CENTRE FOR LEARNING AND TEACHING, UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON

Write-on
On-line Support for Academic Writing: a
Synthesis of Research and Current UK Projects
By Jennifer Jones

November 2009

Funded by The Higher Education Academy

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 7

Methodology 8

Part 1 9

Background: Changes in Perceptions and Definitions of Academic Writing 9

Ways in which On-line Technologies Facilitate Academic Writing through Creativity and 10
Collaboration

On-line Writing Communities for Flexible Learning 12

Part 2 13

US University On-line Writing Centres: Models for Academic Writing Support 13

Part 3 15

UK On-line Support for Academic Writing: Emerging Practice 15

The Open University: the EWrite Site and COWS 16

Write Now CETL and London Metropolitan University Writing Centre 17

AWESOME: Academic Writing Empowered by Socially Mediated On-line Environments 19

COWL: University of Coventry On-line Writing Lab 21

Learn Higher Academic Writing Website and WAC: Nottingham Trent University 22

Developing Collaborative Academic Writing Communities and a Collaborative 23

Writer’s Toolbox

Thinking Writing: Queen Mary University, London 23

University of Brighton: Writing for Academic Publication and community@brighton 24

2
Part 4 26

Discussion of Key Findings 26

Recommendations for Practice across the HE Sector 28

Conclusion 30

Bibliography and References 31

Appendix: Glossary of Technological Terms 37

3
Executive Summary

Since UK universities began to address the government agenda for widening participation in
the 1990s, there has been a rapid growth in students from diverse backgrounds across the
HE sector. Such increased diversity has also brought a wide variety in students’ abilities and
needs for support, in traditional academic writing. There is now a vital requirement for UK
universities to provide differentiated writing support for students and staff on an extensive
scale. The recent expansion of computer and Internet technologies, including Web 2.0,
provides universities with opportunities to better address these challenges. Previous
research, and US on-line writing centres (OWLs), provide examples which demonstrate the
effectiveness of on-line support for academic writing in higher education. UK universities are
now investing time and resources into developing innovative on-line facilities and projects
to support students and staff in this context. The earlier research and current UK projects
have created an opportunity to collate and summarise valuable information in relation to
on-line support for academic writing which may be used to inform good practice and future
research in this field across the UK HE sector.

In order to inform this Synthesis, an extensive search and review of literature was
conducted, which focuses on the theories underpinning on-line support for academic
writing, and on examples of US on-line writing centres (OWLs). This was followed by a
review of current UK on-line writing development projects, accompanied by some
evaluation. The projects and any accompanying research were then explored and
considered. Finally, some general conclusions have been drawn, which identify
recommendations for good practice in relation to on-line support for academic writing
across the HE sector and questions which may still be addressed by further research.

Previous research into academic writing support suggests that the Internet and Web 2.0
technologies are appropriate tools for facilitating writing development in higher education.
Within this context, asynchronous support (time delayed feedback and communication) and
synchronous support (real time on-line tutorials) can effectively combine the 3 traditional
writing support models (Skills, Literacies and Socialisation). Synchronous and asynchronous
support can promote collaboration and creativity in writing development; which in turn may
enhance a writer’s originality, critical analysis skills and ability to debate. In addition, on-line
tutorials, and collaborative on-line writing practices, such as blogging, conferencing and
dialoguing through annotated commentary accompanying written work can also help
counteract a writer’s isolation, building confidence and engagement.

4
The emerging UK writing support projects described in this Synthesis are often on-line
writing centres, or else websites that offer either or both asynchronous and synchronous
writing support in the ways described above. Projects in varied stages of completion focus
on the needs of different student and staff groups within disciplines, and across institutions.
Evaluation accompanying the projects commonly confirms theories proposed by previous
research in relation to ways in which Internet technologies support academic writing of staff
and students. Evaluations of these recent projects have also identified additional findings,
which help to inform the following recommendations for good practice in on-line support
for academic writing across the UK higher education sector:

1. Proposed on-line support for academic writing should be based on a student and
staff needs analysis.
2. Asynchronous support, such as provision of feedback on written drafts, and
communication about writing among peers, can be enabled by email and Web 2.0
technologies. Such support addresses needs for flexibility, permitting time for
reflective and critical thought, and discussion about writing.
3. Synchronous on-line tutoring, e.g. by Skype or Live Chat, may be provided by staff
tutors or student mentors. Both methods appear to be valuable and effective, as
long as support is friendly and non-threatening. However, student mentors may be
able to empathise better with student mentees in this context. Good working
relationships may then arise between mentors and mentees, and this can also help
build a developing writer’s confidence.
4. On-line support in writing should be tailored to different academic disciplinary
contexts.
5. Emails accompanied by annotated drafts (through Track Changes) and written
communication enabled by Web 2.0 technologies (including blogging, wikis, and
written conferencing) can encourage a less formal dialogue in writing. In addition to
increasing confidence and engagement in writing, this can enhance the writer’s
ability to think critically and debate as a preparation for more formal writing.
6. Websites and web pages which are the interfaces of on-line academic writing
support should be trialled, evaluated and redeveloped if necessary. Technology and
pedagogy should be combined to ensure accessibility, engagement, privacy and
navigability.
7. Developing effective on-line academic writing support may be a long term
investment of time, funding, collaboration and commitment among a variety of
institutional stakeholders.
8. On-line academic writing support can enhance but not replace face to face support,
providing greater capacity and flexibility.

This Synthesis provides evidence that the current UK on-line writing support projects are
beneficial for staff and students. Perceived benefits include the writer’s development of:

5
  Informal writing skills
 Critical thinking
 Reflectivity about writing
 Debating and discussion skills
 Originality and voice
 Confidence
 Moral support
 Engagement
 Enhanced formal academic writing

However, many of the projects which are described in this review still rely upon additional
funding, the future of which depends upon recognition that they are really effective in
positively affecting student engagement, achievement and retention. There are still
questions in relation to these factors which remain partially unaddressed across the UK HE
sector, and which may therefore form the bases for future research:

1. What are the effects of on-line support for academic writing on student scores, and
completion rates?
2. Does on-line writing support really produce a difference in the standard of students’
and staff academic writing which is evident across the sector?
3. To what extent do newer and more informal writing genres, such as dialoguing about
feedback with critical friends through Track Changes, blogging, and asynchronous
computer conferencing, affect success in academic writing?
4. Will academic writing be redefined by these new written genres?
5. What is the scale of reticence among students and staff to engage in support offered
by Web 2.0 technologies, such as blogging, within HE contexts?

6
Write-On

Introduction: On-line Support for Academic Writing: Emergence and Need

Good written communication has always been a prerequisite for successful study and
professional development of students and academics. But the Internet and related advances
in software innovation, such as Web 2.0 technologies, now enable universities to support
academic writing in a flexible manner on an unprecedented scale. For instance, drafts can be
sent as email attachments and feedback can be received from tutors or peers. This can be
facilitated by annotation tools such as Track Changes, which act as a channel for giving and
receiving detailed constructive advice. Availability of journals on the Internet provides
academic staff and students with easy access to examples of writing in their field; and
Endnote may be used as a time saving tool for adding references to assignments or articles.
These practices are now becoming commonplace to support writing development. In
addition wikis, blogs, chat rooms and other on-line methods for enabling written
communication are also increasingly adopted within different university courses. Moreover,
many higher education institutions are now beginning to provide more active generic
support through writing centres. Many of these have their own websites or web pages
devoted to academic writing. On-line guidance offered within these contexts can range from
useful tips to the provision of individual one to one tutorials. In reviewing this variety of on-
line support and development for academic writing it is also useful to explore whether, and
in what ways, on-line and e-learning oriented writing support enables writing development
which is similar to, or different from traditional written support and feedback.

Scope

It would be difficult to summarise all the existing prolific on-line support for academic
writing offered by UK universities. Instead, this review focuses on specific current and
emerging web-based UK higher education writing centres, as well as projects which aim to
provide substantial on-line support for students and staff, and in which on-line tutoring
and/or mentoring often play a significant role.

By doing this it offers some insights into the practices enabled by Web 2.0 technologies, as
well as by the more everyday use of Track Changes and commenting, among other Word
functions. The Synthesis is structured as follows:

1. Theories about the relevance of on-line technologies to contemporary academic

writing will be explored.

7
 2. Ways in which these technologies have been successfully harnessed in US writing
centres will be described.
3. Current writing projects across the UK HE sector are summarised; and research and
evaluation accompanying some of these projects is discussed.
4. Key findings from the literature, project outcomes and evaluation will be considered.
5. Recommendations will be made for further development with regard to on-line
support for academic writing across the UK higher education sector.

Methodology

Compilation of literature to inform this Synthesis included the following stages:

1. A general Internet-based literature search about academic writing and theories

about support for academic writing was conducted. This helped to clarify the need
and background for on-line support for academic writing within the HE sector.
2. An initial exploration was undertaken of recent funded projects across the HE sector
which are developing substantial on-line support for academic writing. This included
a search for grey literature and any related research work which has accompanied
these projects.
3. A general Internet literature search was then carried out, about on-line support for
academic writing, mainly within the UK and US.
4. A more specific Internet based literature search then focused on themes within on-
line support for academic writing. Key concepts at this stage were collaboration and
creativity.
5. UK HE on-line writing support project developers were contacted to enquire if any
additional research, evaluation or developments have taken place accompanying
their projects.
6. There was a further Internet exploration of recently funded UK projects. This also
helped to ascertain whether any additional evaluation and research had been
conducted.
7. On-line support for academic staff who participated in the Writing for Academic
Publication module at the University of Brighton was summarised. This included
some feedback provided by participants, followed by a description of plans for
future development.
8. A first draft of the synthesis was then written including recommendations for good
practice in the context of on-line support for academic writing across the HE sector.
9. This draft was then peer reviewed before final editing took place.
10. A glossary of technological terms was compiled and added as an appendix.

Key words which emerged and which may be helpful in related literature searches included:

8
On-line, academic writing, support, literacy, technology, digital, group, collaborative,
journal, blog, email, creativity, development, synchronous, asynchronous, tutorial,
discussion, sharing, community, conferencing, OWL, writing centre, disciplines, engage

Part 1

Background: Changes in Perceptions and Definitions of Academic Writing

With increasing access to cutting edge technologies in universities, including Web 2.0
technologies such as blogging, podcasting and social networking, the growth of on-line
support for academic writing has developed its own momentum in UK higher education
(Goodfellow, Lea and Jones, 2008). In addition, there is an increasing need for such support
(Goodfellow, Lea and Jones, op.cit; Ganobscik-Williams, 2004). This is mainly due to greater
diversity within a quickly expanding student population, since the Government
communicated its agenda for widening participation to UK higher education in the 1990s
(HEFCE, 1999). Such growing diversity in the student population has also brought with it a
requirement for universities to cater for students’ varying abilities in traditional essay
writing (Bell, 2009a; Burke, 2008). But although lecturers and supervisors recognise the
importance of providing additional help with academic writing, there are still issues
regarding how such guidance may be integrated within teaching. Research suggests the
three traditional models for providing academic writing support work more effectively when
some of their different elements are combined together (Bell, op.cit.). The models include:

1. The Skills model which involves teaching study skills to individuals or groups
usually by non-academic staff. In this case the students may be identified as
failing; and it is the students’ responsibility to improve their writing.
2. The Socialisation model which assumes students’ natural ability to develop writing
skills as they pass through the transition into HE.
3. The Academic Literacies model which defines writing as more than just an
individual’s skill or action. It is also a collaborative process, which can be
encouraged.

(Bell, op.cit.)

It is argued that on-line environments are an appropriate channel for integrating the models
of academic writing support described above. For instance, individual on-line tutoring or
mentoring incorporates elements of the Skills model. Informal blogging in writing groups,
and on-line conferencing, both include elements of the Socialisation and Academic
Literacies models. These combined models have been shown to work effectively in some US
university writing centres. Such on-line writing centres are now also emerging in the UK
(Bell, op.cit.).

9
In addition, Burke (2008) also argues that the Internet may help to legitimise newer forms of
academic writing practice in UK HE, enabled by Web 2.0 technologies. On-line journaling (or
blogging), for instance, can encourage the integration of writing in learning, so that writing
is no longer simply seen as an assessed exercise at the end of a module. This pedagogic
principle is being increasingly accepted in universities. However, some academics are
worried that practices such as blogging, threaten traditional essay writing, and may even
lower its standards (Davies, Swinburne and Williams, 2006). On the other hand, it is argued
that recognition of new written genres in HE helps widen participation to academic writing.
Until recently, success in the latter has been considered an elitist threshold which only the
privileged few may cross (Burke, 2008, op.cit.). Emailing and blogging, are now widely
adopted in contemporary professional business communication. It is therefore reasonable
to assume that it is only a matter of time before they are welcome in higher education
contexts (Williams and Jacobs, 2004).

Ways in which the support models described above; and different types of written
communication are incorporated and encouraged through current UK on-line writing
development projects and centres will be discussed again in the Part 3 of this Synthesis. In
addition, advantages of on-line tutoring, mentoring and conferencing which are:
synchronous (real time) or asynchronous (time lapsed) 1 will be discussed in greater detail in
Part 2 of this report. Firstly, however, further discussion of previous research into academic
writing support and development, will help to clarify the theoretical relevance of on-line
environments for facilitating such support.

Ways in which On-line Technologies Facilitate Academic Writing through Creativity and
Collaboration

There are two central themes which emerge within recent literature focusing on support for
academic writing in higher education and these are collaboration and creativity. Recent
research demonstrates how these two elements ally themselves to current web based
technologies, particularly Web 2.0 technologies and tools, within this context. For instance,
it is suggested that creativity and collaboration can both be encouraged through:

 on-line journals
 blogging
 on-line written conferencing2

1
For a definition of synchronous and asynchronous please see the glossary of technological terms as the end
of the Synthesis.
2
Please see glossary of technological terms for definitions on-line journals, blogging and online written
conferencing.

10
Some of these involve making use of social networking. With reference to creativity,
LeCreme (2008) suggests that written journals, which accompany students’ academic work,
are a way of bridging the gap between informality and formality in writing, encouraging
reflexivity and providing a place where students can express their critical thoughts.
According to Antoniou and Moriarty (2008) such reflexivity can also bring the student’s own
voice into their writing, and make the latter more lively and original. Where journals are
shared through blogs they can also become spaces for debate, adding another dimension of
creative collaboration to journaling, and academic writing (Antoniou and Moriarty, op.cit.).
Furthermore, McVey (2008) describes how the creative element of on-line journaling is
important in helping to address current issues in the context of students’ writing in HE. Such
issues are identified as students’ “ability” and “engagement” in writing (McVey, op.cit,
p291). These, he suggests, are linked to the HE agendas of enhancing students’
employability and key skills. For students who have little or no experience of writing
traditional essays, on-line journals can be a means to develop creativity and confidence in
their written work. McVey goes on to describe how students are also engaged by on-line
forms of communication such as:

 texting
 emailing
 blogging
 websites
 chat rooms 3

(McVey, op.cit)

In relation to collaboration, previous research demonstrates the value of peer feedback in

writing courses aimed at developing students’ writing skills for publication. Students
participating in two different projects describe their greater confidence and engagement in
writing, because of the collaborative element. In one of the studies, the writers within the
group also experienced increased success in publishing their work after participating in a
writers’ group (Pololli, Knight and Dunn, 2004; Rickard, McGrail, Jones, O’Meara, Robinson,
Burley and Barruel, 2008). Ways in which Web 2.0 on-line environments can facilitate such
collaboration in writing development is demonstrated by research conducted by Williams
and Jacobs (2004). In this study, the findings suggest that blogs are an exciting way for
students to:

 share knowledge
 collaborate
 engage in critical analysis and reflection
 and form good relationships with teachers
3
Please see the glossary of technological terms for a definition of chat rooms.

11
A small number of students who took part in the research, said they remained on the
periphery of the collaborative blog community, and did not actively engage in it. However,
the majority of students found the blog to be a channel for intelligent, critical and discursive
communication. A similar reticence by students to join in on-line forums accompanying
academic writing is also described by Michael Hammond (2000) in relation to his research.
He suggests that there is a threshold for students to cross before they engage in on-line
communities since they must risk unveiling formerly private aspects of themselves through
their blogs. However, the findings do show that the on-line forum creates a sense of
community for the students, where they have sufficient time to reflect deeply on colleagues’
contributions, and to engage in the peer review of each others’ essays. Research conducted
at the University of Bristol (Artemi, Chromy, Martin, Speedy, Trahar, Williams and Wilson,
2008) also explored ways in which technology supported participants’ collaborative writing.
The study found that on-line journaling in the form of a joint reflective biography which
accompanied a writing group, facilitated communication between its members, and was
motivating in this context. Again with this research, there is some suggestion that
participants were not used to collaborative on-line journaling, and needed time to adjust.
But although the writing group members did take time to engage in on-line blogging they
eventually found that they had “thrived on collaboratively setting our own pace and
boundaries and on our joint sense of connectedness” (Artemi et al., 2008, p1218).

On-line Writing Communities for Flexible Learning

Not only are students in further and higher education increasingly diverse in their
backgrounds, there are now more students who are communicating with tutors and peers
on-line from a distance. There are many reasons for this. Students may be part–time, or
require flexibility in studying, because of additional life and work commitments (Metcalfe,
2006; Watts, 2008). In these cases, students may have a greater need to engage in on-line
communication which relates to their academic writing (Butcher and Sieminski, 2006). Mary
Lea (2001) describes how computer conferencing (written not spoken) during an Open
University (OU) MA in Applications of Information Technology in Open and Distance
Education helped to support individual students in their academic writing. In this context,
Lea describes how on-line conferencing is:

 appropriate for debating and discussion

 is a way to prepare for writing an essay or article

Such on-line conferencing also provides opportunities for reflection since it is asynchronous
(time-delayed); and once conferences have taken place students are able to go back to their
arguments to refer to in their actual essay writing. Lea argues that computer conference
writing is a new genre of writing in this sense. Collaboration is key during the conference
debate; but afterwards the written assignments are individual. However, they are still based

12
on the creation of “collaborative texts (Lea, 2001, p178).” In these conferences peers’
arguments may enhance the traditional literature review. Lea recommends that such
practices are particularly suited to vocational study writing; rather than traditional academic
writing.

As described in the introduction to this review, some academics are concerned that the new
on-line writing practices described above are lowering the standards of traditional academic
writing, and also encouraging student plagiarism in writing (Davies et al., 2006). It is argued,
however, that such aspersions cast over on-line academic writing practice can be cast aside
by several research studies, some of which are mentioned above. These studies highlight
the benefits of on-line writing which, it is suggested, help create a “relationship between
writing, reading and meaning making in the process of knowledge construction (Goodfellow
et al. 2008, p2)”. Moreover, although research shows that for some participants in on-line
communities accompanying academic writing are unwilling to cross the threshold into
collaborative biography and discussion the majority find that blogging, journaling and
conferencing on-line is engaging, motivating and supportive in their academic writing.

Part 2

US University On-line Writing Centres: Models for Academic Writing Support

We have explored extensive literature which supports the theory that on-line, including
Web 2.0, technologies facilitate and are appropriate for developing academic writing in the
ways described above. However, it is also important to gain an understanding of ways in
which universities are currently promoting these practices in order to better support
students and staff in this context. There are several UK institutions which are now setting up
on-line writing centres, whose central purpose is to enhance support for academic writing
development. This support is usually provided through on-line tutoring; and sometimes
through student peer mentoring schemes. Such writing centres, although new in the UK,
have been operating in the US for longer. It is these US on-line writing centres or OWLs 4
which have provided a model for some UK writing centres to follow (Ganobscik-Williams,
2009).

OWLs are described as:

“...’a compilation of resources’ providing information about a writing centre’s

‘services, staff and location as well as access to worksheets, style manuals, and
research tools. Many also take advantage of the Web’s ability to link to documents at
other sites’, and many have on-line tutoring facilities (Ryan and Zimmerelli, 2006,
pp72-75, cited by Ganobcsik-Williams, 2009, p 2).”

4
Please see the glossary of technological terms.

13
Ganobcsik-Williams (2009) describes how since the 1990s, the Internet created the means
for writing centres to offer asynchronous (time delayed) and/or synchronous (real time)
writing support sessions. One of the first US on-line writing centres offering asynchronous
support is OWL at Purdue University, which was set up in 1994, and was extensively
redesigned in 2006. Originally, the OWL at Purdue served as:

 an archive resource for on-line visitors both within the University and externally
 an extensive and varied link to advice about writing
 a source of asynchronous e-mail advice on individual queries about writing

Many US OWLs now offer asynchronous e-mail tutoring. However, Anderson (2002) and
Ganobcsik-Williams (2009) suggest that these tutoring services can vary widely in their
efficacy. Moreover, they argue that this efficacy is linked closely to the design of on-line
interfaces and the way in which these engage users. Designing a writing centre website
without planning and integrating its relationship to a proposed pedagogic model, is
therefore likely to be insufficient. In their research exploring the usability of the redesigned
OWL at Purdue site, Salvo et al. argue that the website and pedagogy must work alongside
each other in order to be successful (Salvo, Ren, Brizee and Conard-Salvo, 2008). Anderson
(2002) also suggests that OWLs are most effective when they encourage relationships
between students and tutors or mentors, that are non-threatening and engaging. The
University of Michigan is described as one example where students’ on-line writing mentors
are other students. In developing their writing skills it is found that students can relate well
to mentors who are their peers.

Asynchronous on-line tutoring or conferencing is often criticised, and it is suggested that

this cannot take the place of, and is not as good as, face to face tutoring. Ganobcsik-
Williams (2009) refers to criticisms made by Yergeau et al. (2008) in relation to the latter:

“e.g. the absence of personal contact, tutors’ lack of rhetorical awareness in

responding to student writers ‘with requisite empathy and sophistication’; and the
inability to foster a true dialogic exchange (Yergeau et al.,2008, cited by Ganobcsik-
Williams, 2009, p3).”

There may be some elements of truth in these concerns. However, as Anderson (2002)
explains, it is not the purpose of email tutoring or conferencing to replace face to face
tutorials. On-line tutorials, it is suggested, are different to face to face meetings, and offer a
completely separate pedagogic model for writing development, encouraging “new literate
behaviours (Anderson, 2002, p72).” The value of asynchronous on-line writing support
through emails, tutorials and conferencing is described by Coogan (1995) in relation to
research into email tutoring at the State University of New York-Albany. He describes how

14
email tutoring changes the usual pattern of inherent in face to face communication and
conferences, two important facets of which are “shared space and limited time (Coogan,
1995, p 171).” On-line conferencing or tutoring slows down the communication process by a
few days, and within this process Coogan describes how tutors and students are
represented in their texts. The advantages of this are that contemporary technology
facilitates writing because:

 it promotes collaboration and encourages communication about writing;

 time allows greater reflectivity from the tutor about the student’s writing; and from
the student about the tutor’s comments;
 revision can take place a number of times through collaboration, but it is
constructive and facilitative rather than evaluative.

In addition to asynchronous on-line support for academic writing provided by the majority
of US OWLs described above, Ganobcsik-Williams (2009) describes some US OWLs, which
also offer synchronous support through on-line conferencing; either through chat room
style communication, or video conferencing with Skype, for instance. Among these are
OWLs attached to the University of Denver, Bowling Green State University and the
University of Maryland. There is little US research which evaluates the benefits of
synchronous on-line tutorials. However in Part 3, there will be further discussion relating to
findings of studies conducted in UK universities which demonstrate the effectiveness of such
support.

Part 3

UK On-line Support for Academic Writing: Emerging Practice

A number of UK university centres, and projects, offering on-line support for academic
writing have been recently emerging. Many of these mirror US OWLs by combining
elements of the writing support models described in Part 1. Based on theoretical principals
established by previous work discussed in Part 1 and Part 2, these projects and centres
adopt on-line, and particularly Web 2.0, technologies to facilitate writing development, by
encouraging collaboration and creativity. Some initiatives may combine traditional face to
face tutoring with on-line asynchronous mentoring or support. Some may combine
synchronous and asynchronous on-line support for writing. The needs of different student
or staff groups, in different disciplines, are also taken into account in website design in this
context. In many cases research is being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the
provision. The projects will now be described, and where accompanying research findings
are available these will also be discussed.

The Open University: the EWrite Site and COWS

15
It is not surprising that one UK institution to offer various on-line resources which support
academic writing should be the Open University (OU) since it caters for distance learning
students. Therefore on-line support for writing is imperative in this context. One example of
this support is the OU EWrite site. This was primarily set up to support the academic writing
needs of a diverse and international group of postgraduate distance learning students who
were studying on the MAODE course (Masters in On-line and Distance Education)
Goodfellow, R. (2005). The EWrite site offered two main areas of on-line support:

 Students’ and tutors’ testimonials, advice and practical activities to support the
writing of assignments
 Students’ and tutors’ testimonials, advice and links to engage in different types of
on-line tutorials

Types of on-line tutorials varied and were asynchronous. They included:

“...structured discussions and debates, pair or small group collaborative tasks,

responses to activities in the study guide, or in some cases just informal conversation
about course topics (Goodfellow and Lea, 2006,
http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/workspace.cfm?wpid=5611).”

An action research study accompanied and evaluated students’ engagement with this on-
line resource. The findings suggest that a significant number of students found the web
resource supportive and needed; and that the website encouraged students to examine and
question traditional academic writing practices, through their active use of the on-line space
(Goodfellow, 2005). As previously described, Mary Lea suggests asynchronous written
conferencing is effective for two main reasons:

1. It is an opportunity to reflect on writing because of the time delayed

communication.
2. It helps students rehearse for writing the more formal essay, because students use
the arguments of other students to inform their writing.

The latter, Lea points out, is crucial for the formation of a good argument in their writing,
and is what Lea describes as a new writing genre:

“By drawing explicitly on the voices of others and investing them with the kinds of
authority which have traditionally been reserved for published authors, students are
able to draw on a wider range of rhetorical resources than those available to them
from published works alone (Lea, 2001, p179).”

Having introduced the EWrite site within the MAODE course and found it to be successful
for masters students on this course, the developers wanted to create an on-line resource
which could be applied generically across the University. However, they wanted to adapt
the resource to suit different disciplines at postgraduate level. They wanted this support to
remain at MA level because research conducted at the OU suggested that there was a focus
on “higher level issues of discursive writing (Strauss, Goodfellow and Puxley, 2009)” within
students’ need for writing support. They are therefore now developing COWS

16
(Contextualising On-line Writing Support) which will integrate some of the EWrite site in a
new resource. The idea behind COWS is that a generic website offering on-line support for
academic writing can only go so far in supporting students’ writing in a general sense; but
may not be subject specific enough. Therefore, as described above, on-line writing
resources are being developed which can be:

 applied at a generic level within different disciplines;

 adapted by course designers to provide more specific writing support suitable for
different subject areas.

The COWS resources are soon to be trialled in Masters in Education courses at the OU and
New Zealand, before they can be adapted and implemented more extensively across the
OU, and in other institutions in the future.

Write Now CETL and London Metropolitan University Writing Centre

Funded by Higher Education Academy, the Write Now CETL was established in 2006. This is
led by London Metropolitan University, in conjunction with Liverpool Hope University and
Aston University. All universities which are participating in this CETL project offer support for
academic writing and have their own websites. However, this section of the Synthesis
focuses mainly on the work of London Metropolitan Writing Centre, which provides the
most substantial on-line support (Write Now CETL, 2009). In addition to traditional writing
workshops for staff and students, London Metropolitan University Writing Centre offers
synchronous and asynchronous on-line support in academic writing for undergraduates and
postgraduates. Their website also includes a variety of printable on-line resources on
different aspects of writing. For students there is:

 a writing mentor scheme where students requiring help are paired up with trained
undergraduate and postgraduate writing mentors from a range of disciplines;
 more focused support for international and postgraduate students, where they will
be paired up with mentors of an appropriate level and background.

Although such tutorials with mentors can be face to face, the London Metropolitan Writing
Centre has recently introduced synchronous one hour on-line tutorials using Live Chat
software (London Metropolitan Writing Centre, 2009). The central aim of this tutorial
system is to promote collaborative and “non-directive” one-to-one on-line support,
described as unusual in the UK (Harrington, O’Neill and Bakhshi, 2007, p27). The Writing
Centre developers believe that this type of real time tutorial is vital in promoting reflective
thought which develops from dialogue; and that this process helps overcome problems with
writing. Students’ mentoring of other students is described as appropriate, because student
mentors have a good understanding of the problems which the mentees are experiencing
with their writing. Asynchronous on-line support is also provided in the form of providing

17
feedback about written assignments during the draft stage. As with the COWS project, in
addition, specialist staff from the Writing Centre work with colleagues from specific
disciplines across the London Metropolitan University. The specialists help lecturers to
incorporate writing components within courses which are tailored to supporting students’
writing development within their own fields.

An initial evaluation into the student Writing Mentors Scheme showed that “as trained
Writing Mentors, students are able to facilitate the kind of dialogue around writing that can
help peers develop into more confident and competent academic writers (Harrington et al.,
op.cit, p31).” Reasons they found for this success were that the mentors were able to
directly refer to their own writing development journeys and provide empathetic support
which encouraged the student mentees.

Although further research may be necessary, it is suggested that this is a good model for
other universities to follow in providing writing support. In 2008 an additional research
project was conducted accompanying a collaborative on-line student writing venture, which
was led by students within the mentoring scheme. The on-line initiative included a wiki 5 and
a blog to encourage student discussion around an essay. This essay was made accessible to
students on-line, along with:

 preparation notes
 drafts
 a stage by stage reflective commentary
 assessment comments and criteria for marking the essay

The research showed that this project was very popular. Moreover, the blog and the wiki
attracted a large number of contributions, which helped students voice their opinions and
challenges about academic writing. The project has now become a resource which has been
used in other areas of academic writing support across the university by lecturers. It is
argued that this type of on-line resource can be effective and may be adapted to facilitate:

 student discussion about the writing process

 writing group activities
 assessment activities
 understanding key concepts associated with different subject areas

(O’Neill and Reynolds, 2008)

AWESOME: Academic Writing Empowered by Socially Mediated On-line Environments

5
Please see the glossary of technological terms.

18
Funded by JISC, and led by the University of Leeds in partnership with the Centre for
Academic Writing at Coventry University and the School of Lifelong Learning at Bangor
University, the Awesome project was started in 2008. The basis for this initiative is that the
grading of dissertations is vital in affecting students’ overall success within their degrees.
However, dissertations are also identified as the most difficult stage within a degree when
many students and their supervisors may experience major issues and challenges (O’Rourke,
2009). Although current support for dissertation guidance is widely available in HE, this may
be too limited in terms of not giving students’ opportunities to use their knowledge about
dissertations in practice. The main aim of creating the Awesome Dissertation Environment
(ADE) was to support students’ dissertation writing through creating a Web 2.0 on-line
environment which incorporates and encourages practical creativity and collaboration
through supporting student dissertation writing and “enhances traditional face to face
supervision (O’Rourke, 2009, p5).”

The ADE provides previous dissertation examples which relate to specific disciplines and
includes a step by step integrated commentary to: “guide students right through the
dissertation writing process (O’Rourke, 2009, p4).” It is suggested that the provision of
examples with commentaries facilitates student access to lecturers’ advice about writing.
Such advice might otherwise not be articulated, since lecturers might assume that giving
such advice is unnecessary, and already known by the student. This is what is described as
“tacit” knowledge about writing (Elton, 2008, p207). The latter is argued to be particularly
important for students to know about in the dissertation stage, but sometimes more
difficult to access during this period, since students may often become more isolated from
tutors and peers (O’Rourke, op. cit.).

The ADE environment helps with different aspects of dissertation writing including:

 choosing a research methodology

 sourcing and writing literature reviews
 developing writing style and structure

The ADE incorporates social networking technology which enables the collaborative creation
and sharing of work between teaching staff and students; offering a way of seeking and
giving constructive advice about writing on-line. The most distinctive technological element
of the ADE is that it uses a SemanticMediaWiki 6 which permits gathering and comparing
complex information, within different thematic groups. These are described as “properties”
such as different types of literature reviews, or examples of good and bad writing in specific
disciplines for instance (O’Rourke, op.cit, p4). Specific tools in the ADE environment include:

 blogs to enable written dialogue between students, peers and staff

6
Please see glossary of technological terms

19
  social tagging 7 to develop literature reviews, for instance
 annotation8 tools to give and receive individual advice from, and dialogue with
critical friends and tutors about writing
 a community directory to compile helpful on-line information, relevant to individual
study
 audiovisual on-line media to enable access to actual case study experiences of
dissertation writing

(O’Rourke, 2009, p6)

The development of the ADE project comprised three stages (2008-2009):

1. A model ADE was developed based on a staff and student needs analysis. This was
followed by initial user trials and further evaluation and feedback.
2. A model ADE was piloted within 2 disciplines in the University of Leeds: Education
and Fashion Design.
3. Further piloting of ADEs at Coventry and Bangor Universities took place; followed by
discussion of an ADE being set up for the Higher Education Academy Philosophy and
Religious Studies subject centre.

Following the trials there was very positive feedback from staff and student users, and
evidence that there was a need for ADEs in all the institutions where they were piloted. Staff
could see the real value of ADEs in providing dissertation students with the extra time and
support needed that the supervisors were unable to provide. They also saw the benefits of
the resource in positively influencing the students’ final levels of achievement within their
degrees which were often adversely affected by dissertations. Students found that the ADE
offered them emotional support through collaboration, and communication with peers and
tutors. This helped to counterbalance the isolation they felt by while undertaking the
dissertation “lone journey (O’Rourke, 2009, p17).”

The findings of feedback from trials also suggested that students wanted to remain
anonymous in most discussion and communication with peers or tutors on the ADE.
Feedback from staff tutors rather than student peers was also suggested as a preference of
some student research participants. Other areas identified for development within the ADE
was that the user interface was described as rather overwhelming at first. This finding is still
being taken into account during current redevelopment of the ADE. Several different
versions of ADE which were developed for each institution are still being used, although
these are not currently available to the public. However, there is a public version available
at: http://awesome.leeds.ac.uk/wiki/publicinstance/index.php/Main_Page

The ADEs are still subject to continued trial and improvements; especially with regard to
user interfaces. Moreover, further evidence and research will be needed to support the
value for money of these on-line resources before they are adopted on an institutional, or
sector wide basis which is the future aim of this project.

7
Please see the glossary of technological terms.
8
Please see the glossary, as above.

20
COWL – University of Coventry On-line Writing Lab

COWL is a current project led by the University of Coventry (2008-2010), and is also funded
by JISC. Coventry On-line Writing Lab (COWL) is an on-line development of the University’s
current writing centre, CAW which supports students’ academic writing at all levels
(http://www.coventry.ac.uk/cu/caw). Like COWS, Awesome, London Metropolitan Writing
Centre, and Thinking Writing (which will be subsequently discussed); an important
pedagogic aim of COWL is to tailor writing support in the context of different academic
disciplines. The main aims of initiating the COWL project were to enhance current CAW
provision, by offering:

 writing support for a larger number of students, which is not currently possible with
traditional face to face tutoring;
 better support for distance learning, part-time students or those who do not
physically attend the University often.

The setting up of on-line support in COWL has been based on careful evaluation of previous
provision at the University and elsewhere during the first phase of the project. The
evaluation particularly explored administrative and pedagogic processes within the existing
Coventry Centre for Academic Writing (CAW). During Phase 2 of the project they used this
evaluation to inform the initial development and trialling of on-line support within 2
academic disciplines: Paramedic Science and Economics. These subjects were chosen
because of the two different extremes of students. The first are predominantly work-based;
and the second are traditionally taught at the University. By the end of Phase 3 which is not
yet complete, the COWL project team plan to extend COWL provision across the University
(Simkiss, 2009).

Both synchronous and asynchronous on-line support for writing is offered to individual
students by COWL. Asynchronous support takes the form of writing tutors providing
feedback on students’ written work, and this must be provided within 5 working days.
Synchronous writing tutorials are also offered and are either 20 minutes or 50 minutes long.
In addition the COWL website will include an on-line questionnaire to ascertain the
individual needs of the student, and the type of support they require. In addition there will
be on-line resources to help students with different aspects of writing challenges, in a
variety of text and audio-visual on-line formats (Childs and Deane, 2009). COWL will
incorporate technologies which are based on the University of Coventry’s current on-line
environment, CUOOn-line. The main technologies planned are:

“. Filtering system and diagnostic element: Moodle (and Accutrack

. Writing resources: CURVE (and audio visual enhancements as appropriate)

. Asynchronous feedback: Riffly plus enhancements

21
 . Synchronous feedback: Megameeting ”

(Childs and Deane, 2009, p12)

Currently, this project is still work in progress, and is due to be completed in 2010.

Learn Higher Academic Writing Website and WAC: Nottingham Trent University

Maintained by Nottingham Trent University, Learn Higher has a substantial section on

academic writing support for students and staff:
(http://www.learnhigher.ac.uk/learningareas/academicwriting/home.htm).

 For students, this provides web pages with advice on specific areas of academic
writing; and also includes podcasts offering academic writing advice.
 For staff, the website provides downloadable academic writing teaching resources;
and relevant bibliographies and advice.
 There are also links to other useful academic writing websites in USA, Australia and
at the Open University.

In addition, the website also informs visitors about the Writing Across the Curriculum
project (WAC), which is running from 2008-2009. The WAC approach views writing as a
means to “develop learning” (Bell and Foster, 2009, p1). The idea as with many of the
projects described above is to support students’ academic writing in their particular
discipline. During the project academic staff at Nottingham Trent University are given the
opportunity, guidance and resources to implement WAC within their courses. This support is
flexible and lecturers may vary in the levels of writing support they wish to provide for their
students. Taking full advantage of the support offered by the Centre for Quality
Enhancement (CASQ) might entail 2 stages of writing support for students throughout their
degrees.

 In the first two years: “Writing to learn uses informal, generic, short writing tasks, to
helps students structure their thoughts and ideas (Bell and Foster, op.cit, p1).”
 In the third year “Writing in the disciplines uses discipline focused activities to
develop students’ writing so that they are able to communicate as scholar in their
field (Bell and Foster, op.cit, p1).”

There has been no formal evaluative research accompanying this project to date. However
the majority of informal feedback from students whose lecturers’ have trialled WAC within
their courses has been very positive (Bell, 2009b, p1
http://www.learnhigher.ac.uk/learningareas/academicwriting/thewacproject.htm#Feb
%20mtg).

22
Developing Collaborative Academic Writing Communities and a Collaborative Writer’s
Toolbox

This project funded by Escalate (2009) is led by the University of Bristol in conjunction with
Oxford Learning Institute, Keele University and University of Plymouth.
(http://escalate.ac.uk/5616)

Its pedagogic aim is to:

“promote the discussion and development of writing styles and identities as a

creative, collaborative aspect of life in the academy for staff and students alike
(ESCalate, 2009, p1).”

The project developers are in the process of creating on-line resources for supporting
lecturers and postgraduate students with their academic writing. Based on research,
evaluation and discussion across a range of different HE institutions, on-line resources are
being developed to cater for a wide variety of students and staff. It is intended that the
resources will use a range of tools, including Web 2.0 technologies, to enable collaborative
discussion and reflectivity about writing, including writing for publication: through blogging
and giving and receiving critical peer feedback. The project is due to be completed this
December 2010 (ESCalate, 2009).

Thinking Writing: Queen Mary University of London

Thinking Writing is a website which has been set up and developed as a result of the Queen
Mary University of London Writing in the Disciplines project, currently funded by the Higher
Education Academy. Originally the Writing in the Disciplines project aimed to address the
needs of undergraduate students within different academic disciplines. The rationale behind
the project is their support for writing:

“ . recognises the differences between literary cultures and reasoning styles of

different disciplines;

. avoids stigmatising a minority of students as in need of remedial help;

. pays explicit attention to developing student autonomy and their powers of
reasoning and articulate expression through the subject content of the
discipline;

. and helps students see writing as integral to learning, and not just as an end-
product for assessment purposes.”

(MacDonald Ross2007,
http://prs.heacademy.ac.uk/view.html/prsdocuments/388).

23
In addition to face to face consultation offered by the project team to staff across the
University, the aim of the on-line resource is to primarily support academic staff within
different disciplines. With the exception of WAP at the University of Brighton , such on-line
support is unusual within the context of most other projects, which mainly aim to help
students. The website helps staff to develop academic writing elements within their own
courses across the University, and is similar to the WAC project in this sense. The resource is
extensive in terms of the information it provides. On the website ‘Thinking writing’ is
described as a pedagogical approach to writing development, where the emphasis is on
“writing to learn (Queen Mary University of London: Thinking Writing, 2003, p1).” Examples
of learning and teaching resources tailored to specific disciplines are available to download
can be found on the website. In addition, there are sections of the website devoted to ways
in which:

 writing journals helps to develop students’ reflective thinking

 formative assessment can be used to develop students’ writing.

There is also an on-line discussion board for staff about this approach to academic writing
development. Currently, the Writing in the Disciplines project is still in progress, and
research accompanying this project has not been published.

University of Brighton: Writing for Academic Publication and community@brighton

In 2009 the University of Brighton (UOB) initiated a new Writing for Academic Publication
(WAP) course, incorporating a significant on-line element. This is principally aimed at
academic staff within the University who need support in helping them to publish research.
As mentioned above, the UOB is unusual in offering writing support principally aimed at
academic staff in the first instance. The main reason behind this decision to support
academic staff is because there is an increasing pressure on academic staff to publish their
research, particularly in post 1992 universities (Sikes, 2006). The aim of this course is
therefore to support staff in their academic writing and overall professional development
within this context. The on-line element incorporates Web 2.0 technologies to foster
collaboration in writing development within the WAP participants also helps to disseminate
good on-line writing support and development practice among the academic staff
community at the University; which can eventually filter down to students and become a
sustainable development.

WAP incorporates an assessed on-line element in the form of a writing development blog
which course participants must submit with their final paper, article or book chapter at the
end of the course. Course participants are also encouraged to engage in additional on-line
elements enabling communication about writing development with tutors, a small number
of critical friends within the course group, and the entire group when relevant. The WAP

24
environment is part of the University’s own social networking site, community@brighton.
Important facets of the on-line environment include:

 a shared space to enable blogging and on-line discussion about writing development
within the whole WAP group and tutor;
 a personal blog to develop a more individual on-line journal about writing
development, which may be shared with a few critical friends;
 email where course participants can communicate with the whole group or
individual members; and ask for feedback from critical friends about work in
progress.

At the end of the course participants were asked to provide feedback about ways in which
on-line elements:

 supported their writing developments;

 could be further enhanced to provide greater support.

The following key findings have been identified from course participants who provided
feedback:

1. The on-line aspect of the WAP course which respondents found most useful was
email communication, and sharing writing, between small groups of critical friends
within the course. These groups were established first within the face to face setting
within the course. It was commonly confirmed that face to face support was the
most valued part of the course; and that on-line communication about writing
between small groups who shared some common ground in their writing or research
interests enhanced this face to face communication and support. These small groups
which developed communication did help to support writing development; as
writing is described as a solitary activity, and communication in relation to work can
help to maintain the writer’s confidence. Several respondents mentioned the
usefulness of giving and receiving feedback, and dialoguing about writing, using
reviewers’ comments in Track Changes, which was described as valuable in this
context.
2. As well as emails being viewed as the most useful form of on-line communication
within the WAP course; respondents added that they found emails the quickest and
easiest form of on-line communication which they were used to. This finding is also
linked to unfamiliarity with other forms of on-line communication, such as blogging.
Pressures of time, and some difficulties in navigating the WAP interface, also
increased reticence to engage in blogging.
3. There was a consensus that the WAP on-line environment, including a shared space
blog did provide a forum for general discussion and a sense of community and moral
support which was valued.

25
 4. As mentioned above, respondents were often hesitant in engaging in the personal
blog accompanying their writing development. However, some respondents did
value the idea of a blog as a reflective writing journey and record of their
development in writing. This very personal blog could only be shared with critical
friends with whom respondents said they had established trust, as described earlier.
Such a need for greater trust is suggested by some respondents as a reason why they
were hesitant in engaging in the personal blog and sharing it with critical friends.
Some respondents felt they had not spent sufficient time face to face with peers on
the course in order to develop the required cohesiveness and trust in this context.
Moreover, there was some uncertainty about required levels of privacy with regard
to sharing writing within the WAP environment.

Based on this feedback, the course developers aim to develop the WAP user interface for
next year’s course. They also note the usefulness of using Track Changes and comment
(word functions) in interacting with and dialoguing with participants’ written work in a
formative manner. Continued evaluation of the on-line elements of the course will take
place in order to inform further extension of the WAP course provision. The Centre for
Learning and Teaching at the UOB is now pursuing funding opportunities in order to support
their plans for the development of on-line support for academic staff and postgraduate
students’ academic writing in the future.

Part 4

Discussion of Key Findings

1. Research has recently focused on the changing nature of academic writing and its
support across the HE sector. Several articles in this context suggest that greater
academic writing support is increasingly required; and that this should meet the
varied needs and abilities of a growing number of students and staff in academic
writing. Provision of such support through Internet technologies, particularly web 2.0
technologies employing on-line tools such as emailing, blogging, wikis and social
networking environments are argued to be an effective means of helping large
numbers of students (or staff); and catering for their different needs. In addition, on-
line tools have been shown to effectively integrate different elements of three
traditional writing support models described in the background to this study (Skills,
Socialisation and Literacies). Previous work also suggests that there is a greater need
for recognition of emerging on-line writing trends as legitimate forms of writing
within the higher education community. This will help to counteract the suggested
difficulty that some students (and staff) have found in being accepted into the
academic writing community; which until recently has been reputedly elitist.

26
2. Several research studies have been conducted in universities across the HE sector
which propose that on-line technologies and tools, including blogging, texting,
emailing and social networking promote collaboration and creativity in writing.
These on-line practices are currently considered by researchers to be an appropriate
means of helping students and academic staff to develop their writing skills. For
instance, reflective journaling through blogging is suggested to unlock creativity, the
writer’s voice and the ability to reflect critically on writing. Blogging can also be a
collaborative means to communicate with peers and tutors about one’s writing,
stimulating the ability to debate. On-line support offered through website channels
can therefore simply be a way of facilitating this development. In addition active on-
line support by tutors and mentors can involve giving feedback on writing, or
providing on-line tutorials.

3. On-line Writing Labs (OWLs) have been operating in the US since the Internet first
became available. These OWLs have provided models and evidence about effective
on-line support for academic writing, which UK institutions have recently been able
to follow. OWLs offer either or both: synchronous (real time) support, such as on-line
tutorials; and asynchronous (time delayed) support, such as giving and receiving
advice on written drafts attached to emails. The latter often involves annotation
software tools such as Track Changes. Both systems of support are demonstrated to
be effective, as long as website interfaces are user friendly and engaging; and the
support offered is also friendly and non-threatening. Research into OWL provision
also clarifies that the purpose of on-line support is to enhance rather than replace
face to face writing support. Many US OWLs offer generic support across institutions,
which is still unusual in the UK. However, all UK institutions which are leading
projects in on-line support for academic writing aim for implementation of
institution wide support over the next few years, to be followed by further extension
across the HE sector.

4. As mentioned above, several UK higher education projects have recently been

initiated, whose aim is to provide active and substantial on-line support for academic
writing for students and staff. Many of the universities leading these projects already
offer significant support for academic writing across their institution through writing
centres. In this sense, such institutions already have systems and websites in place
which can be enhanced by offering synchronous on-line tutorials or asynchronous
feedback. The mission of projects varies to a degree, and different student or staff
groups have been targeted for support. However, several projects, including
AWESOME, COWs, London Metropolitan Writing Centre and COWL aim to help
postgraduate students, since these students have been identified as having a great
need for support, particularly during the dissertation stage. Some projects also aim
to help undergraduates, and academic staff. In all projects the need to tailor support

27
 to cater for the needs of staff and students in different disciplines is seen as crucially
important. Most projects offer asynchronous support providing on-line feedback on
submitted written work from tutors; and some projects, including COWL and London
Metropolitan Writing Centre offer on-line synchronous tutorials. The latter may be
provided by student mentors or tutors, and there is evidence that both can work
well. Many projects also adopt Web 2.0 technologies which provide students and
staff with opportunities to communicate with peers about their writing through
blogging, wikis or on-line conferencing. There is evidence that this element is
important in facilitating collaboration and creativity in writing which helps to develop
the academic writer’s voice, reflectivity and ability to debate critically; all of which
are vital ingredients of good academic writing. The majority of projects operating
through on-line writing centres or specific websites are still undergoing trials within
specific disciplines, and on-line interfaces are procedures are being evaluated and
developed before final support can be more extensively implemented across
institutions. In some cases, further development is also dependent on additional
funding. However there is substantial evidence in the majority of projects that the
on-line support is needed and valued by students, and that it works effectively in
benefitting their writing development and wellbeing.

Recommendations for Practice across the HE Sector

Based on the evidence from previous literature, research and the findings of evaluations
accompanying current HE projects which are developing on-line support for academic
writing describe in this Synthesis, the following recommendations for good practice can be
proposed:

 In proposing to provide or develop more substantial institutional on-line

support for academic writing, project developers should decide whom they
are going to support. They should base this decision on a needs analysis of
students or staff, in particular stages of writing development, in the context
of their institution, and in specific disciplines.
 There is evidence from the projects described that asynchronous support is
effective because it permits flexibility, and sufficient time for both students
(or staff), and mentors or tutors to reflect deeply on their communication
about the written work or draft. This may include direct email feedback;
and/or annotating and commenting on work in more detail through Track
Changes. In addition, these same processes can also occur in peers’
collaborative blogging, wikis, and on-line asynchronous conferencing.
 If there are sufficient resources and technological capacity, synchronous on-
line tutoring through Skype or Live Chat, for instance, works well, in addition
to asynchronous support. Synchronous support may be provided by tutors or
student mentors, and both methods appear to be valuable and effective. For

28
 instance, in research accompanying the Mentor scheme at London
Metropolitan University, students appeared to value the empathetic support
offered by a friendly student mentor. However, in research accompanying
the AWESOME project, students said they would prefer to be supported by a
staff tutor in the context of their dissertation writing. Further research may
therefore be needed to explore these differences in attitude.
 On-line support in writing should be tailored to work in the context of
different academic disciplines; since in these contexts writing customs vary
considerably. The different projects described are tailored to disciplines in a
variety of ways. For instance: AWESOME adapts web environments to suit
particular subject areas; London Metropolitan Writing Centre provides
consultancy to staff across academic Schools; and Queen Mary University of
London provides discipline specific resources which may by applied by staff
within their courses.
 Web 2.0 technologies including blogging, wikis and written conferencing are
proposed to be an effective means of facilitating a less formal dialogue and
communication about writing among students, and peers.
 It is important to trial, evaluate and redevelop user interfaces of websites, or
web pages which are the portals for academic writing support. Research
consistently demonstrates that there is a reticence among some students and
staff in engaging in blogging, which relates to concerns over privacy and trust.
Moreover, busy students and staff will be easily deterred by on-line support
facilities which are not easy to navigate. Therefore, technologists and project
developers must work together in order to ensure that the aspects of on-line
support which relate to accessibility, engagement, privacy and navigability
are effective.
 There is a need to carefully plan what degree of on-line support can be
realistically provided by institutions; and evaluate systems in place for
providing this support. Projects should not try to be too ambitious in the first
instance, as developing effective on-line academic writing support
mechanisms is described in research as a time consuming process, which
requires a considerable need for collaboration among a variety of
institutional stakeholders.
 On-line academic writing support should be offered to enhance face to face
support, and to provide greater capacity and flexibility, not to replace it.

Conclusion

29
Previous research, and current projects which are developing on-line facilitation for
academic writing across the UK HE sector, demonstrate that there is a great need for such
support. Moreover, research accompanying some of the emerging UK projects provides
evidence to demonstrate that this support is highly valued, particularly by students. They
perceive that it not only helps them to develop their writing ability, but also to increase their
confidence and engagement in writing. This is suggested to be important since writing can
be an isolating and challenging journey for students (and staff) to undertake. However,
there may still be some further questions which remain unanswered in relation to
measuring the real impact of on-line academic writing support and practices. The research
studies which are mainly described in this Synthesis identify a common perception that on-
line support for writing and associated practices can positively affect student retention; and
students’ achievement. However, does this perception reflect a reality in terms of a
measurable increase in student scores or completion rates? Does on-line writing support
really produce a difference in the standard of students’ and staff academic writing which is
evident across the sector? To what extent do newer and more informal genres of writing,
such as dialoguing about feedback with critical friends through Track Changes, and
asynchronous computer conferencing, affect success in academic writing? Will academic
writing be redefined by these new written genres? These questions can form the basis for
future wider scale research across the UK higher education sector. Such research could then
more clearly demonstrate that valuable projects, such as those described in this Synthesis
provide a return on investment. UK higher education is now at an exciting stage in enabling
students and staff to complete their academic writing journeys by offering on-line
facilitation in this context. More extensive institutional rollout of the on-line support
proposed by the emerging projects described in this Synthesis is expected within the next
few years. In turn, these projects can contribute to a major breakthrough in ways in which
the Internet, including Web 2.0 technologies, afford widespread academic writing support
and development across the UK higher education sector.

Bibliography and References

30
Anderson, D. (2002). “Interfacing email tutoring: Shaping an emergent literate practice.”
Computers and Composition. Vol.19

Anderson, D. (2002). “Interfacing email tutoring: Shaping an emergent literate practice.”

Computers and Composition. Vol.19, p72

Antoniou, M. and J. Moriarty. (2008). "What can academic writers learn from creative
writers? Developing guidance and support for lecturers in Higher Education." Teaching in
Higher Education 13(2):157-167.

Artemi, S., S. Chromy, V. Martin, J. Speedy, S. Trahar, S. Williams and S. Wilson. (2008).
"Friend and Foe? Technology in a Collaborative Writing Group." Qualitative Inquiry
14(7):1205-1222.

Artemi, S., S. Chromy, V. Martin, J. Speedy, S. Trahar, S. Williams and S. Wilson. (2008).
"Friend and Foe? Technology in a Collaborative Writing Group." Qualitative Inquiry
14(7),p1218

Awesome Public Instance, University of Leeds.

http://awesome.leeds.ac.uk/wiki/publicinstance/index.php/Main_Page

Awesome Website, University of Leeds. http://awesome.leeds.ac.uk/

Bell, R. (2009)a. “Learning to write: Writing to learn. Academic Writing: A Literature

Review.”Learn Higher Academic Writing CETL, Nottingham Trent University,
http://www.learnhigher.ac.uk/learningareas/academicwriting/home.htm

Bell, R. (2009) b. ‘WAC Project: Feedback and Move Forwards.” WAC Learn Higher CETL,
Nottingham Trent University, p1,
http://www.learnhigher.ac.uk/learningareas/academicwriting/thewacproject.htm#Feb
%20mtg

Bell, R. and E. Foster (2009). ‘The WAC Project: Nottingham Trent University.’ WAC
LearnHigher CETL, Nottingham Trent University, p1
http://www.learnhigher.ac.uk/learningareas/academicwriting/thewacproject.htm#Feb
%20mtg

Burke, P.J. (2008). “Writing, Power and Voice: Access to and Participation in Higher
Education.” Changing English, Vol.15, No.2, pp199-210

Butcher, J. and D. Sieminski (2006). “The challenge of a distance learning professional

doctorate in education.” Open Learning, Vol.21, No.1, pp59-69

Childs, M. and M. Deane (2009) Revised COWL Project Pedagogic Tools Report, University of
Coventry, http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/cowl/files/2009/06/pedagogic-tools-report-
cowlv2.pdf

31
Childs, M. and M. Deane (2009) Revised COWL Project Pedagogic Tools Report, University of
Coventry, p12. http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/cowl/files/2009/06/pedagogic-tools-report-
cowlv2.pdf

Coffin, C. and A. Hewings (2005). "Engaging Electronically: Using CMC to Develop Students’
Argumentation Skills in Higher Education." Language and Education 19(1):32-49.

Coogan, D. (1995). “Email Tutoring, a New Way to Do New Work”. Computers and
Composition, Vol. 12

Coogan, D. (1995). “Email Tutoring, a New Way to Do New Work”. Computers and
Composition, Vol. 12, p171

Creme, P. (2008). "A Space for Academic Play: Student learning journals as transitional
writing." Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7(1):49-64.

Davies, S., D. Swinburne, and G. Williams (2006). “Writing Matters: The Royal Literary Fund
Report on Student Writing in Higher Education.” The Royal Literary Fund: London, 2006

Deane, M and B. Brick (2009). COWL Project Pedagogic Approaches Report, University of
Coventry, pp1-27. http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/cowl/files/2009/05/pedagogic-approaches-6-
5-09.pdf

Elander, J., K. Harrington, L. Norton, H.Robinson, and P. Reddy (2006). "Complex skills and
academic writing: a review of evidence about the types of learning required to meet core
assessment criteria." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31(1):71-90.

Elton, L. (2008). “Complexity, Universities and the Arts.” Journal of Writing in Creative
Practice, Vol.1, No.3, p207

Forte, A and A. Bruckman (2007). "Constructing text: Wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?)
learning." In Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on Wikis. Montreal, Quebec,
Canada: ACM.

Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2004). “A report on the teaching of academic writing in UK Higher

Education”. Royal Literary Fund, London

Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2009). “COWL Project Review of the Origins and Current Practices of
On-line Writing Labs (OWLs) and On-line Writing Support.” Unpublished report, University
of Coventry, http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/cowl/files/2009/03/review-of-the-origins-and-
current-practices-of-owls.pdf

Goodfellow, R. (2005). "Academic literacies and e-learning: A critical approach to writing in

the on-line university." International Journal of Educational Research 43(7-8):481-494.

Goodfellow, R., and M. Lea (2005). "Supporting writing for assessment in on-line learning."
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30(3):261-271.

32
Goodfellow, R and M.Lea (2006). ‘Writing for on-line tutorials: on-line discussion.’ OU
Knowledge Network, http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/workspace.cfm?wpid=5611

Goodfellow, R., M. Lea and S. Jones (2008). “Digital Literacies: How policies and practices
are blurring boundaries in Higher Education.” Institute of Educational Technology, The Open
University, pp1-4, http://iet-staff.open.ac.uk/r.goodfellow/wdhe2008abstract.doc.

Goodfellow, R., M. Lea and S. Jones (2008). “Digital Literacies: How policies and practices
are blurring boundaries in Higher Education.” Institute of Educational Technology, The Open
University , p2, http://iet-staff.open.ac.uk/r.goodfellow/wdhe2008abstract.doc

Hammond, M. (2000). "Communication within on-line forums: the opportunities, the

constraints and the value of a communicative approach." Computers & Education 35(4):251-
262.

Harrington, K., P. O’Neill and L. Reynolds (2008). “Using wikis and blogs to support writing
development: the on-line evolving essay project.” Research write-up for Write Now Website,
pp1-3, http://www.writenow.ac.uk/documents/others/evolving%20essay%20project.pdf

Harrington, K., P. O’Neill, and S. Bakhshi, (2007). “Writing Mentors and the Writing Centre:
producing integrated disciplinary writers.” Investigations in University Teaching and
Learning, Vol.4, No.2

Harrington, K., P. O’Neill, and S. Bakhshi, (2007). “Writing Mentors and the Writing Centre:
producing integrated disciplinary writers.” Investigations in University Teaching and
Learning, Vol.4, No.2, p27

Harrington, K., P. O’Neill, and S. Bakhshi, (2007). “Writing Mentors and the Writing Centre:
producing integrated disciplinary writers.” Investigations in University Teaching and
Learning, Vol.4, No.2, p31

HEA ESCalate (2009). ‘Developing collaborative academic writing communities and a

collaborative writer's toolbox.’ HEA ESCalate Education Subject Centre, p1,
http://escalate.ac.uk/5616

HEFCE (1999) “Higher education funding for 2000-01 and 2001-02: Priorities for Higher
Education.” http://www.hefce.ac.uk/News/HEFCE/1999/dfee2499.htm

HEFCE (2009). “Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technology. A revised
approach to HEFCE’s strategy for e-learning.”
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2009/09_12/

JISC Website: AWESOME project

www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/usersandinnovation/awesome.aspx

Jones, S. and M.R.Lea (2008). “Digital Literacies in the Lives of Undergraduate Students:
Exploring Personal and Curricular Spheres of Practice.” The Electronic Journal of e-learning,
Vol.6, No. 3, pp207-216

33
Lea, M. (2001). "Computer Conferencing and Assessment: new ways of writing in higher
education." Studies in Higher Education 26(2):163 - 181.

Lea, M. (2001). "Computer Conferencing and Assessment: new ways of writing in higher
education." Studies in Higher Education 26(2), p178

Lea, M. (2001). "Computer Conferencing and Assessment: new ways of writing in higher
education." Studies in Higher Education 26(2), p179

Lea, M. R. and B. Stierer. (2009). "Lecturers' everyday writing as professional practice in the
university as workplace: new insights into academic identities." Studies in Higher Education
34(4):417 - 428.

Lea, M. R. and B. E. Stierer (2000). Student Writing in Higher Education: New Contexts:
Taylor & Francis, Inc., 7625 Empire Dr., Florence, KY 41042

LeCourt, D. (1998). "Critical pedagogy in the computer classroom: Politicizing the writing
space." Computers and Composition 15(3):275-295.

Lee, A. and D. Boud. (2003). "Writing Groups, Change and Academic Identity: research
development as local practice." Studies in Higher Education 28(2):187 - 200.

Pololi, L., S. Knight and K. Dunn (2004). "Facilitating Scholarly Writing in Academic
Medicine." Journal of General Internal Medicine 19(1):64-68.

London Metropolitan Writing Centre Website (2009).

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/depts/dops/writing-centre/writing-centre.cfm

MacDonald Ross, G. (2007) “Writing in the Disciplines”: Report, HEA Subject Centre for
Philosophical and Religious Studies
http://www.prs.heacademy.ac.uk/view.html/prsdocuments/388

McVey, D. (2008). "Why all writing is creative writing." Innovations in Education and
Teaching International 45(3) pp 289 - 294.

McVey, D. (2008). "Why all writing is creative writing." Innovations in Education and
Teaching International 45(3), p291.

Metcalfe, J (2006). The changing nature of doctoral programmes, in U.Teichler eds., The
formative years of scholars. Proceedings of a symposium held at the Haga Forum,
Stockholm, 9-11 November, 2005, Portland Press ltd., London

O’Neill, P. (2009). “Using Peer Writing Fellows in British Universities: Complexities and
Possibilities.” AD Across the Disciplines: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Language, Learning
and Academic Writing, WAC Clearinghouse, http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/fellows/oneill.cfm

O’Rourke, R. (2009). AWESOME Dissertation Environment: JISC Final Report.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/usersandinnovation/awesome.aspx

34
O’Rourke, R. (2009). AWESOME Dissertation Environment: JISC Final Report, p4
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/usersandinnovation/awesome.aspx

O’Rourke, R. (2009). AWESOME Dissertation Environment: JISC Final Report,p5

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/usersandinnovation/awesome.aspx

O’Rourke, R. (2009). AWESOME Dissertation Environment: JISC Final Report,p6

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/usersandinnovation/awesome.aspx

O’Rourke, R. (2009). AWESOME Dissertation Environment: JISC Final Report,p17

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/usersandinnovation/awesome.aspx

Passig, D. and G. Schwartz. (2007). "Collaborative writing: on-line versus frontal."

International Journal on E-Learning 6(3):395(318).

The Purdue On-line Writing Lab (OWL). (2008) http://owl.english.purdue.edu/

QAA (2008). “Outcomes from institutional audit published papers. Institutions’ support for
e-learning. Second Series.”
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/SupportforElearning

Queen Mary University of London: Thinking Writing (2003).’Getting Started: Rationale.’, p1,
http://www.thinkingwriting.qmul.ac.uk/getstart.htm

Rickard, C. M., M. R. McGrail, R. Jones, P. O'Meara, A. Robinson, M. Burley and G. Ray-

Barruel (2009). "Supporting academic publication: Evaluation of a writing course combined
with writers' support group." Nurse Education Today 29(5):516-521.

Ryan, L. and L. Zimmerelli (2006). The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors, 4th Ed., Boston:
Bedford-St. Martins, pp72-75, cited by Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2009), “COWL Project Review
of the Origins and Current Practices of On-line Writing Labs (OWLs) and On-line Writing
Support.” Unpublished report, University of Coventry, p2
http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/cowl/files/2009/03/review-of-the-origins-and-current-practices-
of-owls.pdf

Salvo, M. J., J. Ren, H. Brizee, and T. S. Conard-Salvo (2009). "Usability Research in the
Writing Lab: Sustaining Discourse and Pedagogy." Computers and Composition 26(2):107-
121.

Salvo, M.J., H.A. Brizee, D. Driscoll and M.Souza (2006). “Preliminary Report to the Purdue
Writing Lab: Assessing Usability of the “New” On-line Writing Lab (OWL) Design and
Contents.” http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/

35
Sikes, P. (2006). “Working in a ‘new' university: in the shadow of the Research Assessment
Exercise?” Studies in Higher Education, Vol.31, No.5

Simkiss, S. (2009). JISC Project Plan for COWL, pp1-27,

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/curriculumdelivery/cowl.aspx

Stahl, G, T. Koschmann and D. Suthers (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning:

An historical perspective, in R.K. Sawyer Eds. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences, Cambridge University Press

Strauss, P., R. Goodfellow and M. Puxley (2009). “A contextualised on-line Writing Support
System – Creating the links.” Paper submitted for the ASCILATE Conference, Auckland,
December 2009

Topping, K. J., E. F. Smith, I. Swanson and A. Elliot (2000). "Formative Peer Assessment of
Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 25(2):149-169.

University of Coventry Academic Writing Centre. http://www.coventry.ac.uk/cu/caw

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Writing Centre (2007).

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/about.html

Watts, J.H. (2008). “Challenges of Supervising Part-Time PhD Students: Towards Student-
Centred Practice.” Teaching in Higher Education, Vol.13, No. 3, p369-373

Website of the COWL project. (2009) http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/cowl/

Wikipedia. (2009) http://en.wikipedia.org

Williams, J.B and J.Jacobs (2004). “Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher
education sector.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.20, no.2, pp232-247

Write Now Cetl Website. http://www.writenow.ac.uk/

Yergeau, M., K.Wozniak and P. Vanderberg (2008). “Expanding the Space of f2f: Writing
Centers and Audio-Visual-Textual Conferencing.” Kairos: A journal of Rhetoric, Technology
and Pedagogy, vol. 13, no.1, cited by Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2009) “COWL Project Review
of the Origins and Current Practices of On-line Writing Labs (OWLs) and On-line Writing
Support.” Unpublished report, University of Coventry, p3
http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/cowl/files/2009/03/review-of-the-origins-and-current-practices-
of-owls.pdf

36
Appendix: Glossary of Technological Terms

(Adapted from Wikipedia)

Asynchronous conferencing

“Asynchronous communication is a mediated form of communication in which the sender

and receiver are not concurrently engaged in communication.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asynchronous_communication, p1)

Blog

“A blog is a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of

commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are
commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb,
meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.

Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more
personal on-line diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web
pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability for readers to leave comments in an
interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual,
although some focus on art (Art blog), photographs (photoblog), videos (Video blogging),
music (MP3 blog), and audio (podcasting). Microblogging is another type of blogging,
featuring very short posts.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog, p1)

Chat room

“The term chat room, or chatroom, is primarily used by mass media to describe any form of
synchronous conferencing, occasionally even asynchronous conferencing. The term can thus
mean any technology ranging from real-time on-line chat over instant messaging and on-line
forums to fully immersive graphical social environments.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_rooms, p1)

Media Wiki

“MediaWiki is a web-based wiki software application used by all projects of the Wikimedia
Foundation, and many other wikis. Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content
Wikipedia encyclopedia, today it has also been deployed by companies for internal
knowledge management, and as a content management system. Notably, Novell uses it to
operate several of its high-traffic websites.[1]

MediaWiki is written in the PHP programming language, and can use either the MySQL or
PostgreSQL relational database management system. MediaWiki is distributed under the
terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 or any later version while its
documentation is released under the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license and partly in the
public domain,[2] making it free and open source software.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_wiki)

37
On-line annotation tools

“A web annotation is an on-line annotation associated with a web resource, typically a web
page. With a Web annotation system, a user can add, modify or remove information from a
Web resource without modifying the resource itself. The annotations can be thought of as a
layer on top of the existing resource, and this annotation layer is usually visible to other users
who share the same annotation system, making it a type of social software tool.

Web annotation can be used for the following purposes:

 to rate a Web resource, such as by its usefulness, user-friendliness, suitability for

viewing by minors.
 to improve or adapt its contents by adding/removing material, something like a wiki.
 as a collaborative tool, e.g. to discuss the contents of a certain resource.
 as a medium of artistic or social criticism, by allowing Web users to reinterpret,
enrich or protest against institution or ideas that appear on the Web.
 to quantify transient relationships between information fragments.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_annotation)

On-line community

“A virtual community, e-community or on-line community is a group of people that primarily

interact via communication media such as newsletters, telephone, email, Internet social
network service or instant messages rather than face to face, for social, professional,
educational or other purposes. If the mechanism is a computer network, it is called an on-line
community. Virtual and on-line communities have also become a supplemental form of
communication between people who know each other primarily in real life. Many means are
used in social software separately or in combination, including text-based chatrooms and
forums that use voice, video text or avatars. Significant socio-technical change may have
resulted from the proliferation of such Internet-based social networks.[1]”

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-line_community, p1)

On-line filtering

“Content-control software, also known as censorware or web filtering software, is a term for
software designed and optimized for controlling what content is permitted to a reader,
especially when it is used to restrict material delivered over the Web. Content-control
software determines what content will be available.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_filtering)

38
On-line journals

“On-line diaries began in 1994. As a community formed, these publications came to be

almost exclusively known as on-line journals. Today they are almost exclusively called blogs,
though some differentiate by calling them personal blogs. The running updates of on-line
diarists combined with links inspired the term 'web log' which was eventually contracted to
form the word blog.

In on-line diaries, people write their day-to-day experiences, social commentary, complaints,
poems, prose, illicit thoughts and any content that might be found in a traditional paper diary
or journal. They often allow readers to contribute through comments or community posting.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-line_diary, p1)

Skype

“Skype (pronounced /ˈskaɪp/) is a software application that allows users to make voice calls
over the Internet. Calls to other users of the service and, in some countries, to free-of-charge
numbers, are free, while calls to other landlines and mobile phones can be made for a fee.
Additional features include instant messaging, file transfer and video conferencing.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype)

Social networking

“A social network service focuses on building on-line communities of people who share
interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of
others. Most social network services are web based and provide a variety of ways for users to
interact, such as email and instant messaging services.

Social networking has encouraged new ways to communicate and share information. Social
networking websites are being used regularly by millions of people.

While it could be said that email and websites have most of the essential elements of social
network services, proprietary encapsulated services gained popularity in the first decade of
the 21st century.

The main types of social networking services are those which contain category divisions
(such as former school-year or classmates), means to connect with friends (usually with self-
description pages) and a recommendation system linked to trust. Popular methods now
combine many of these, with Facebook widely used worldwide; MySpace, Twitter and
LinkedIn being the most widely used in North America;[1] Nexopia (mostly in Canada);[2]
Bebo,[3] Hi5, StudiVZ (mostly in Germany), iWiW (mostly in Hungary), Tuenti (mostly in
Spain), Decayenne, Tagged, XING;[4], Badoo[5] and Skyrock in parts of Europe;[6] Orkut and
Hi5 in South America and Central America;[7] and Friendster, Mixi, Multiply, Orkut, Wretch,
Xiaonei and Cyworld in Asia and the Pacific Islands and Areapal in India.

39
There have been some attempts to standardize these services to avoid the need to duplicate
entries of friends and interests (see the FOAF standard and the Open Source Initiative), but
this has led to some concerns about privacy.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Networking_Sites)

Social tagging

“A folksonomy is a system of classification derived from the practice and method of

collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content;[1] this practice
is also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social
tagging.[citation needed] Folksonomy is a portmanteau of folk and taxonomy.

Folksonomies became popular on the Web around 2004[2] as part of social software
applications such as social bookmarking and photograph annotation. Tagging, which is
characteristic of Web 2.0 services, allows users to collectively classify and find information.
Some websites include tag clouds as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy.[3]

Attempts have been made to characterize folksonomy in social tagging system as emergent
externalization of knowledge structures contributed by multiple users. Models of
collaborative tagging have been developed to characterize how knowledge structures could
arise and be useful to other users, even when there is a lack of top-down mediation (which is
believed to be an important feature because they do not need laborious explicit
representations as in semantic web). In particular, cognitive models [4] of collaborative
tagging can highlight how differences in internal knowledge structures of multiple users can
lead to different emergent properties in the folksonomy of a social tagging system.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_tagging)

Synchronous conferencing

“Synchronous conferencing is the formal term used in science, in particular in computer-

mediated communication, collaboration and learning, to describe on-line chat technologies. It
has arisen at a time when the term chat had a negative connotation. Today it is occasionally
also extended to mean audio/video conferencing or instant messaging systems, given they
provide a text-based multi-user chat function. The word synchronous in this case is not to be
considered a technical term, but rather describing how it is perceived by humans—chat
happens in real time before your eyes.

Synchronous conferencing protocols include:

 IRC (Internet Relay Chat)

 PSYC (Protocol for SYnchronous Conferencing)
 SILC (Secure Internet Live Conferencing protocol)
 XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol)”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_conferencing, p1)

User interface

“The user interface (also known as human computer interface or man-machine interface
(MMI)) is the aggregate of means by which people—the users—interact with the system—a

40
particular machine, device, computer program or other complex tool. The user interface
provides means of:

 Input, allowing the users to manipulate a system

 Output, allowing the system to indicate the effects of the users' manipulation.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface, p1)

Video conferencing

“A videoconference (also known as a videoteleconference) is a set of interactive

telecommunication technologies which allow two or more locations to interact via two-way
video and audio transmissions simultaneously. It has also been called visual collaboration and
is a type of groupware. It differs from videophone in that it is designed to serve a conference
rather than individuals.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_conferencing, p1)

Virtual learning environment

“A virtual learning environment (VLE) is a software system designed to support teaching and
learning in an educational setting, as distinct from a Managed Learning Environment, (MLE)
where the focus is on management. A VLE will normally work over the Internet and provide
a collection of tools such as those for assessment (particularly of types that can be marked
automatically, such as multiple choice), communication, uploading of content, return of
students' work, peer assessment, administration of student groups, collecting and organizing
student grades, questionnaires, tracking tools, etc. New features in these systems include
wikis, blogs, RSS and 3D virtual learning spaces.

While originally created for distance education, VLEs are now most often used to supplement
traditional face to face classroom activities, commonly known as Blended Learning. These
systems usually run on servers, to serve the course to students Multimedia and/or web pages.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_learning_environment, p1)

Web 2.0

“The term "Web 2.0" is commonly associated with web applications which facilitate
interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design[1] and collaboration on
the World Wide Web. Examples of Web 2.0 include web-based communities, hosted
services, web applications, social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups
and folksonomies. A Web 2.0 site allows its users to interact with other users or to change
website content, in contrast to non-interactive websites where users are limited to the passive
viewing of information that is provided to them.”

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0)

Web conferencing

“Web conferencing is used to conduct live meetings, training, or presentations via the
Internet. In a web conference, each participant sits at his or her own computer and is
connected to other participants via the Internet. This can be either a downloaded application

41
on each of the attendees' computers or a web-based application where the attendees access the
meeting by clicking on a link distributed by email (meeting invitation) to enter the
conference.

A webinar is a neologism to describe a specific type of web conference. It is typically one-

way,[1] from the speaker to the audience with limited audience interaction, such as in a
webcast. A webinar can be collaborative[1] and include polling and question & answer
sessions to allow full participation between the audience and the presenter. In some cases, the
presenter may speak over a standard telephone line, while pointing out information being
presented onscreen, and the audience can respond over their own telephones, speaker phones
allowing the greatest comfort and convenience. There are web conferencing technologies on
the market that have incorporated the use of VoIP audio technology, to allow for a
completely web-based communication. Depending upon the provider, webinars may provide
hidden or anonymous participant functionality, making participants unaware of other pa
rticipants in the same meeting. “

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-line_conferencing, p1)

Wiki

“A wiki is a website powered by wiki software that allows the easy[1] creation and editing of
any number of interlinked Web pages, using a simplified markup language or a WYSIWYG
text editor, within the browser.[2][3] Wikis are often used to create collaborative websites, to
power community websites, for personal note taking, in corporate intranets, and in
knowledge management systems.

Most wikis serve a specific purpose, and off topic material is promptly removed by the user
community. Such is the case of the collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia.[3] In contrast, open
purpose wikis accept all sorts of content without rigid rules as to how the content should be
organized.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki, p.1)

42