1.
Looking Behind The Curtain:
Using Technology To
Facilitate & Assess Group
Essay Writing in EAP
Peter Levrai and Averil Bolster
ESP SIG / ZHAW Conference
June 2018

2.
Overview
● Collaboration, as a 21st Century Skill, is increasingly prevalent in
Higher Education (Scotland, 2014).
● We have a shared interest in collaborative writing & collaborative
assessments in English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Particularly
● Today’s talk is focused on the location of different e-tools in the
collaborative writing process.
Teacher attitude
to, and facilitation
of, collaboration
Assessment of
collaboration

3.
Overview
● The framework to support
collaboration is taken from
● A blended EGAP course
available for free download from
https://developeap.weebly.com/
● The framework is explained in a
forthcoming article in
Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education.

4.
Collaborative writing
● Grounded in Sociocultural theory (SCT).
● Learning takes place when working with others.
‘Collaborative writing describes an activity
where there is a shared and negotiated
decision making process and a shared
responsibility for the production of a single
text’
Storch, 2013, p. 3

5.
Collaborative writing
Some Benefits
• Better quality essays
(Wigglesworth & Storch,
2009; Shehadeh, 2011)
• Better task fulfilment,
grammatical accuracy and
complexity (Storch, 2005;
Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011)
• Better grades (Mulligan &
Garofalo, 2011; Berry, 2007)
• Added benefits e.g.
teamwork & critical thinking
(Shin, 2015)
Some Drawbacks
• Assessment is complex
(Strijbos, 2016; Strauss & U,
2007; Berry, 2007)
• ‘Social loafing’ and
‘freeloading’ a concern
(Strijbos, 2016)
• Can be resisted by students
and teachers (Strauss,
2001)
• Collaboration can be an
opaque process (Gammie &
Matson, 2007; Johnston &
Miles, 2010)

6.
Addressing Drawbacks with Technology
● Talib & Cheung’s (2017) 10-year review found, ‘technology has
supported collaborative writing tasks’
● Mitigates some of the drawbacks e.g. free-loading, assessment
(Levrai & Bolster, in press)
● Computer supported collaborative communication (CSCC)
allows for greater insight into the collaboration process, making
previously invisible interactions visible (Elola & Oskoz, 2017;
Alghasab & Handley, 2017; Williams, 2017)

7.
Process writing in EAP
● The essay remains an important assignment type in EAP.
● Drafting, and writing, is not linear.
“Students are expected to improve writing projects through
multiple drafts, based on teacher, peer, or automated
feedback.” Godwin-Jones (2018, p. 2)
“… with the support of digital technologies and computers,
students tend to integrate the process of drafting and revising in
a more recursive way, and revision could happen at any
stage of the writing process, rather than after a draft is
produced.’ Zheng and Warschauer (2017, p. 63)

8.
Stages of essay writing
Pre-writing
stage
• Question
Analysis
• Reading &
Researching
• Brainstorming
• Discussing
Early Drafting
Stage
• Planning
• Outlining
• Writing
• Editing
• Rewriting
Late Drafting
Stage
• Revising
• Proofreading

9.
Using E-tools - Recommendations
First, learn how to use the tools yourself.
Encourage students to create a study-
specific Google account to access all tools.
Factor in time to demonstrate tool use and
provide opportunities for practice.
Beneficial if tools are agreed across
courses / institutionally.

10.
Different tools for different stages
Pre-writing stage
• Question
Analysis
• Reading &
Researching
• Brainstorming
• Discussing
Early Drafting
Stage
• Planning
• Outlining
• Writing
• First draft
• Editing
• Rewriting
Late Drafting
Stage
• Revising
• Proofreading
• Moodle
• Claned
• Stormboard
• Google Docs
• MS Word
• Marking Mate
(essay checker)

11.
Tools – Pre-writing Stage
Tools that raise content knowledge and facilitate discussion.
 Upload inputs (multi-modal)
 Users can comment and question
directly in text
 Users can add their own content
https://claned.com/
https://moodlecloud.com/
 Upload inputs (multi-modal)
 Quizzes for comprehension / close
reading
 Forums for discussion and peer feedback

12.
Evaluation - Pre-writing Stage
• Increase students exposure to content texts
• Provides opportunity for critical engagement with texts
• Facilitate online discussion to either extend or prepare
for classroom discussion
• Allows the teacher to see individual student
engagement with ideas and texts
Benefits
• Student engagement can be superficial
• Potential for student overload
Drawbacks

13.
Tools – Early Drafting Stage
To curate sources, organise ideas and start writing.
https://stormboard.com/
https://docs.google.com/
 Students can curate multi-modal sources
 Allows comments & chat features on
each post
 Students can work synchronously or
asynchronously
 Teacher can be a member of each group
 Chatting and document history available

14.
Evaluation - Early Drafting Stage
• Highly interactive
• Teacher is a member of each group
• Supports synchronous/asynchronous
collaboration
Benefits
• Tracking can be inconsistent
• Chat history lost in Google docs
• Learning curve (Stormboard)
Drawbacks

15.
Tools – Late Drafting Stage
To polish the essay and prepare for submission
http://writingtools.xjtlu.edu.cn:
8080/mm/markingmate.html
 Format essay for submission
 Grammar & spelling support
 Text checker designed for academic
writing

16.
Evaluation - Late Drafting Stage
• Wide selection of tools available
• Helps with proofing and mechanics
Benefits
• Students need to engage each tool
critically
Drawbacks

17.
Using Tools for Assessment
● The teacher can see more than ever before.
● There is more to look at than ever before.
● Can assess process and product.
● Need grading criteria i.e. in a discussion forum are you looking for
● Be realistic about what you can achieve.
number
of posts?
type of
post?
quality of
posts?

18.
General Caveats
● Multiple tools present multiple opportunities for problems.
● Students need support to use each tool effectively.
● Supporting students digital literacy is as important as supporting
their language development.
● Students might use other tools (e.g. Whatsapp/WeChat group) the
teacher is not privy to.
● Collaboration doesn’t lessen teacher workload but spreads it
across semester.

19.
Conclusions
One size doesn’t fit all - different tools are
suitable for different purposes.
Teachers and students need time to become
competent with the tools.
CSCC facilitates collaborative essay
assignments and mitigates some of the potential
drawbacks of student collaboration.

20.
Bibliography
Alghasab, M. & Handley, Z. (2017). Capturing (non-)collaboration in wiki-mediated collaborative writing activities:
the need to examine discussion posts and editing acts in tandem. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
30(7), 664-691.
Berry, E. (2007). Group work and assessment—benefit or burden?. The Law Teacher, 41(1), 19-36.
Bolster, A. & Levrai, P. (2017). A Slow (R)Evolution: Developing a Sustainable EGAP Course. The European
Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 6 (1): 147-165.
Bolster, A. & Levrai, P. (2017). Undergraduate collaborative essays: constructive not a cop-out. IATEFL Conference
2016 Selections.
Elola, I. & Oskoz, A. (2017) Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and
writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52-60.
Gammie, E. & Matson, M. (2007) Group Assessment at Final Degree Level: An Evaluation. Accounting Education:
An International Journal, 16(2), 185-206.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1-
15.
Johnston, L. & Miles, L. (2010). Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, (6), 751-768.
Levrai, P. & Bolster, A. (in press) A framework to support group essay writing in English for Academic Purposes: a
case study from an English-medium instruction context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.
Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student assessment. The
Language Teacher, 35(3), 5-10.

21.
Bibliography (cont.)
Scotland, J. 2014. “How the experience of assessed collaborative writing impacts on undergraduate students’
perceptions of assessed group work.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41 (1): 15-34.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 20(4), 286-305.
Shin, M. (2015). Collaborative learning. English Teaching Professional, 97, 11-13.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Strijbos, J. (2016). Assessment of Collaborative Learning. In G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of
Social and Human Conditions in Assessment (pp. 302-318).
Strauss, P. (2001). I'd rather vomit up a live hedgehog‘ - L2 students and group assessment in mainstream
university programs. Prospect-Adelaide-, 16(2), 55-66.
Strauss, P., & U, A. (2007). Group assessments: dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms. High
Education Research & Development, 26(2), 147-161.
Talib, T. & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Collaborative Writing in Classroom Instruction: A Synthesis of Recent Research.
The English Teacher, 46(2), 3-57.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and
accuracy. Language Testing 26.3: 445-466.
Williams, P. (2017) Assessing collaborative learning: big data, analytics and university futures, Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 978-989.
Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated
communication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61-67.

22.
Averil Bolster: averilbolster@gmail.com
Peter Levrai: peterlevrai@gmail.com
Course available: https://developeap.weebly.com/
Presentation PPT: https://www.slideshare.net/peterlevrai