A Collaborative Story Writing Project Using Google Docs and Face-to-Face Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Google Docs application is part of Google Workspace for Education, a suite of cloud-based productivity and collaboration tools that are now ubiquitous in middle and high school classrooms. While there is an expanding body of research documenting the benefits of using Google Docs to support collaborative writing projects, there exists few qualitative studies detailing how cloud-based tools are integrated into courses that meet face-to-face on an ongoing basis. This case study explores how an experienced high school English teacher facilitated a collaborative writing project, in which students used Google Docs to co-write a story. The students were instructed to work on their stories asynchronously from home and synchronously during face-to-face classes. Data sources included field notes from class observations, reflections written by the teacher, semi-structured interviews with the teacher, focus group interviews with the students, and the shared Google Docs. This article describes affordances and constraints associated with the pedagogical supports provided during the collaborative writing process and offers recommendations for teachers who intend to use Google Docs to facilitate collaborative writing projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".