1. Teresa Guasch
Department of Psychology and Education
Open University of Catalonia, UOC (Barcelona)
EdOnline Research Group http://edon.wordpress.com/
Presentation at the Master of Science in Educational Sciencies
Universiteit Gent, April 26th, 2013
Project: “E-feedback in Collaborative Writing processes:
Development of teaching and learning competencies in online environments (Feed2learn).
Ministry of Research and Innovation. Spain. (2011-2013). EDU2010-19407
Colaborative writing and e-feedback
in an online learning environment

2. Outline
1. Previous knowledge : communication in online
environments, difficulties of writing in this context, etc.
2. Theoretical focus
1. Problem
2. Context. Online learning environment –virtual class…
1. Research questions of the project
2. Some results
3. Teaching implications

3. • Wiki
•Google docs
• Essays
• Write
together

4. Online learning
environment
Theoretical focus

5. Collaborative writing in online
environments
• Writing is a complex task
• Epistemic function of writing
• Academic writing is a transversal
competence in Higher Education (it
must be taught and assessed)
• Collaborative writing: a challenge for
the student
• Writing in an online environment is
also an evidence to assess student
learning.

6. Communication in online
environments
Five attributes distinguish communication
in online educational environments and
provide a conceptual framework to guide
design and implementation of online
courses:
• many-to-many (group communication),
• any place (place-independence),
• any time (asynchronicity, time-
independence),
• text-based (enhanced by multiple media), and
• computer-mediated messaging (i.e. building
educational supports…)
Harasim, 2000 (p.49)

7. Online learning
environment

8. Online learning
environment

9. Online learning
environment

10. Online learning
environment

11. Online learning
environment

12. Online learning
environment

13. Limitations:
• Few studies on how ICT promotes the
improvement of academic collaborative
writing
• Not clear evidence about feedback’
characteristics to contribute to learning in a
writing situation in an online learning
environment.

14. Project Research Questions:

15. Context
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
www.uoc.edu (Barcelona)
• More than 50.000 students
• Fully online (virtual campus)
• Based on written &
asynchronous communication

16. Context: Online learning
environment
• Relevance of:
– Teacher’s role
– Planning
– Communication competences

17. I) Exploratory study
2009-2010/ Student regulation in the process of writing an
essay in an online learning environment.
•Main research question:
What effect does feedback have on the revision of a text on a
collaborative writing task in a virtual environment?
• Main results:
When teacher feedback includes suggestions and questions,
instead of direct corrections, the students respond more
constructively, they discuss the content they are working with, and,
as a result, they effect significant changes in the arguments of the
text they are revising.
Reference:
Alvarez, I., Espasa, A. & Guasch, T. (2011). The value of feedback in improving collaborative
writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education,
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2010.531026

18. II) Study 1. Effect of feedback on writing
performance
 Which kind of feedback and peer feedback
contributes to improve students’ writing
performance in a VLE?
 Main Results:
– Epistemic feedback requiring critical explanations and
clarifications best promotes learning.
– A combination of teacher and peer feedback best
improves writing performance.
Reference:
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I. & Kirschner, P. (sumitted). Effects of Teacher and Peer Feedback on
Collaborative Writing in an Online Learning Environment.

19. Examples of Epistemic feedback
• Student comment:
– “Could you deep into this idea of “discourse approach” following Gee?”
• Student comment in the References list:
– “Do you think that their ideas (referring to Bruner) are present in your
text? Where?”
• Instructor comment:
– “What do you think about giving support to this argument with the
authors that relate scientific and naive knowledge?”
• Other examples
– “How did you reach at this statement? Human behaviour is creative?”
– “Can you detail to which rules are you referring?”

20. Examples of Epistemic feedback
“What do you think
about giving support to
this argument with the
authors that relate
scientific and naive
knowledge?”
Can you explain
why do you talk
here about written
discourse?

21. III) Study 2. Effect of feedback on the
writing process
 How do students utilize teacher’s feedback and peer feedback? Which kind of changes do
they make into their texts considering teacher’s feedback and peer feedback?
 Do we see differences in students discussions depending on the type of feedback
received?
Hypothesis
 Students that receive epistemic teacher feedback + peer feedback will have discussions
with a higher number of cognitive activities than the groups that receive corrective or
suggestive feedback.
 The cognitive activities carried out during the discussions should contribute to a high
quality revision of the texts and influence on students’ learning process.
Reference:
Guasch, T.; Espasa, A., Álvarez, I., & Kirschner, P.A. How do students utilize teacher’s feedback and peer feedback in
online learning environments. SIG Writing. EARLI (European Association Research on Learning and Instruction). Porto,
Julio 2012.

22. Design
Pre-test
3 weeks
Intervention
4 weeks
Post-test 1 Post-test 2
4 weeks
Assessment:
-Previous
knowledge
-Writing
conceptions
-Feedback
conceptions
Individual essay
4 types of FB *
instructor or/and
peers
FB A: Corrective
FB B: Epistemic
FB C: Suggestive
FB D: Epistemic +
Suggestive
Collaborative essay
Assessment:
Test:
- Conceptual
Knowledge
-Application
Knowledge
Assessment:
-New writing
task.
Individual essay
(transference)

23. Measures
• Feedback implementation
• Writing process: students' discussion and changes on
texts.
• Writing performance (Reznitskaya et al., 2008).
– textual (ideas extracted more or less literally from previous readings);
– hypothetical (statements referring to probable actions);
– abstract (generalisations about cause and/or effect of given
performances),
– contextualised (statement which reconstructs the situation, paying
attention to context, audience, etc).

24. Analysis
 Content analysis of the essays
 Content analysis of students’ interaction
 16 groups
 4-5 students per group
 5 days discussion: students worked on the feedback
received on the first draft.
Mean= 22 e-mails per group (min. 17, max. 33).
Groups were distributed in 8 conditions (type of
feedback*feedback giver): corrective feedback, epistemic
feedback, suggestive feedback and combined feedback
(epistemic+suggestive)

25. A review of the analysis of written and
asynchronous group interaction
13 studies with different proposals
+ De Wever et al., (2006) (review of 15 instruments)
– Diversity of frameworks; different dimensions of analysis (Some do
not take into account social/affective cues); different units of analysis.
– Limitation of studies focused on the analysis of interaction (= process
of co-construction of knowledge)
– High number of the instruments are focused on discussions
(structured debates) not in students’ group interaction.
– Scarce examples showing the categorisation process (application of
the model). Descriptive studies.

26. Model for the analysis of written
and asynchronous group interaction

27. Students’ group interaction

28. Students’ participation
(Henri, 1992; Weinbenger & Fischer, 2006)

29. Nature of students’ learning
(Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2002; Veldhuis-Diermanse et al., 2006)
Dimensions
Cognitive
learning
activities
- Debating
- Using external information
and experiences
- Linking or repeating internal
information
CDAF: agreeemnet or desagreement with the
opinion or idea contributed by another
student or author.
CDPF: a problem or idea is presented +
illustration or argumentation
CDPNF: a problem or idea is presented -
illustration or argumentation
CREE: Referring to earlier experiences
Affective
activities
- Affective General
- Asking for feedback of a fellow
- Quick consensus…
Metacognitive
activities
- Planning
- Preserving clarity
- Monitoring
MPA: Presenting an approach to carry out
the task
MPE: Explaining the approach already
adopted
MAA: Asking for an approach to carry out the
task
MM: Monitoring the original planning, aim,
or time schedule

30. Example: Corrective Peer feedback
Students discussion
1 S_4 MPE+ MPA MM
2 S_1 MPE+ MM
3 S_5 MAA AQ
4 S_2 AG AQ
5 S_4 AQ+ MPE
6 S_5 AG
7 S_2 AG AQ
8 S_1 AQ
9 S_3 AQ
10 S_2 AQ
11 S_4 MM+ AQ
12 S_2 AQ
13 S_1 AQ
14 S_5 AQ AG
15 S_4 MM
16 S_3 AQ
- No discussion about
the content (no
cognitive learning
activities)
- Discussion based first
on planing and
monitoring, and
basically on Quick
consensus.
Metacognitive activities
MPE: Explaining the approach already adopted
MPA: Presenting an approach to carry out the task
MAA: Asking for an approach to carry out the task
MM: Monitoring the original planning, aim, or time schedule
Affective activities
AG: Affective general
AQ: Quick Consensus

31. Example: Suggestive Peer feedback
Metacognitive activities
MPE: Explaining the approach already adopted
MPA: Presenting an approach to carry out the task
MAA: Asking for an approach to carry out the task
MM: Monitoring the original planning, aim, or time schedule
Group 9
Number of
emails
Student 1 5
Student 2 5
Student 3 7
Student 4 6
Student 5 4
T 27
Students discussion
1 S_3 AG MPA MM
2 S_3 MPE+
3 S_2 MPE+
4 S_5 MPE+ AQ
5 S_1 AQ MM
6 S_4 MM AQ
7 S_4 MPE+ CDAF CDAF CREE MPE CDPF
8 S_3 MPE+ CDPNF MM MM
9 S_1 MM+
10 S_1 AG CDPNF
11 S_3 MM
12 S_3 MPE+ MM
13 S_2 MPE+
14 S_3 MM
15 S_3 MM MM MM AG
16 S_5 MM+ MPE MM
17 S_1 AQ MM
18 S_4 MPE+ AQ
19 S_5 AQ
20 S_2 MM+ MPE
21 S_2 MM+ MM
22 S_5 AQ MM
23 S_1 AQ
24 S_4 AQ
25 S_4 AQ+
26 S_4 MM AG
Cognitive activities
CDAF: agreeemnet or
desagreement with the
opinion or idea contributed
by another student or author.
CDPF: a problem or idea is
presented + illustration or
argumentation
CDPNF: a problem or idea is
presented - illustration or
argumentation
CREE: Referring to earlier
experiences
Affective activities
AG: Affective general
AQ: Quick Consensus

32. Next steps
• To identify if there are differences in students’
discussions
• To identify if there are differences in students’
writing performance
• To relate the nature of students’ learning with
the quality of students’ knowledge
contruction (¿?)

33. Teaching and learning implications
• Design a teaching strategy together with a peer
• Choose the tool that best meets your purpose
• Familiarize yourself with the tool and the strategy
• Plan/design the implementation of the strategy
• Do not "over plan" the learning situation
• Assess the efficacy of the process followed, such as confirming through
assessment and explanatory feedback.
The selection of the tool to guarantee the implementation is important, but
the KEY is to keep this strategy in mind –focused on formative feedback
that promotes students discussion- when planning a collaborative writing
activity in an environment based on asynchronous written communication.

34. References
Alvarez, I., Espasa, A. & Guasch, T. (2011). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online
learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2010.531026
De Laat, M. & Lall, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a
networked learning community. Instructional Science, 31, 7–39.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A. & Kirschner, P.A. (In press). E-feedback focused on students’ discussion to guide collaborative writing in
online learning environments. In K. E. Pytash, R.E. Ferdi, & T. Rasinski (Ed). Preparing teachers to teach writing using
technology. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A.R. Kaye, ed., Collaborative Learning Through Computer
Conferencing: The Najaden Papers, pp. 115–136. New York: Springer.
Lillejord, S. & Dysthe, O. (2008). Productive Learning Practice - A Theoretical Discussion. Journal of Education and Work.
ISSN 1363-9080. 21(1), s 75- 89 . doi: 10.1080/13639080801957154
Narciss, S. & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. A H. M. Niegemann, R.
Brünken & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning (pp. 181-195). Münster: Waxmann.
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
Veldhuis-Diermanse, A.E. (2002). CSCLearning? Participation, learning activities and knowledge construction in computer-
supported collaborative learning in higher education (Summary PhD dissertation) (2002).
Veldhuis-Diermanse, A. E. , Biemans, H. J. A. , Mulder, M. and Mahdizadeh, H.(2006) 'Analysing Learning Processes and Quality of
Knowledge Construction in Networked Learning', The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 12: 1, 41 — 57
Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported
collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online
asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers & Education, 46, 6-28.

35. Teresa Guasch
Department of Psychology and Education
Open University of Catalonia, UOC (Barcelona)
tguaschp@uoc.edu
EdOnline Research Group http://edon.wordpress.com/
Presentation at the Master of Science in Educational Sciencies
Universiteit Gent, April 26th, 2013
Project: “E-feedback in Collaborative Writing processes:
Development of teaching and learning competencies in online environments (Feed2learn).
Colaborative writing and e-feedback
in an online learning environment