Method Essay

NTNU
Master didactics foreign languages
EDU3102

Morten Oddvik
Spring 2010
___________________

Content

Method Essay......................................................................................................................... 0  
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1  
Terminology and Background............................................................................................... 3  
Pilot experiment .................................................................................................................. 4  
Selection............................................................................................................................. 6  
Analysis: Pilot..................................................................................................................... 6  
Group Interview ................................................................................................................. 6  
Theories ........................................................................................................................... 10  
My position....................................................................................................................... 12  
Justification of method choice............................................................................................. 13  
Research questions ............................................................................................................ 14  
Reliability and validity....................................................................................................... 14  
Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 15  
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

Introduction

Collaborative writing is not a new phenomenenon, but with the development of new digital tools
teachers are presented with new opportunities and challenges. I am interested in studying joint text
creation and the development of English asa Second Language (ESL). My hypothesis is that given
positive interdependency and cooperation in groups, student collaboration in cooperative text
production ameliorates participants' own ESL learning. In Assessing writing (2008) Sarah Cushing
Weigle writes, on the effects of technology on writing, that "technology is changing the way we
think about writing and how we do it" (Weigle 2008:231). In my research and subsequent master's
thesis, I want to study the results of collaborative ESL learning when learners use Computer
Supported Cooperative Work1, or groupware, in this case Google Documents.2 For this essay I
conducted a pilot, which consisted of a group task involving three informants. I will discuss the
methods used in my pilot, which consisted of group interviews. I will also briefly discuss text
analysis as a tentative method in relation to the pilot. Although this discussion will focus on the
pilot, it does however act as a preliminary exercise for the my master's thesis. The topics of
collaborative writing and interdependency are massive, and therefore I deem it essential to examine
research methods by using a pilot first. The main objective of this paper is to discuss the methods I
intend to use in my research study, and assess their appropriateness in producing valid and reliable
data for my analysis work. My methods of interview and text analysis are both qualitative methods,
and "Denzin & Lincoln (2005a:1910)3 highlight that the term qualitative means to emphasize the
processes and meaning that can not be measured in quantity or frequency" (Thaagard 2009:17).4
The main purpose of my master's thesis is to examine the correlation between two areas in ESL
learning, quality of language production and interdependence in group work. However, in this
essay I will be focusing on assessing the validity and reliability of methods used in a preliminary
pilot experiment. By doing this of hope to be able to assess the appropriateness of the research
design as well as the methods used in producing data pertained to my research question. The two
areas of quality of language production and interdependence are core areas in both my pilot
experiment and my maste's thesis. The two areas of language use and interdependence are both

1
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) was a term first coined by Irene Greif and Paul M.
Cashman in 1984 to describe a collaborative work environment that can be supported by computer systems.
(Girard 2009:114)
2
Google Documents will be referred to as Google Docs and is treated as a singular noun as it is a brand.
3
Denzin & Lincoln (2005a:10) fremhever at begrepet kvalitativ innebærer å fremheve prosesser og mening
som ikke kan måles i kvantitet eller frekvenser.
4
All translations from Norwegian to English are my own unless otherwise stated.

1
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

expressed aims of LK06, but nonetheless complex concepts to define. It is an expressed aim in the
Norwegian national curriculum (LK06), to develop and train students' collaborative skills;

"Today's education must also include (...) experience from work, where interdependence
requires discipline, and where the students' own efforts influence the outcome of others. This
requires the development of organisational skills, ability to coordinate activities, lead
activities, follow directions, suggest alternative solutions "
5
(LK06 2006:17)

I have conducted a pilot for this essay involving a group task and interviews in order to produce
data which I will discuss. Theoretically I will rely on constructivist theories such as connectivism, a
learning theory for the digital age, which propounds that "technology has reorganized (...) how we
learn" (Siemens 2005:1). As I am conducting the pilot in my own environment where subjects know
me, I will also discuss disadvantages and advantages of this practice. However, the chief objective
of my main project later on is to explore how "the students' own efforts influence the outcome of
others" (LK06). Futhermore, I hope through the discussion of the pilot experiement to shed some
light upon the processes of collaborative writing and the correlation between ESL learning and
interdependency. Combined with the 21st century's gallopping advances in production of
information, communication and technology and the need for the education sector to prepare
students for this reality, it is obvious that skills in collaborative work will be an important skill,
which in turn needs careful research and study, hence my interest in the subject.

Thesis

This essay springs from the need to assess research design and methods as well as the following
research question which I hope to pursue in my master's thesis: How is the perceived quality of ESL
language learning and language production when utilizing Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW)? My hypothesis is proposing that when groups of students work collaboratively, in a
digital environment such as Google Docs, they will affect each other's learning positively and
qualitatively improve the quality of both process and product. Thus, a central issue and current
objective of the pilot, is: How does one measure quality? What does one assess when using
collaborative writing tools? I am aware of the complexity of this question, which includes aspects
such as motivation, positive and negative conditions for group formation, process communication
among students as well as the set assessment criteria. However, CSCW provides the students with a
5
"Dagens opplæring må også omfatte (...) erfaring fra arbeid der gjensidig avhengighet krever disiplin, og
der egen innsats påvirker resultatet av andres. Dette fordrer utvikling av ferdigheter til organisering; evne til å
samordne virksomhet, lede aktiviteter, følge direktiver, foreslå alternative løsninger."

2
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

digital environment where they can interact in synchronousity or asynchronousity,6 coordinate and
communicate through chatting and interact in a collective text creation process. Above all I am
concerned with the relation between collaboration and ESL learning when learners are using CSCW
technology. Professor and author Dan Tapscott points out that; "The individual learning model is
foreign territory for most Net Geners, who have grown up collaborating, sharing, and creating
online." (Tapscott 2009:137) Students today interact and communicate online, and they collaborate
on projects and assignments there. Language is still, as Wittgenstein noted, a "vehicle of thought"
(Harris 1990:27), but also a vehicle of communication and interaction. For this reason I want to
examine whether the students improve their language skills when cooperating on a text in a digital
environment. Naturally, this does also apply to assessment practices. Do we want to assess
individual or collaborative merits when giving cooperative tasks? What social and linguistic
mechanisms are at play, and if the quality is indeed enhanced, what are the factors involved? Is it
due to one individual or the force of collaborative positive interdependence? To reiterate, the thesis
itself stems from the hypothesis that positive interdependence enhances the quality of language in
the ESL classroom when learners utilize CSCW, which in turn is part of the learning objective of
collaborative work. The main purpose of the pilot is to uncover whether the research design and
methods are pertained to this thesis.

Terminology and Background

By collaborative digital tools I refer to what is known as the field of Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, which Greif and Cashman in the 1980s defined as "ways of designing systems -
people and computer systems - that will have profound implications
for the way we work" (Greif 1988:6). In my master research
studies, informants will be asked to collaborate on written group
tasks in such digital environments. According to Stensaasen and
Sletta (1989) as referred to by Haugaløkken and Aakervik (2003)
"all intrapersonal cooperation is defined by positive
Fig. 1 Computer Supported
Cooperative Work Matrix. interdependence"8 (Haugaløkken 2003:369), which entails that the
group shares a common goal, but reinforcing each other's
strengths. The networked classroom enables students to cooperate and work in new ways along a
time/space continuum of synchronous and asynchronous CSCW environments as can be observed
6
Google Docs enables users to work in real time and see other users type and edit text which creates a
dynamic text creation environment. However, users do not have to use it synchronically.
8
"(...) alt mellommenneskelig samspill er karakterisert av gjensidig avhengighet (...)" (36)

3
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

in the matrix in Fig. 19. Positive interdependence "determines participants' efforts to achieve, the
quality of relationships, and psychological adjustment" (Hertz-Lazarowitz and Miller 1995:175)
which in turn "lies in an individual's ability to interact with others, to take into account others'
perspectives in writing and revising" (Weigle 2008:233). Naturally, a considerable amount of
research has already been done in the field of collaborative work without the aid of digital tools. As
Haugaløkken points out "the key to collaborative learning is facilitating of positive
interdependence" (Haugaløkken 2003:48).10 However, in this essay I will focus on research
methods to uncover perceived learning outcome when employing CSCW. The data collected in the
pilot will be analysed to a brief extent, and through reflection and discussion I will learn more about
the validity and reliability of these methods pertained to my thesis.

Pilot experiment

The pilot consisted of two parts. The first part was a 35-minute long collaborative group task
experiment and the second part was a group interview. I group interviewed three students before
and after the pilot. However, this is certainly not a valid foundation for an extensive study as it is
more a question of assessing methods. Nevertheless, it can disclose some data on whether
collaborative language production is actually perceived as qualitatively relevant and enhancing
from the informants' perspective. Furthermore, I aim to discover which of the two methods serve
the purpose in the most valid fashion to measure the quality of ESL learning and production.
Moreover, I will analyse parts of the group interviews, and I would have analysed parts of the
written discourse revealed in the chat as well using text analysis. However, I will not have time or
space to conduct an extensive text analysis, but I will return to the discussion of purpose and
methodological approach later in the essay. Similarly, I will return to the selection of informants
and challenges related to action research. Primarily I want to examine the perceived quality ESL
learning in CSCW environments, secondly the interdependence in a group working cooperatively
and thirdly the correlation between the two. Admittedly, this presents the study with a significant
challenge. There are many complex processes at play when a group of students collaborate on a
task, let alone in a digital environment. How do they communicate? How are the hierarchical social
relationhips prior to cooperation? How can one distinguish between transitions of knowledge from
stronger learners to weaker learners and vice versa, and perhaps more importantly, how does one
assess group products? The digital tool of Google Docs enables the teacher to actually monitor the

9
Shared under Creative Commons Licensing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cscwmatrix.jpg
10
"Nøkkelen til samarbeidslæring er tilrettelegging av positiv avhengighet."

4
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

processes unfolding second by second, and can therefore assess processes on both an individual and
a group level. In both instances one can assess the quality of language and the level of
interdependecy (i.e. whether a group member participates actively in other's contributions).
Unquestionably, all of these questions and aspects of assessment need to be sufficiently addressed
in a larger study than this pilot. By product quality I refer to, firstly, the attained level of language
based upon structure, content and quality of language when the task has been completed and,
secondly, the degree of positive interdependency. Granted that there is indeed a correlation between
the organizational and coordinational skills of a group and the quality of the final draft there still
exist a requirement to operationalize the various components of communication in a group in order
to fully analyse the process.

Experiment design: Collaborative writing task

The pilot, consisting of a group task and

group interviews, was designed as a
collaborative writing task, in order to
function as a case-study for assessing the
aptness to answer the research question.
Case-studies are characterized by being a
research project which is specifically
designed to examine a lot of information
Fig.2. Google Docs enables users to interact in two places on screen.
11
in a few entities, or cases" (ibid.:49). As
I am in the process of defining and refining my thesis and subsequent research questions this is a
particular fertile method to produce relevant information in order to adjust methods to research
questions in the research design of the project itself. An important aspect of qualitative research is
that there should be room for flexibility during the course of a project (ibid. 48)12 in regards to
whether data is relevant for the project and the ensuing analysis. With attention to the
implementation of the pilot itself informants were given a computer each with instructions of not to
interact beyond digtal communication to solve and collaborate on a written task with set assessment
criteria using CSCW groupware; Google Docs. They were initially given 45 minutes to work to
simulate time pressure (however I had to shorten it due to scheduling issues and stop at 35

11
"Case-studier kjennetegnes ved undersøkelsesopplegg som er rettet mot å studere mye informasjon om få
enheter eller cases."
12
"Et særlig viktig poeng i kvalitativ forskning er at prosjektets design må gi grunnlag for fleksibilitet."

5
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

minutes). I accessed the shared Google Document in order to perform a screen video capture13 of
the session for future reference as illustrated in Fig. 2 above. Google Docs enables users to interact
in two places - one being in the document itself where each user is recognized by a color coded
'flag' - the other being in a vertical chat window on the righthand side of the window where each
user is recognized by the corresponding color code. Prior to beginning the task informants were
given a task sheet.14 The transcriptions and the video data generate an abundance of appropriate text
for closer examination and brings me to my analysis of methods.

Selection

As the nature of this pilot reveals the informants' technical, academic and social skills I decided to
ask the student body for volunteers to take part in the experiment. "When selection of informants is
based upon this procedure which secures a selection of informants who are willing to take part we
use the term "convenience sample"" (Thaagard 2009:56).15 I got three volunteers after inquiring in
class. I must emphasize that the selection of three students by no means represents a valid selection
of the group, neither in numbers or abilities. However, my main objective for this experiment was
to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the interview guide and the design of the experiment, both
on a technical and a social level. Nevertheless, it is crucial to take note of what is referred to as the
Hawthorne effect, when it "is possible for subjects to be so pleased at being included in a study that
the results of the investigation are more closely related to this pleasure than to anything that actually
occurs in the research" (Siemensen 1998:286). Informants did express sentiments in the post-pilot
group interview that they "enjoyed" the time pressure and found the experience a "fun experience".
Consequently the question of selection must not be underestimated when conducting the research
for my master's thesis. The choice between strategic selection and theoretical selection must be
viewed in relation to the research questions and possible modification of thesis.

Analysis: Pilot

Group Interview

Data from interviews19 yield massive information from the informants to the researcher. However,
there are various perspectives on what the data can actually tell us. One is the positivist perspective

13
Apple Quicktime 9
14
Appendix 3
15
"Når utvelging av informanter er basert på denne fremgangsmåten, bruker vi betegnelsen
tilgjengelighetsvalg. Den engelske betegnelsen for dette er "convenience sample" (Berg 2001:32)."
19
Appendix 1

6
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

which emphasises that the "informants' descriptions represent information about experiences,
knowledge and views which reveal earlier experiences" (Thaagard 2009:87).20 The other is the
constructivist perspective which asserts "the importance of social interaction between researcher
and informant and how both parties in tandem develop knowledge and understanding in the
interview situation” (ibid.).21 It is important to bear in mind that the interaction between researcher
and informants is marked by assymetry (ibid.:88)22 as the researcher is the one who defines the
situation and thus directs the context. In accordance with this I created an interview guide for two
semi-structured group interviews - one prior to the experiment and one succeeding it23. The
interview guide was a simple list of possible questions I wanted to pose. However, I experienced
that the interview went on without the help of too many of the questions as the informants touched
upon many of the prepared topics I wanted them to discuss. The reason for group interview was
both a question of time as well as an intention to facilitate a discussion between the informants.
Although interviews with individuals are the most common practice, group interviews can offer
different outcomes. Group interviews are defined as a method where several people discuss a topic
with a researcher as interviewer and moderator (ibid.:90).24 Group interviews can provide more
insight, which in this instance served a purpose as I needed more information on students'
perspectives on CSCW and ESL learning. The first group interview lasted only eight minutes and
informants conversed primarily about group work and digital tools. I asked open-ended questions
such as "How do you feel about working with others on assignments in school?" and "How do you
use Google Documents in your school work?". The atmosphere was relaxed and I utilized probes
(ibid.:91)25, insertion of encouraging comments throughout the session;

Me: Okay, then we are starting... with a semi-structured interview and we are talking about collaborative writing.
So, A___, how do you feel about working with others on assignments in school?

A___: Yeah, I think it’s very fun and... Yeah, I think it’s a good way of learning.

Me: And, J____ do you agree or how do you feel about working with others?

J___: Well, ahem. I think it kinda depends on the group because many times like the teachers will try to group
people who work more and people who aren’t as eager to do the work they are given. Ahem, then it’s hard
because then people who work more they have to keep kicking the others people’s behinds to make them do the

20
"(...) informanters beskrivelser representerer opplysninger om opplevelser, kunnskaper og synspunkter
som gjenspeiler tidligere erfaringer."
21
"(...) betydningen av sosial konstruksjon mellom forsker og informant og hvordan begge parter i fellesskap
utvikler kunnskap og forståelse i intervjusituasjonen (Rapley 2007:22)"
22
"(...) interaksjon mellom forsker og informant er preget av asymmetri (...) (Kvale (1997;74)"
23
Appendix 2
24
"Brandt (1996:145) definerer et gruppeintervju som en metode hvor flere mennesker diskuterer et tema
med en forsker som leder og ordstyrer."
25
"Kommentarer intervjueren gir i form av oppmuntrende tilbakemeldinger til informanten, betegnes som
prober."

7
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

work that they’d been given. Ahem, and that’s also pretty.. it’s like tiring because you have to do your own work
and at the same time you have to make sure that the others are doing their part and...26

In this excerpt I pose the same question to two students, but they generate two different answers in
terms of elaboration. What I should have done here was to follow up A___ with an invitation to
elaborate by using a probe like "What do you mean when you say 'good way of learning`?", or "Go
on, please.". However, I do attempt to frame and facilitate a group discussion by asking J___
whether she agrees or not and thereby elaborate on A___'s initial brief answer. I manage with
assistance from the third informant in the group to create discussion in the continuation of the
interview as can be observed here;

H___: And you also end up doing their part...

J___: Yeah.

Me: Can you explain that H_____?

H___: No, what I feel is that a few times when you come in a group it depends on how much the person is
engaged but if the one person wants to do well in the subject and the other person doesn’t really care that much
then it can end up with the person that doesn’t care that much don’t care does leave everything to the other
person and the other person who really wants to do well will actually do a lot of the work or even all the work.

Following the experiment we conducted a second semi-structured group interview which lasted a
brief 10 minutes. This time questions were mosly related to how the informants experienced the
experiment in terms of academic, social and technical aspects. Questions which were posed
included "How do you think it went?", "What went well?" and "Did you find it stressful?". This type
of semi-structured interviews serves a particular relevant purpose as a preliminary investigation into
the area of research (ibid.:89)27 as they disclose information of processes and experiences accrued
during the experiment. Both group interviews were taped using a non-intrusive device which was
visible on the table where the informants and I sat. The informants were informed that they were
being taped and that the experiment itself would be recorded using screen video capture software.
We learn a lot from listening to audio recordings of interviews (ibid.:91)29 as they disclose
important data on interactional aspects of the transactions between informants as well as the
interaction between researcher and informants In the post-pilot interview I particularly asked for
opinions on working collaboratively in Google Docs;

26
Transcription from the beginning of pre-interview with the group.
27
"Denne typen intervju kan være relevant som innledning til en undersøkelse, fordi en åpen samtale gir
grunnlag for å presisere temaer som kan brukes i den videre undersøkelsen."
29
"Vi lærer også mye av å lytte til båndopptak av intervjuer vi har foretatt."

8
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

Me: What do you think was the best thing about it?

A___: That we could all talk together and you worked hard.

H___: Can I.... What I thought was very good was, well, if we would have done this individually, we would
all made it our work, so we all even if we had agreed on the topic it would have maybe not have fitted
together, but what I noticed now is that we could see each other’s writing and agree on the paragraphs, how
to make it we could also correct each other, spelling mistakes, thanks, hm, and I also think that we could kind
of discussed together on the moment what was happening, so for example in the start A___ and me were not
quite sure what J___ did but then we could ask her and we immediately knew what she was doing.

This is yet an example of how a group interview can generate a conversation where the informants
together influence and help each other with the elaboration of the experience (Postholm 2009:90).30
Admittedly, this can also result in distortion of the individual perception of an event, and this can be
solved by considering individual interviews or students logs. However, as the three informants
shared the experience and they all expressed a satisfactory feeling about the experiment they
seemed to help each other with comments and elaborations. For instance, in the excerpt above
H_____ elaborates on the experience and discloses a lot of information about the experience. In the
process of transcribing the interviews I have come closer to uncover the relationships between the
informants and between the informants and me. My observation is that the dialogues unfolding on
the recordings function well, although it might appear fragmented as a result of the short length of
the interviews and resulted in rushed questions. Again, I think it is important to stress the fact that
this was a prelimenary investigation into methods and outcomes. However, this might necessitate
the need for a text analysis which I will now discuss in further detail.

Text analysis

The scope of this essay does not allow me to dwell in detail on conducted text analysis. However, I
intend to use text analysis in my master's thesis as a method to analyse both audio and video data of
screen activity and therefore I explore the method hypothetical in this essay. Neither did time permit
to exectute text analysis of the data collected through the pilot. Nonetheless, text analysis is
applicable in several areas of my data material. This includes the informants' answers in the group
interviews, informants' communication in their chat during the experiment as well as the joint
creation of the essay text in itself where informants interacted by improving on language
gramatically and semantically. The data material for text analysis is readily formidable and indeed a
key method to answer the research question of quality of language production in collaborative
networks and should therefore not be underestimated. In his work the British linguist Michael

30
"Gruppeintervjuer kan bidra til å utdype de temaene som tas opp, fordi deltakerne kan følge opp
hverandres svar og gi kommentarer i løpet av diskusjonen." (Brandth 1996:147)

9
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

Halliday views language as context-based systems and defines text as "a sociological event, a
semiotic encounter" (Halliday 2006:3). All text materializing in the chat in the pilot had a different
form and style than the essay text in the document, and using Halliday's linguistic analysis tools
would be apt for the analysis work of the text in both places. Furthermore, it would perhaps be
useful to isolate text units in the data material for further scrutiny by treating them as what Halliday
would call separate "information units and determine the internal structure of each information unit"
(ibid.:32) as well as the external intrapersonal connections. Communication marked by lexical
referential chains would then perhaps tentatively be disclosed and markers revealing actions such
as listening, reflection, uncertainty, politeness, attitude and argumentation come into view for the
researcher (Otnes 2010:28). The main purpose of text analysis is to operationalise the hermeneutical
circle, find patterns and establish systems to help the analytical work involved in treating the data
from a semantic perspective whether it is a contextual analysis, situational context or a cultural
context (ibid.:41). However, it is important to take into account the qualitative aspect of text
analysis which means that the relationship between researcher and material is in this context defined
by action research.

Theories

The theoretical background for my research relies predominantly on constructivist thinking and the
branch of connectivism as developed by the theorist George Siemens. Furthermore, I must take into
account the theories of action research.

Constructivism and Connectivism

Learning through interaction with others founded on positive interdependence is central to

collaborative work. "It is in conversation that you start to internalise what some piece of
information meant to you," says the researcher John Seely Brown in professor Dan Tapscott's book
Grown up digital (2009)34. The Russian psychologist Lev Semenovich Vygotsky's sociocultural
theories emphasize "the importance of social interactions in cognitive development" (Woolfolk
2007:53) while Jean Piaget argued that "interaction encouraged development by creating
disequilibrium - cognitive conflict - that motivated change" (ibid.). Vygotsky's social
constructivism propounds the value of learners working together as "learners appropriate
(internalise or take for themselves) the outcomes produced by working together" (ibid.:413).

34
(Tapscott 2009:137)

10
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

Constructivism on the other hand, is defined as "the integration of principles explored by chaos,
network, and complexity and self-organization theories" (Siemens 2005:3) which suggests that;
"Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not
entirely under the control of the individual." (ibid.) Constructivists champion "complex learning
environments that deal with 'fuzzy', ill-structured problems" (Woolfolk.:416), and, as in the case of
Siemens, who has proposed a new theory for digital-based learning environments; connectivism,
which develops the constructivists' call for "authentic tasks and activities" (Ibid.), aim to support
new approaches to intrapsychological theories for the digital age. In Knowing Knowledge (2006) he
observes that in "(a) culture of openess, recognized value of cooperation, and tools and time allotted
of collaboration all contribute to accelerate network formation" (Siemens 2006:85). Rapid
distribution of knowledge and knowledge formation necessitates what Siemens refers to as flow
accelerators, which are "elements and conditions inherent in a network that permit the rapid
formation and distribution of knowledge" (ibid.). Furthermore, he accentuates "(r)eceptivity and
motivation (as) two key accelerators" (ibid.), for successful learning to unfold, particulary in the
area of my research on collaborative writing in digital environments.

Action Research

My intention is to study subjects in an environment in which I myself operate as a teacher. This

implicates certain pitfalls and challenges. Action research, can be viewed as an extention of
socialconstructivist ideas as in the case of symbolic interactionism, which primarily is process-
oriented. According to symbolic interactionism humans continuously create their identity in
interaction with others (Thaagard 2009:36).35 This particular study is two-fold, where one is
student-student-based and the other one is teacher-student-based. As I am researching subjects in an
environment where I myself teach I need to take into account the implications of my role and effect
upon the students. It should be stated, that I will, and must, consider and compare the alternative to
study subjects outside of my own environment. However, the value of conducting studies in one's
own environment should not be underestimated. Action research "may be characterized as the
devlopement of practical 'tools' of relevance for a particular institution or a professional group at a
particular time" (Siemensen 1998:280). Taking this into account one may argue that the progressive
nature of using collaborative writing strategies for ESL learning in digital-based environments
might indeed call for an action research approach. Postholm argues "(t)hat the purpose is to describe
the complexity of a phenomenon associated with a particular focus or an issue. This phenomenon is

35
"I følge symbolsk interaksjonisme skaper mennesker kontinuerlig sin identitet i interaksjon med andre."

11
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

part of a real setting." (Postholm 2009:27)36 The real setting is my own environment where I
operate as both a teacher and a researcher.

My position

Kurt Lewin was the first who used the term

"action research" (Postholm 2009:32)37 and
its prime goal is to change existing practices.
Lewin visualized his theories with reflecting
spirals consisting of planning, action,
observation and reflection (ibid. 33)38 as seen Fig. 3 David Kolb's experimental learning circle
39
in Fig. 3. In my research study I am curious to created after Kurt Lewin's work. My illustration.

whether implementation and use of CSCW

improve ESL learning, and particularly how. Planning, action, observation and reflection generate
an ecosystem of practice in a social context and a dialogue between the participants (Postholm
2009:33).40 In essence, I think questioning new practices and learning strategies in the language
classroom is vital to rethink and assess the quality of the learning outcome, and this means a high
degree of reflection and self-reflection in order to improve and enhance the teaching practices
(ibid.). Action research, however, presents the researcher with some ethical dilemmas which need
an attentive approach. Thaagard writes that; "There is however a common notion that the
researcher's influence on the development of theory makes the researcher responsible for the
interpretation." (Thaagard 2009:211).41 This implies that the ethical dilemmas of developmental
research must be thoroughly discussed. As the informants are not present when the analysis work
occurs the researcher has more influence during this fase than during the collection of data (ibid.)42
To what extent do I project my convictions onto the informants? How do I influence the design of

36
"Hensikten er å beskrive kompleksiteten av et fenomen knyttet til et bestemt fokus eller en problemstilling.
Dette fenomenet er en del av en virkelig setting." (Postholm, 2005)
37
"Kurt Lewin (1952) var den som først brukte uttrykket "aksjonsforskning"."
38
" Lewin visualiserte aksjonsforskningen i reflekterende spiraler bestående av planlegging, handling,
observasjon og refleksjon (...)."
39
David Kolb's original to be found here: http://bit.ly/9XMafJ
40
"Carl and Kemmis (1986) har, med utgangspunkt i Lewins reflekterende spiraler, laget en modell som
setter endringsaktiviteten inn i en nåtidig og fremtidig ramme. Carl og Kemmis uttaler, i samsvar med Lewin,
at gruppebestemmelser må være et prinsipp mer en en teknikk i aksjonsforskning, og baserer sitt standpunkt
i forhold til både endring og engasjement."
41
"Det er imildertid en utbredt oppfatning at forskerens innflytelse på utviklingen av teori gjør forskeren
ansvarlig for tolkningen (Fog 2004:204-214)."
42
"Fordi informanten ikke er til stede under analysen og tolkningen av dataene, har forskeren mer innflytelse
i disse fasene av forskningensprosessen enn i løpet av datainnsamlingen."

12
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

tasks given and to what extent to I think the hypothesis is right or wrong? Admittedly, I am still
convinced that action research is valuable in the case of this research due to the nature of the
progressive use of digital-based tools in ESL learning. At the outset of this study I think the
implementation of CSCW will and can help enhance both strong and weak learners in their ESL
development. However, I am also inclined to think that the reliance on positive interdependence
within a group is crucial to optimize the quality of the ESL development. My choices of methods,
selection of informants and the nature of action research are all facets of this study which must be
addressed. It must be transparent and presented in the utmost objective fashion to secure validity of
the research, and henceforth assert the reliability of the results and subsequent analysis.

Justification of method choice

I have used group interview and intend to use text analysis to review learning and collaboration
processes in CSCW. As stated and discussed previously, for reasons presented, I have only briefly
analysed excerpts of group interview in this paper and touched briefly upon text analysis as a
method. Why then, have I decided upon these methods for this particular study? Early on I
conducted a survey with similar questions as present in the interview quide and received answers
from 14 informants in the school. However, the questions issued mostly generated qualitative
answers with the exception of a few 'yes-or-no-', 'boy-or-girl' questions which resulted in
quantitative data. Nonetheless, it must be argued, a survey could have served a prelimenary purpose
to investigate the informants' thoughts on CSCW and group work, and it did in one way as it served
as an aid to develop and create the interview guide. The method of group interview necessitates that
participants have a common background to generate a discussion (Thaagard 2009:90).43 In the case
of the pilot the informants had equal experience with working with Google Docs, but varying ESL
skills. The choice of text analysis is an extention of interactional qualities of communication
occurring in the experiment and therefore is a significant method of choice. As Halliday observes,
language is based upon contexts and the need to isolate the various information entities of language
both serves a linguistic and a sociocultural purpose in line with socioconstructivist theory. In fact,
what Halliday defines as "a sociological event, a semiotic encounter" and "the means of exchange"
(Halliday 2006:3) is exactly what is unfolding when employing CSCW. Albeit a time-consuming
method, text analysis does reveal patterns and systems pertained to the research question and the
hypothesis of the perceived quality of ESL learning. Nevertheless, it must not be underestimated
that using individual interviews rather than group interviews can result in dramatically different

43
"Metoden forutsetter at medlemmer har et felles grunnlag å diskutere ut fra."

13
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

answers than in a group interview. Similarly, can text analysis of one textual interaction differ
considerably from another one. Naturally, these aspects of qualitative methods must not be treated
lightly neither during the collection of data nor in the following analysis work.

Research questions

As I started out with my research, on ESL language learning in CSCW, I had many questions
related to my main hypothesis. On the one hand questions were related to how to find the relevant
data for analysis, and on the other hand questions were concerned with the need for a focus. The
main intention of this essay has been to address and discuss possible approaches to obtain relevant
data material in which to understand more of the field of collaborative writing, which can be termed
to be "experimental" in its nature with the arising of new technologies which permit temporal
synchronity45 in group work text creation. An important aspect of qualitative research is indeed to
explore new situations (Thaagard 2009:51)46 and contribute to new insights into new
realities. These new realities are complex and multifaceted, but I have primarily been interested in
studying the interdependence within a group and the quality of language production. The digital
aspect of this research, naturally, is an important component which must also be a part of the study.
Assessing the scope and relevance of my main research question is crucial, and pursuing questions
related to the processes of interdependence in a group and defining quality must also be addressed.
A criteria of a good research question, according to Thaagaard, entails an appropriate accuracy for
establishing guidelines for the methodological and academic choices which the researcher must
make in the course of the research project (ibid.)47. At the core of the requirement to attain
appropriate accuracy the researcher needs to evaluate the project and analysis work's reliability and
validity.

Reliability and validity

The process of analysing and presenting the data material gathered calls for careful considerations
related to reliability and validity. Reliability is understood as the degree of accountability, i.e.
whether my methods can be used by another researcher and end up with the same results (Thaagard

45
By 'temporal synchronity' I refer to the CSCW matrix (fig.1) where in the case of Google Docs for instance
enable user to work collaboratively in 'real-time', i.e. they are able to see each other type regardless of
location.
46
"Et viktig poeng ved kvalitatitv forskning er nettopp å utforske nye situasjoner."
47
"Et kriterium på en god problemstilling er at den er tydelig nok til å gi retningslinjer for de metodiske og
faglige valgene forskeren må foreta i løpet av prosjektet."

14
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

2009:198).48 Qualitative methods are traditionally inductive, which means the theoretical
perspective is developed on the grounds of the analysis of the data (ibid.:189). I need to strive for
the highest degree of reliability and accountability in terms of methods as well as analysis to ensure
the quality of the study, and thus it has been insightful and valuable to discuss and assess the
appropriateness of my methods used for the pilot experiment. In regards to the pilot I must question
the reliability of the selection of the students and whether it would function with "convencience
sample" for my master's study. Validity, on the other hand, is related to the interpretation of data
(ibid.:201).49 "When the results of qualitiative studies have aims to go beyond the descriptive, the
analysis represents interpretations of the phenomenons we are studying." (ibid.)50 My analysis of
my collected data must have validity in the reality which has been studied. The need for
transparancy is fundamental, which necessitates full disclosure of the foundations for my
interpretations by account for how the analysis compromises my conclusions (ibid.).51

Conclusion

In this essay I have discussed and analysed my methods and their appropriateness and relevance
pertained to my research question. Through the presentation of terminology and theories I have
examined my methods of choice used when analysing data material from a pilot experiment.
Moreover I have tried to elucidate aspects of methods used in the light of constructivist learning
theories, and perhaps more importantly hermeneutical theories on action research. The process of
discussion and reflection have given me insightful knowledge on the reliability and validity of my
research project, and provided me with a tool for assessing and uncover advantages and
disadvantages of my methods and the execution of them. I do realise that complex phenomenons
generate complex questions related to interdependency in groups as well as the quality of both
collaboration and language production and learning. The limited scope of the pilot has revealed to
me that I must narrow down my focus to either one or the other. I think I must focus on the quality
of collaborative language production, and that this can be revealed through both group interviews,
individual interviews as well as text analysis. Nevertheless, research and studies of collaborative
language learning in digital environments which triumph location and time, do call for critical
scrutiny.
48
"Begrepet reliabilitet referer i utgangpsunktet til spørsmålet om en annen forsker som anvender de samme
metodene, ville komme frem til samme resultat."
49
"Validitet er knyttet til tolkning av data."
50
"Når resultater av kvalitative studier har som målsetting å gå ut over det rent deskriptive, representerer
analysen fortolkninger av de fenomener vi studerer."
51
"Gjennomsiktighet innebærer at forskeren tydeliggjør grunnlaget for fortolkninger ved å redegjøre for
hvordan analysen gir grunnlag for de konklusjoner hun eller han kommer fem til."

15
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

References
Carstensen, P.H.; Schmidt, K. (1999). Computer supported cooperative work: new challenges to
systems design. Retrieved 2007-08-03

Girard, B. The Google Way: How One Company Is Revolutionizing Management as We Know It.
No Starch Press, 2009

Greifman, I. Computer-supported cooperative work: a book of readings. Morgan Kaufmann 1988

Johansen, A et.al. Introduksjon til samfunnsvitenskapelig metode. 3. utg. Abstrakt Forlag 2009

Halliday, M. and Webster, J. Linguistic studies of text and discourse. Continuum International
Publishing Group 2006

Harris, R. Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: how to play games with words. Routledge 1990

Hertz-Lazarowitz and Miller, R. Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of

Group Learning. Cambridge University Press 1995

Otnes, H. Tekstanalyse - presentasjon. NTNU Master i fagdidaktikk, Mars 2010

Postholm, M. B. Forsknings- og utviklingsarbeid i skolen - en metodebok for lærere, studenter og

forskere. Universitetsforlaget 2009

Postholm, M. B. Kvalitativ metode. En innføring med fokus på fenomenologi, etnografi og

kasusstudier. 2. utg. Universitetsforlaget 2010

Siemens, G. Knowing Knowledge. Lulu.com 2006

Siemensen, A. Teaching a foreign language: Principles and procedures. Fagbokforlaget 1998

Thagaard, T. Systematikk og innlevelse. 3. utg. Fagbokforlaget 2009

Weigle, S. C. Assessing Writing. Cambridge University Press 2002

Woolfolk, A. Psychology in education. Pearson Education 2007

16
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

Appendixes
Appendix 1

Interview Transcripts

Transcription Interview 1 (excerpt)

Me: Okay, then we are starting... with a semi-structured interview and we are talking about
collaborative writing. So, A___, how do you feel about working with others on assignments in
school?

A___: Yeah, I think it’s very fun and... Yeah, I think it’s a good way of learning.

Me: And, J___ do you agree or how do you feel about working with others?

J___: Well, ahem. I think it kinda depends on the group because many times like the teachers will
try to group people who work more and people who aren’t as eager to do the work they are given.
Ahem, then it’s hard because then people who work more they have to keep kicking the others
people’s behinds to make them do the work that they’d been given. Ahem, and that’s also pretty..
it’s like tiring because you have to do your own work and at the same time you have to make sure
that the others are doing there part and...

H____: And you also end up doing their part...

J____: Yeah.

Me: Can you explain that H____?

H____: No, what I feel is that a few time when you come in a group it depends on how much the
person is engaged but if the one person wants to do well in the subject and the other person doesn’t
really care that much than it can end up with the person that doesn’t care that much don’t care does
leave everything to the other person and the other person who really wants to do well will actually
do a lot of the work or even all the work.

Me: ok, so there is an uneven distribution of who is doing what?

A____: Yeah ... in some groups.

J____: Yeah.

Me: In some groups?

A____: Not all.

Me: What’s a sucsessful group?

A____: A group of people that all want to do well on the subject, and theyall put a lot of work and
effort..

17
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

Me: Do you have a number in mind?

A___: Do you mean a specific number of people?

Me: Yeah, in a group.

A___: I think no more than three because then its very chaotic and...

Me: hmmmm. Ok, good. Thank you. How do you use google docs in your school work, H____?

H____: Well, I actually use it for most of my schoolwork so if I have to write a story, than I would
write it in Google Docs and then share it to you , as the teacher, for homework or if I would have a
kind of homework including a survey or something I would use spreadsheets on that. But I never
use the collaborative message where people add at the same time because I feel that google docs
does not make it to do that and it always comes up that someone else has added things and you say
ok and suddenly some data is lost.

Me: Okay. How about you, J___?

J____: well, I don’t actually, except when we kind of have to, if we were doing tentamen for
example, we would have to do it on google docs. I don’t use that much, cause first of all because
I’m not used to using it, and I just prefer microsoft word because I just find the way that its laid out
is a lot faster because its not connected to the internet, hm, and often like if you were working, like
H____ said, working with someone else, they tend to delete work and stuff and then it will auto-
save and then you can’t get things back, you can’t do the undo button.

A____: You can look through the revision history,but...

J____: Yeah...

Me: Do you feel protective of your own work?

J___: That kind of depends on who I’m working with because there is some people that will do
their own work and will look at my work to get some ideas and others will look at my work and just
rewrite it and give it in as my own. So it depends on who you are working with.

Me: Yeah.And A___?

A___: I use Google Docs a lot, but I use it mostly to have everything I write stored on line so that I
won’t have to bring my computer to school or put it on a memory stick or anything like that.

H____: thats what I also like with Google Docs, you can make these folders

Me: Yeah.

H____: You kind of have everything under control and work on it for example here and then also at
home, and you don’t really have to take your computer or anything.

A____: I actually think the two people or more working together on a document at the same time is
not as bad as people say it is, but there are room for improvement because sometimes it happens

18
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

things, and things you are working on disappear and yeah...

Time?

After master interview:

Me: Okay, interview number two. Group interview, semi-structured, where I want to ask the
participants about the experience, so we conducted now a collaborative writing task, we spent 45
minutes + on it. So how do you think it went, A___?

A___: I think it was a lot more effective way of doing it than if we... I thought it was a very
effective way of working together, yeah, even though there were some technical issues in the end I
think it all worked quite well.

Me: What do you think was the best thing about it?

A___: That we could all talk together and you worked hard.

H____: Can I.... What I thought was very good was well, if we would have done this individually,
we would all made it our work, so we all even if we had agreed on the topic it would have maybe
not have fitted together, but what I noticed now is that we could see each others writing and agree
on the paragraphs, how to make it we could also correct each other, spelling mistakes, thanks, hm,
and I also think that we could kind of discussed together on the moment what was happening, so for
example in the start A___ and me were not quite sure what Julia did but then we could ask her and
we immediately knew what she was doing.

19
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

Appendix 2

Interview Guide - Pre-Experiment

1. How do you feel about working with others on assignments in school?

2. What is an ideal group for you?
3. How do you use Google Docs in your school work?
4. Do you use Google Docs at home? How?
5. What do you consider to be the best use of Google Docs?
6. What would you say are some negative aspects of Google Docs?
7. Do you learn more when you use a tool such as Google Docs? How?
8. What other tools do you use when writing? Why?
9. If you have a group project which digital tools would you use?
10. How do you feel about group work in general?

Interview Guide 2 - Post-Experiment

1. How do you think it went? Was it stressful? Did you lose focus?
2. What went well? (ínteraction, speed)
3. What did not work? (technical, group)
4. Were there any motivational benefits of working together?
5. How was it to work strictly digitally without talking?
6. To you, where's the learning in this experience?

20
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

Appendix 3

Collaborative Writing Task

"Today's education must also include (...) experience from work, where interdependence requires
discipline, and where the students' own efforts influence the outcome of others. This requires the
development of skills to the organization, ability to coordinate activities, lead activities, follow
directions, suggest alternative solutions " (LK06 2006:17)

Time: 45 minutes

Instruction: In a group of 3 you will write a short essay using Google Docs*. The essay should
have an introduction, 3 arguments (pros and cons) and a conclusion. Everyone in the group should
take part and are responsible for the final draft. You have to work on 3 individual computers. You
can only communicate using the document or chat. Use the set assessment criteria to assess your
work. (Mr Oddvik will be invited to view the document when you are working to observe.)

Task: Zoos around the world are filled with lots of different wild animals, from gorrillas to tigers.
The animals come from all around the world and zoos give us the oppportunity to see them up
close. But is it ok to do put these animals in zoos? Write an essay where you argue pros and cons.**

Length: 500-800 words

Assessment Criteria:

Language

• Correct and appropriate use of English

• Good grammar and spelling
• Use of online sources must be quoted and referenced

Structure

• Title
• Introduction
• Arguments
• Conclusion
• Proper use of paragraphs
• Header with group members name and date
• Photo is optional

Content

• Relevant discussion to topic question

• Examples
• Reasons
• Formal style

21
 Morten Oddvik
EDU3102

*All group members need to upgrade Google Docs to the latest version in order to enable in-
document chatting and colour coding.

**Text from BBC Student Debate Site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/studentlife/debate/2009/21_zoos.shtml

22