Presented by Patty Griffith and Jan Schmittauer Ohio University-Chillicothe

1. Presented by Patty Griffith and Jan Schmittauer Ohio University-Chillicothe Exploring, Evaluating, and Applying Web-based Collaborative Writing Tools

2. Advantages of Real-Time Co-Editing • Everyone has an immediate sense of progress being made. Brainstorming flourishes due to heightened spontaneity. Group dynamic is a motivating force. • A greater feeling of “democracy” exists since all students have a voice. Knowledge is constructed in “real-time.” • No one has to be the leader and pull the separate pieces together as often takes place with writing where sections are assigned and then compiled later. Real-time collaborative writing also tends to be more cohesive as the different parts come together in one complete text. • The power of revision is evident as all students simultaneously work on the project and are fully aware of what others are doing. The writing process is visible, and students learn what others do to produce their best writing. • Students conquer anxiety about the “blank page.” It is clear that consensus must be reached in order for the writing to move forward. • Students tend to “speak up” more readily than they might in a classroom. • Collaborative writing groups can provide an encouraging support system as well as enable more sophisticated analysis and better research than someone working alone. Students gain confidence from producing a quality piece of writing with their peers. • Perhaps most importantly, synchronous collaborative co-editing saves time and helps students to avoid procrastination.

3. Google Docs • Probably the most popular of the reviewed tools. Ten people can edit a document at the same time. Once this simultaneous collaborator user limit has been reached, additional users will be able to view, but not edit the document. However, a document can be shared with up to 200 people. Works well for developing large documents, less ideal for quick brainstorming and collaboration. • Collaborators can access a project from any computer with Internet access. They won’t lose work because it saves automatically. • Students can have as many comments as they like. They can also discard comments, add to them, and change their color by right-clicking on them. • The revision history permits comparison of any two previous drafts’ changes via a color-coded system, showing who made specific insertions and deletions. • Rich document formatting options including support for images, footnotes, and tables. Additionally, documents are exportable as .html, .doc, .rtf, .odt, or .pdf or publishable to the Web. • Google Docs Tour: • http://www.google.com/google-d-s/intl/en/tour1.html • Teacher Crib Sheet for Google Docs: • http://www.google.com/educators/learning_materials/WR_cribsheet.pdf

4. Zoho Writer 2.0 • Easy to use. No installation. Collaborative editing takes place in real-time via Zoho chat. A tab on the left shows all collaborators. It can, though, be easy to overwrite another user’s edits if you are not careful. • To enhance editing, Zoho Writer has an option for spell checking, footnotes, endnotes, and a highlighter. • Students can export and import documents in a variety of file formats such as Word (DOC), SXW, Portable Document File (PDF), ODT, Rich Text File (RTF), TXT and HTML. Zoho provides a unique URL and RSS feed for every public document which is updated automatically whenever a change is made unlike Google Docs. • In addition to inviting others to view or edit documents, users can create groups to make them easier to manage. • Co-editors can go back and check older versions of the document if need be. • Supports embedded media from hosting sites such as Flickr, Youtube. • A weakness may be that this is a full-featured word processor (which is also its strength); therefore, it may appear cluttered • Zoho Writer 2.0 Screenshot Tour: http://writer.zoho.com/html/screentour.html

5. Gobby • Gobby supports multiple documents in one session and a multi-user chat. Any text inserted will be highlighted with your user color, so you always know who wrote what • Users can drag'n'drop documents into Gobby. Gobby has no rich-text support or undo features. Users must be certain to save often. • Since Gobby was created with programmers in mind, it includes line numbering, auto indenting, and syntax highlighting. Most co-editors will find the line numbering useful, but the syntax highlighting will seem very cluttered to most students. • Gobby includes a chat window to talk to other users as you write. There is no spell checker. • This is the least recommended among our reviewed collaborative writing tools. Other applications are much more useful for students.

6. Etherpad • This is by far the simplest tool to use. Students begin by creating a new workspace, then type basic text on numbered lines in plain text. They can invite someone else in and have them type as well. • Each user’s edits are highlighted a different color. Changes are made in absolute real time, something even Google hasn’t been able to do (Google docs update every fifteen seconds). • Users can also chat in the sidebar, save versions and make a few tweaks to the settings like removing line numbers. • This tool is best for basic brainstorming sessions. Although students can save and restore revisions, students can’t store documents online or export finished documents or import or open Microsoft documents. • Video demonstration of Etherpad: http://etherpad.com/ep/about/screencast • Etherpad home page: http://etherpad.com/ • Etherpad Testimonials: http://etherpad.com/ep/about/testimonials

7. Mixedink • Most helpful for writing short pieces of text that lots of people want to get their ideas into. Most unique tool of those we reviewed. Tries to reflect the best ideas or the collective point of view of contributors. • Students “promote” their topics to others by including a link in a blog or an email invitation, or a social networking site. • How does MixedInk work? An organizer proposes a topic and invites people to participate. • Participants contribute ideas and opinions addressing the issue. They also edit and remix other people's submissions. • At the same time, people rate others' submissions. So the ideas and opinions that best capture the group's viewpoint rise to the top and get fused together. • In the end, the highest rated text - created jointly by many different users - represents the group's collective opinion. • How does the 'final' version get chosen?The version with the highest average rating at the end becomes the 'final' version. That's the one that best reflects the community's point of view. The organizer decides what time the topic will end during the set-up process. (The organizer may also choose not to use any deadline for completing the topic.) From the homepage: http://mixedink.com/main.php

8. MixedInk (continued) • Simply by participating in a MixedInk project, students are exposed to a wide range of their peers' work. As they remix the best parts of various essays, students are challenged to critically evaluate the quality of what they read. When students rate and comment on submissions, they must analyze why they prefer some texts and not others. Perhaps most importantly, students hone their ability to recognize compelling concepts and their capacity to synthesize these ideas seamlessly into a single text. Those of us who have worked in groups to write grants, press releases, marketing materials, and mission statements know well the lasting value of this particular skill. • Educational tools like MixedInk are built to nurture students’ creativity, harness their enthusiasm, and ensure their readiness to succeed in an increasingly digital world. (From the guest blog posting by the founder of MixedInk, Vanessa Scanfield: http://www.thewritingteacher.org/writing-blog-home/2009/7/27/collaborative-writing-in-the-classroom.html ) • MixedInk Demo: http://vimeo.com/2674991

9. What didn’t work: • Conventi ThinkFree • Near-Time Writeboard • Quick Topic Buzzword • Socialtext Please Review • Online Demonstrations • Applications in an online writing lab? • Collaboratively Writing about Collaborative Writing Tools: http://www.iddblog.org/?p=161 • Questions????