Coding Scheme

The transcript was evaluated on the following questions. Note that a text act is defined as text appearing in the data file generated by a single user which appeared as a unit - that is, any text which followed a user's name and which is closed with a linefeed followed by another user's text act. During the coding process, text acts were broken up into two general classes: tool making and text making.

Tool Making was defined as any structuring of the collaborative environment done by the authors which was not directly related to the text being produced. This category included such things as discussions of how each user will interact with the text, alternate methods of developing the text, and any other activities which were aimed at coping with the collaborative environment which was presented.

Text Making, by contrast, was any activity related directly to the formation of the text, including planning of the text, revision, discussion of content, brainstorming, and so on.

The following subcategories were used to code the data. Note that the category in which the subcategory falls appears after the subcategory name, surrounded by parentheses.

1. Planning (tool making). Items coded into this category were defined as any activity in which the authors attempted to establish conventions by which their collaboration would take place. These were coded as any reference to the process of text creation, and any reference to how and when to use any of the features of the collaborative environment which took place before any text is actually produced.

2. Planning (text making). Items coded into this category were defined as any reference to how the story should proceed, what sorts of ideas the story should contain, and so forth which took place before any text is actually produced.

3. Writing (text making). Items coded into this category were defined as input of actual created text into the collaborative environment.

4. Review (text making). Items coded into this category were defined as any text act which shows the author reviewing what the group, including the author initiating the act, has written.

5. Evaluation (tool making) Items coded into this category were defined as any text act which imposed a value judgement on collaborative conventions established in #2 and revised in #7.

6. Evaluation (text making) Items coded into this category were defined as any text act which imposes a value judgement on text which has been produced.

7. Replanning (tool making). Items coded into this category were defined as any text act which referred to changes in existing collaborative conventions. Note that unlike #8, this included any additional collaborative conventions established during the collaborative period once text production had begun.

8. Replanning (text making). Items coded into this category were defined as any text act which referred to changes in existing text content. Note that this was distinct from #2 in referring only to text which was created in #3.

9. Revision (text making). Items coded into this category was defined as any text act which showed the author changing existing text.

Coding was accomplished by creating nine files, one for each of the categories stated above. Total counts were easily obtained from these files, as well as total counts of tool making and text making activities and conclusions about each individual question more easily reached. Since these categories overlap slightly, a single text act sometimes fell into more than one of the categories, and was placed in more than one file. All references to text act numbers refer to the numbers on the complete transcript.