualizing collaborative writing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15). 1865--1874. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Whittaker, V. Bellotti, and J. Cwizdka. 2007. Everything through email. Personal information management, 167--189.Google Scholar
- A. W. Woolley, C. F. Chabris, A. Pentland, N. Hasmi, and T. W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of groups. Science 330, 686--688.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Wuchty, B. F. Jones, and B. Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036--1039.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Yim, D. Wang, J. S. Olson, V. Vu, and M. Warschauer. 2017. Synchronous writing in the classroom: Undergraduates’ collaborative practices and their impact on text quality, quantity, and style. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’17). Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Yim, M. Warschauer, B. Zheng, and J. F. Lawrence. 2014. Cloud‐based collaborative writing and the common core standards. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 58, 3, 243--254.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Zhou, E. Simpson, and D. P. Domizi. 2012. Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 24, 3, 359--375.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- How People Write Together Now: Beginning the Investigation with Advanced Undergraduates in a Project Course
Recommendations
Collaborative Writing Across Multiple Artifact Ecologies
CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsResearch focusing on how collaborative writing takes place across multiple applications and devices and over longer projects is sparse. We respond to this gap by presenting the results of a qualitative study of longer-term academic writing projects, ...
DocuViz: Visualizing Collaborative Writing
CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsCollaborative writing is on the increase. In order to write well together, authors often need to be aware of who has done what recently. We offer a new tool, DocuViz, that displays the entire revision history of Google Docs, showing more than the one-...
Why Users Do Not Want to Write Together When They Are Writing Together: Users' Rationales for Today's Collaborative Writing Practices
This study builds upon the 30-years HCI research of collaborative writing and focuses on users' experience of writing together in today's context. By interviewing 30 participants from both academia and industry, the paper examines how people write ...
Comments