The Use of Online Collaborative Writing Tools by Technical ...

Applied ResearchJessica Behlesshare many functionalities, such as wikis, documentstorage space, communication and scheduling tools,and more. Also, LMSs are already implemented inmany educational institutions, making them ideal forfamiliarizing students with this family of tool.Furthermore, students should be instructed in thespecific types of collaborative tasks performed in theworkplace using OCWTs: real-time and asynchronouscollaboration; discussion and scheduling; documentstoring, sharing, and maintenance; informationsharing; distance collaboration; project managementand tracking; and others. This study also revealedtasks performed within the technical communicationworkplace that are apparently unfamiliar to students,given that no students mentioned them. Theseactivities include controlling versions and revisionsfor documents with multiple authors, single sourcing,authoring best practices, and managing and trackingprojects.ConclusionBeing a pilot, this study is obviously not all inclusive,but I have endeavored to fairly and accurately representthe technical communication field despite the limitednumber of responses I received. Further, although thelimited scope of this study did not allow me to examineevery facet of the data I gathered from the surveys,I strove to analyze the most relevant and applicableaspects. That said, in addition to repeating this studywith a larger sample size, there are several ways thisresearch might be expanded upon in subsequent studies.For example, I should have asked practitioners for thesize of the companies they worked for, which wouldhave given me a more accurate picture of the varioussituations in which OCWTs are used.Another possible research avenue focuses on yetanother group vital to the technical communicationfield: educators. Even though this study has producedknowledge useful to technical communicationeducators, it would be valuable indeed to determinetheir use of and opinions regarding OCWTs in theclassroom, as well as how they are preparing studentsto meet tool-related challenges in the technicalcommunication workplace.In fact, a number of educators responded to mysurvey. Unfortunately, those responses were discardedfrom the main data set because they were outside thestudy’s scope. However, I offer some examples here toprovide a taste of what this group has to offer. Severaleducators (who responded to the student survey) saidthey were using the Blackboard LMS and a number ofdifferent wikis (Wikispaces and PBWorks, primarily)in their classrooms. Also represented were Google Docs(mentioned by the sole practitioner-educator) andGoogle Sites. In general, those who used Blackboarddid so because it was already implemented at the school,while wikis were chosen because they were free andconvenient. The educators as a whole were generallypleased with these tools, but there was some frustrationwith certain aspects (such as not enough space to storedocuments, printing problems, and so forth). However,this is a very small sample, and it cannot be said that itis representative of technical communication educatorsas a whole.An expanded study on educators’ use of OCWTs inthe classroom would provide valuable insight into howand why educators are (or are not) using these tools toteach technical communication students. Additionally,such a study may reveal whether educators are awarethat OCWTs are widely used in industry—and, if so,whether they are capitalizing on that knowledge. Finally,it could also determine if educators are shying awayfrom these tools. As Lundin (2008) states, “Despite[wikis’] popularity, academia often lags behind, both inits acceptance of resources such as Wikipedia and in itsuse of wiki software” (p. 433). One could surmise thatwiki popularity in particular lags in education due toWikipedia’s poor academic reputation—to many, theword “wiki” is synonymous with Wikipedia.To summarize, the results of the student andpractitioner surveys suggest that 1) technicalcommunication practitioners have not only embracedOCWTs as effective for workplace and virtualcollaboration, but they should continue to do so; and2) technical communication students must becomemore exposed to OCWTs because these tools will befrequently encountered in the workplace. In closing, Ioffer the following thought from Salopek (2000): “Thetools will inevitably come along. The real question is,will we come along with the tools?” (p. 39).Volume 60, Number 1, February 2013 l Technical Communication 41