(PDF) Collaborative Writing and Peer Feedback Practices Using Google Docs

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 546 Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020) Collaborative Writing and Peer Feedback Practices Using Google Docs Ika Lestari Damayanti, Nur Hafiz Abdurahman, Lala Wulandari * Department of English Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia * Corresponding author. Email:

ABSTRACT This paper explored how six senior high school students can be supported to write collaboratively using Google Docs. It also identified types of feedback provided by the students during the collaborative writing activities. The present study employed case study involving six students. The data were collected through interviews, the students' chat room discussion, and their peer feedback practices in Google Docs. Students’ feedback analysis was adopted from Weigle’s (2002) writing rubric and Widarsih and Suherdi’s feedback analysis (2019). The discussion was then coded according to students’ discussion when generating idea, organizing the text, and revising their texts. The results of the study indicated that the use of Google Docs supported the students’ collaborative writing and peer feedback practices. Features available in Google Docs that were frequently used by the students are chat room and comment. These features were particularly useful for generating ideas, organizing the text structure, and constructing sentences. Keywords: Collaborative writing, Google Docs, peer feedback 1. INTRODUCTION acknowledged that due to the pandemic, all schools and universities are closed to slow the COVID-19 spread In learning English, many EFL students find it (World Health Organization, 2020). In response to this difficult to master English language skills, especially in current situation, the Indonesian Government has English writing for both academic and general purposes decided to close all schools and universities in Indonesia (e.g., Dastgeer & Afzal, 2015; Younes & Albalawi, and changed the learning system practices into an online 2015). Producing coherent, fluent, comprehensive learning system. Therefore, in the current situation, the writing may become one of the most challenging teachers should adjust their learning practices to online language learning tasks. Many methods to overcome platforms, to facilitate the teaching and learning such problems have been proposed. Alwasilah (2001), activities virtually from home. for example, suggested collaborative writing as an alternative way to assist students to develop their Myriad of online platforms can assist teachers writing skills. Through collaborative writing, students during online learning practices. One of them is Google can work and learn from each other through mutual Docs, which is accessible in Indonesia. Alharbi (2019) feedback. Likewise, Widodo (2013) reported that indicated that Google Docs could facilitate writing reciprocal assistance through peer feedback improved instructional practices, especially for collaborative students’ linguistic repertoire by sharing knowledge and writing activities. Google Docs allows people to work, linguistic resources, negotiating with others, and read, review, comment, and edit to each other in the creating a joint product. As a form of collaborative same document simultaneously (Deveci, 2018; Ishtaiwa learning, peer feedback can be an effective pedagogical & Aburazeq, 2015). Given the perpetual benefits that activity in improving teaching and learning of second Google Docs offers, this study reported in the paper language writing (Bijami, Kashef, & Nejad, 2013; Min, sought to explore students’ interactions and peer 2005; Yu & Lee, 2015). feedback practices during the collaborative writing processes using Google Docs, especially in generating While these studies reported on the virtues of their ideas, organizing the text, and constructing the collaborative writing in ‘traditional’ classroom contexts, sentences. studies investigating collaborative writing during the COVID-19 pandemic are scarce. It is widely Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press SARL. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license -http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. 225 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 546 1.1. Literature Review instructor-initiated questions and probes, and freewriting (Brown, 2000). 2) Drafting aims to support 1.1.1. Collaborative Writing students to develop their ideas collaboratively into an Collaborative writing is an activity in which students iterative cycle of drafting with less concern on linguistic work collaboratively in producing a single paper components such as vocabulary and grammar. 3) (Howard, 2001). Collaborative writing is also defined as Responding is a stage in which both the teacher and an activity to produce a text conducted by two or more peers provide feedback or comments on students’ works people (Storch, 2011). From both definitions, regarding the content (ideas), rhetorical organization, collaborative writing can be defined as an activity and language form (vocabulary and grammar). 4) involving two or more students working together to Revising and editing allows the students to rewrite their produce a single text. The students are encouraged to draft based on the feedback they received. collaborate throughout the writing processes. 1.1.2. Peer Feedback The collaborative writing activity is often In the educational context, feedback is defined as implemented in the second language classroom to information given to students of how successfully the promote an interactive classroom atmosphere (Storch, projects have been or are being conducted (Sadler, 2013). As an instructive and interactive activity, 1989). Over the past twenty years, writing pedagogy collaborative writing has been increasingly adopted in and research have proposed a variety of feedback the second language (L2) classrooms over the past practices. Hyland (2006), for example, highlights that decades (e.g., Dobao, 2012; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth teachers’ written feedback is often supplemented by & Storch, 2012). A number of studies investigating peer feedback, workshops of writing, conferences, and collaborative writing practices in L2 classrooms even computer-mediated feedback. In a similar vein, reported that collaborative writing tasks are beneficial in Khalil (2018) underscores the importance of peer a way that they offer more learning opportunities such feedback in addition to the teachers. Peer feedback, also as reading and discussions among the students, leading known as peer evaluation, peer response, peer editing, to better learning outcomes (Li & Zhu, 2017; Zhang, and peer review, is considered as one of the essential 2018). tools in enhancing the process of language learning, Collaborative writing activity is informed by the especially in writing (Bijami, Kashef, & Nejad, 2013, social constructivist theory of learning Vygotsky’s Tsui & Ng, 2000). It has been pedagogically determined theory (1978) that learning is a social activity. In other as one of the effective methods to improve students’ words, the learning process is not an individual activity, writing skill performances (Farrah, 2012). but it is a cognitive activity that turns the focus of Peer feedback plays an important role in learning from an individual context to an interaction collaborative learning activities (Wakabayashi, 2016). within a social context (Fung, 2010). Therefore, the The students work together to provide and share their students develop knowledge through the social opinions on one another’s drafts in both written and oral interaction processes with others. As in collaborative formats to improve their writing skills (Farrah, 2012). writing, the students work together in two or more The process of peer feedback practices enhances the students to share knowledge and linguistic resources, students’ awareness of their own mistakes by reading negotiate with others and create a joint product their peers’ writing assignments (Tsui & Ng, 2000). (Widodo, 2013). Likewise, Chen (2014) states that through collaborative learning, learning and knowledge Feedback is divided into two types, such as direct are made socially through communication and feedback and indirect feedback (Bitchener & Ferris, interaction among the students in a community. 2012). In direct feedback, the teachers not only mark the wrong sentences on the text, but they also provide the Collaborative writing processes involve a series of feedback along with some suggestions or examples of writing stages such as prewriting, drafting, responding, its correct form. Indirect feedback refers to the teacher revising, and editing (Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011; giving feedback without telling or suggesting the correct Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Widodo, 2013). The one. writing processes include the followings. 1) Prewriting as the beginning part of the writing stages involves Direct feedback is categorized into four categories, forming the group, teacher’s support, and generating such as deletion, insertion, substitution, and ideas. Forming the group can be done based on the reformulation (Widarsih & Suherdi, 2019). Deletion is a teacher’s decision, students’ preferences, genders, technique of giving feedback that removes a wrong students’ proficiency levels, interest, and the topic. word in the text. Insertion is inserting the correct word Strategies in generating ideas can include reading in a text or sentence that is considered incomplete. (extensively) a passage, skimming and scanning a Substitution is replacing a wrong word with a correct passage, conducting some research, brainstorming, word. Reformulation is rewriting the wrong part of the listing, clustering, discussing a topic or questions, 226 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 546 text and giving it suggestions to write it in the correct applications of Web 2.0 tools, specifically Google Docs, form. have the potential to be used by the teachers to create an interactive learning environment for students’ group Indirect feedback is categorized into three works (Alharbi, 2019). Google Docs is one of the categories, namely coded feedback, uncoded feedback, Google features used as a teaching and learning media and commentary (Widarsih & Suherdi, 2019). Coded for collaborative writing (Metilia & Fitrawati, 2018). It feedback is when the teachers mark the identified errors allows the users to work collaboratively, edit, and save with certain codes, for example, ‘ss’ (sentence their works to the server automatically (Thompson, structure), ‘ww’ (wrong word), ‘vt’ (verb tense errors). 2008). In the uncoded feedback, the teachers mark the wrong sentences with the symbols ‘_’ above the identified A number of studies investigating the use of Google errors. Commentary is referred to the teachers’ Docs indicate that the application can facilitate students’ comments on what students have written about and collaborative writing and peer feedback practices. For several instructions for the students to improve their example, a study by Alharbi (2019) involving university writing. students suggests that Google Docs is one of the tools that support students to improve their writing skills Focus of feedback can include content, organization, through collaborative writing. In the Indonesian context, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics (Weigle, Metilia and Fitrawati’s (2018) research showed that 2002). Content refers to the writing substance related to Google Docs allows students to interact and work the idea’s unity. Organization refers to the logical flow together with other students to develop their writing of ideas, text and paragraph structures. Vocabulary skills. Similarly, Ebadi and Rahimi (2017) found that refers to the word selection relevant with the content the use of Google Docs in collaborative writing activity and topic. Language use deals with the use of correct provides the learners with the opportunities to read, grammar. Mechanics refers to the writing conventions review, comment, and edit each other’s work. Through governing the writing technical aspects such as such interactions during the writing process, the punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and abbreviation. students have opportunities to learn about four areas of 1.1.3. Google Docs academic writing such as task achievement, coherence The development of computers and expanded and cohesion, lexicon, and grammatical accuracy. internet connection accessibility have contributed to the As far as students’ perceptions are concerned, a emergence of various resources to facilitate study by Suwantarathip and Wichadee (2014) indicates collaborative writing practices. The development of the students’ positive attitudes toward the use of Google online technologies web 2.0, including wikis, blogs, Docs in a collaborative writing activity. The students in Google Docs, and another online forum, provides Wahyuni’s (2018) study reported their positive authors, particularly teachers and students in the appreciation that they felt comfortable in using Google educational context, with modern interactive Docs as interactive learning media for collaborative technologies for collaborative writing practices (Limbu writing activities. In sum, students’ positive point of & Markauskaite, 2015). Online technologies and view of Google Docs can be considered as a supporting environments have provided new opportunities to aspect for incorporation of the application into writing develop knowledge through interaction virtually during activities. the writing processes (Nykopp, Marttunen, & Erkens, 2018). Those platforms are designed to be highly Despite the perceived benefits of Google Docs for interactive and collaborative, offering the virtual space collaborative writing, the students may face several for numerous authors to develop joint texts (Hadjerrouit, challenges (Alharbi, 2019; Ishtaiwa & Aburezeq, 2015). 2011). However, those technologies alone cannot These include slow internet connection, formatting promote a good learning activity without assistance features in the Google Docs, and the ability to use the from the entire learning ecology. It means that the application (Alharbi, 2019). In addition, Ishtaiwa and success and learning improvements not only rely on Aburezeq (2015) highlighted several factors limiting the those technologies themselves, but also the entire students’ collaboration in using Google Docs, such as learning ecology (Limbu & Markauskaite, 2015). Thus, students’ lack of teamwork skills and technological the students’ participation in performing and skills, discomfort with the editing tools, and preference coordinating with their group has a vital role in the to use other collaborative tools. Given the identified success of online collaborative writing practices challenges, pedagogical practices wishing to use Google (Janssen et al., 2012). Docs as part of collaborative writing practices requires anticipated actions, which will be taken into In recent decades, the technology of Web 2.0 has consideration by the current study reported in this paper. developed many useful internet services and programs such as blogs, wikis, and Google (Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014). In the EFL learning contexts, the 227 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 546 2. METHOD Table 1. Types of Students’ Feedback Type of Feedback Definitions Direct Feedback Insertion Insertion is inserting the correct word in a text or sentence that is considered incomplete. Substitution Substitution is replacing a wrong word with a correct word. Deletion It is a technique of giving feedback that removes a wrong word in the text. Reformulation Reformulation is rewriting the wrong part of the text and giving it suggestions to write it in the correct form. Indirect Feedback Coded Coded feedback is a kind of giving feedback with the code. Uncoded In uncoded feedback, the students only mark the wrong sentences without giving the code. Commentary It shows someone’s expression of opinions towards the text being corrected. Instruction It shows someone’s instruction of what the writers should do to revise their writing. (Source: Widarsih & Suherdi, 2019) Table 2. Writing Rubric Writing Aspect Criteria Content The content is knowledgeable, substantive, thorough, development of topic sentence, relevant to assigned topic. It deals with the fluent expression, ideas clearly stated/supported, succinct, well-organized, logical Organization sequencing, cohesive. It shows sophisticated range, effective word/idiom choice and usage, word from mastery, appropriate Vocabulary register It uses effective complex constructions, few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, Language Use articles, pronouns, prepositions It demonstrates mastery of conventions, few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, Mechanics paragraphing (Source: Weigle, 2002) This case study aimed to explore how six senior high The data were collected from interviews, students’ school students can be supported to write chat room discussions, and students’ peer feedback in collaboratively using Google Docs and identify types of Google Docs. The data were analysed through three feedback provided by students during the collaborative steps adopted from Creswell (2012), such as: preparing writing activities. Particularly, the feedback was and organizing the data, reducing the data, and identified in terms of its contribution in generating representing the data. Firstly, the data from the ideas, organizing the text, and constructing the interview were transcribed. Following this, the sentences. The lessons were conducted in five face-to- transcript and students’ chat were coded and face meetings by observing the COVID-19 Health categorized, which were reduced into smaller parts. The Protocol. One of the authors was the teacher in this pattern and theme were developed by integrating the program who on the first meeting of the class introduced code and categorization from different participants. the materials to be covered throughout the program. A In terms of analysis of feedback, a framework pre-program test for the students was also administered adopted from Widarsih and Suherdi (2019) was used in on the first meeting in order to identify the students’ this study to identify types of feedback provided by the initial writing skills. students (see Table 1). In addition, a writing rubric Participants of the study were recruited using developed by Weigle (2002) was used as a guideline for snowball sampling to reach potential participants who the students to provide feedback for their peers (see suit the intended characteristics using the researchers’ Table 2) social networking in a multistage process (Sadler, 2010). The snowball sampling technique is used in this 3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS study due to the difficulties in accessing the participants in the school since all of the schools, especially in the 3.1. Collaborative Writing Practices using West Java area, are temporarily closed due to the Google Docs COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. The first issue investigated in this study dealt with the ways the students write collaboratively using Google 228 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 546 Docs, especially when they are generating the ideas, same file with others without face-to-face meeting. It is organizing the structure of the text, and constructing the in line with the result of the study by Wahyuni (2018), sentences. which revealed that the students’ responses towards the collaborative writing practices using technology such as The analysis of the interview data indicated a Google Docs are positive as they are comfortable using number of strategies the students used in generating this interactive learning technology. Nykopp, ideas when using Google Docs. The most commonly Marttunen, and Erkens (2018) also mentioned that the reported strategies are brainstorming the topic, online technologies such as Google Docs provides an exploring related sources using an available feature opportunity for students to develop knowledge through connected directly to Google Search, and exchanging interaction virtually during the writing processes. students’ experiences. This finding supports Brown’s (2000) arguments that generating ideas can be done The participant students also reported that the peer better through collaboration. Likewise, Deveci (2018) feedback in the collaborative writing practices could reports that sharing processes with other leads not only help them improve the quality of their text. It is in line to the development of innovative and fresh ideas, but with the study conducted by Ebadi and Rahimi (2017) also to make the writing task more creative and which reported that peer editing or peer feedback comfortable. practices through Google Docs help the students improve their writing skills. The use of Google Docs It was noticeable that Google Docs features benefited the students with the opportunity to work and frequently used by the students in peer feedback think precisely in a sufficient amount of time and proper practices is the comment box and chat room. The place (at home) (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017; Suwantarathip students used the comment feature to make & Wichadee, 2014). commentaries on the particular words or statements in the text. Moreover, this activity contributed to the students’ increased awareness about errors they made on the text The data analysis also indicates that the chat room and at the same time they had opportunities to learn feature in Google Docs allowed the students to talk from others’ mistakes. In relation to this matter, about their experiences relevant to their writing topic. Rollinson (2005) explained that peer feedback enhances For example, they discussed whether they had visited the students' abilities to evaluate their work and be more the place that they were going to describe in their joint critical in revising their work. text. It was noticeable that the chat room feature allows students to chat in the file at the same time (Google 3.2. Peer Feedback Practices using GoogleDocs Support, 2020). It resonates with the study conducted by Alharbi (2019) which revealed that Google Docs with This section presents the results of the analysis of the affordances of its chat room has a potential to create types and the occurrences of peer feedback provided by an interactive learning environment for students’ group the participant students (see Table 3). work. Table 3. The Occurrence of Students’ Feedback While the chat room was useful for students’ Students’ Group collaboration, the feature can only be accessed through a Type of Group Group Group Total % PC or laptop as it is not yet accessible in the mobile Feedback A B C application both in Android and IOS (Google Support, Direct 2020). To compensate for limited access to interaction, Feedback the participant students used WhatsApp on their mobile Insertion - 2 - 2 8% phone because most of them used the mobile application Substitution 12 2 7 21 92% of Google Docs. Deletion - - - - - In terms of how students organized the text, the Reformulation - - - - - participant students initially made an outline of the text Indirect that included an introductory paragraph, supporting Feedback paragraphs, and a concluding paragraph. Following the Coded - - - - - Uncoded - - - - - outlining, the students determined the main idea of each Commentary - - - - - paragraph. Then, they negotiated the distribution of Instruction - - - - - paragraph development with the group members. At 12 4 7 23 100% Total sentence level, it was observable that the participant The majority of the students (92%) provided the students constructed the sentences by using Bahasa feedback in the form of substitution where they replace Indonesia and then translating them, word by word the mistaken words and write the correct words in the using a dictionary. From the students' perspectives, comments sections. For example, one of the students in Google Docs was fun and facilitated them for Group A replaced a typo of ‘us’ with ‘use’ in the collaborative writing practices. They felt comfortable as following sentence: To reach Gunung panten the visitors it allowed them to work online collaboratively on the 229 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 546 can us a motorcycle or car… Fewer students (8%) 4. CONCLUSIONS provided the feedback in the form of insertion. The insertion was provided when the feedback aimed to add The results of the study indicated that with several complementary words in a sentence considered features offered by Google Docs could facilitate the incomplete. For example, the student in group 2 inserted students to generate the ideas, organize the text a subject in a sentence without a subject. structure, and construct the sentences collaboratively online. It was noticeable that the students used the chat Table 4. The Occurrence of Students’ Feedback on room feature as a platform to communicate with each Writing Aspects other and provided feedback through the comment Students’ Group feature. This finding resonates with that of Writing Total % Suwantarathip and Wichadee’s (2014) study that special Aspect Group Group Group features on Google Docs supported the students to learn A B C more effectively. The result is also in line with Yeh and Content Organization - - - - - Chen’s (2019) study that Google Docs allowed the Vocabulary - - - - - students to work collaboratively in producing a single Language Use - 3 5 8 35% paper. In sum, the current study recommends the use of Mechanics 12 1 2 15 65% Google Docs for the students to work collaboratively, Total 12 4 7 23 100% particularly during the time where face-to-face meetings are restricted. Table 4 displays the occurrences of students’ feedback on particular writing aspects. It is noticeable that the students’ feedback focused more on the mechanics (65%), followed by the language use (35%). REFERENCES As far as the mechanics aspect is concerned, the Alharbi, M. A. (2019). Exploring the potential of students' feedback focused on the spelling errors, punctuation, and capitalization. For example, the Google Docs in facilitating innovative teaching identified spelling errors covered the words ‘existence’, and learning practices in an EFL writing course. ‘satisfied’, ‘place’, and ‘use’. As for the language use, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, the students identified errors related to subject-verb 14(2), 1-16. agreement and tenses. For example, one of the students Alsubaie, J., & Ashuraidah, A. (2017). Exploring in Group C provided feedback on the following writing individually and collaboratively using sentence: The facility that are usually served in this google docs in EFL contexts. English Language place are natural pools that have hidden properties... The Teaching, 10(10), 10-30. student highlighted the word ‘facility’ that does not match the verb ‘are’ that typically requires a subject Alwasilah, A. C. (2001). Language, culture, and with a ‘plural’ noun. As a result, the group changed the education: A portrait of temporary of Indonesia. word ‘facility’ to ‘facilities’. In sum, the students’ Bandung: Andira. feedback on grammar and mechanics indicates that their Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, S. M. (2013). Peer confidence in commenting on other aspects was low. feedback in learning English writing: Advantages This might be attributed to their low level of proficiency and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in (Guenette, 2007) as well as their hesitation to critique other students’ work (Tai et al., 2015). For that reason, a Education, 3(4), 91-97. number of studies have revealed that students in their Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective study preferred to receive feedback from their teacher to feedback in second language acquisition and their peers’. As Tsui and Ng (2000) reported, the writing. New York: Routledge. students believed that the one who is qualified to provide a proper comment for them is the teachers Burns, A. (2007). Action Research. In J. Cummins, & because the teachers give more specific comments, C. Davison, International of handbook of English explain more clearly what the problems are, and provide language teaching (pp. 987-1002). Boston, MA: more concrete suggestions for revision. In a similar Springer. vein, Tai et al (2015) stated that most students in their Chen, T. (2014). Technology-supported peer feedback study mentioned that teachers’ feedback is more in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. essential for their performance because it can identify Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 1- the writing errors and weaknesses accurately and supply 33. alternative ways of expressing some phrases. Therefore, utilizing the peer feedback practices in both ESL and Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, EFL classrooms should be supplemented by the conducting, and evaluating quantitative and teachers’ feedback (Tsui and Ng, 2000). qualitative research. Boston: Pearson. 230 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 546 Dastgeer, G., & Afzal, M. T. (2015). Improving English Khalil, E. (2018). The efficacy of peer feedback in writing skill: A case of problem based learning. Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(10), Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 8(6), 920- 1315-1319. 931. Deveci, T. (2018). Student perceptions on collaborative Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Good or bad collaborative writing in a project-based course. Universal wiki writing: Exploring links between group Journal of Educational Research, 6(4), 721-732. interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38-53. Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and Limbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378. experience joint writing: University students’ conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of and environments. Computers & Education, online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL 82(32), 393-408. learners’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, Metilia, T., & Fitrawati. (2018). Using Google Docs for 30(8), 787-815. collaborative writing in teaching writing descriptive text to English departement students. Farrah, M. (2012). The impact of peer feedback on Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(1), 194- improving the writing skills among Hebron 200. university students. An-Najah University Journal for Research (Humanities), 26(1), 179-210. Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. Fung, Y. M. (2010). Collaborative writing features. RELC Journal, 41(1), 18-30. Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student Google Support. (2020). Get started with sheet: share assessment. The Language Teacher, 35(3), 5-10. and collaborate on files or share files with larger groups of people. Google Workspace Learning Nykopp, M., Marttunen, M., & Erkens, G. (2018). Center. Coordinating collaborative writing in online (https://support.google.com/a/users/answer/930598 environment. Journal of Computing in Higher 7#3.5) accessed June 2020). Education, 31(3), 536-556. Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1). writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the 16(1), 40–53. design of instructional systems. Instructional Hadjerrouit, S. (2011). A collaborative writing approach Science, 18, 119-144. to Wikis: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Sadler, G. R. (2010). Recruitment of hard-to-reach Issues in Informing Science and Information population subgroups via adaptations of the Technology, 8, 431-449. snowball sampling strategy. Nursing and Health Howard, R. M. (2001). Collaborative pedagogy. In G. Sciences, 12(3), 369-374. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick, A guide to Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and students perceptions composition pedagogies (pp. 54-70). Oxford: of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Oxford University Press. Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, language students’ writing. Language Teaching, process, and students’ reflection. Journal of 39(02), 83-101. Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173. Ishtaiwa, F. F., & Aburezeq, I. M. (2015). The impact of Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Google Docs on student collaboration: A UAE processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual case study. Learning, Culture and Social Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288. Interaction, 7, 85-96. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research. Thousand Oaks, Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 25-43. California: SAGE Publications. 231 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 546 Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects female students at Tabuk University. Asian of collaborative writing activity using Google Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(2), 7-26. Docs on students’ writing abilities. The Turkish Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students' Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: 148-156. A case study from an activity theory perspective. Tai, H.-C., Lin, W.-C., & Yang, S. C. (2015). Exploring Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572-593. the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective Zhang, M. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL feedback on EFL students’ online writing classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, performance. Journal of Education Computing, 76, 1-12. 53(2), 284-309. Thompson, J. (2008). Don’t be afraid to explore Web 2.0. Education Digest, 89(10), 711-778. Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. Wahyuni, E. (2018). Teaching English with an internet- based nature of Google Docs to improve students’ critical thinking. International Journal of Education, 10(2), 149-161. Wakabayashi, R. (2016). The effects of the peer feedback process on reviewers’ own writing. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 177-192. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Widarsih, S., & Suherdi, D. (2019). Analisis umpan balik tertulis guru pada tulisan siswa dalam teks recount. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan, 19(3), 434- 444. Widodo, H. P. (2013). Implementing collaborative process based writing in the EFL college classroom. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 198-206. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364- 374. World Health Organization. (2020). Considerations in adjusting public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance, 16 April 2020. World Health Organization. (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331773 accessed 5 May 2020). Yeh, Shiou-Wen., & Chen, Cheng-Ting. (2019). EFL learners’ peer negotiation and attitudes in mobile- assisted collaborative writing. Language Education & Assessment, 2(1), 41-56. Younes, Z. B., & Albalawi, F. S. (2015). Exploring the most common types of writing problems among English language and translation major sophomore 232