Advertisement

All in good time: knowledge introduction, restructuring, and development of shared opinions as different stages in collaborative writing

  • Joachim Kimmerle
  • Johannes Moskaliuk
  • Dieter Brendle
  • Ulrike Cress
Article
First Online:

Abstract

When learners collaborate with each other in order to elaborate on a particular subject, this collaboration may be influenced by the differing perspectives the learners have on the topic. There has been very little research to date on how differing perspectives have an impact in collaboration situations in which people are supposed to form a shared opinion on a particular topic. In this study, we analyzed which stages people’s activities pass through on their way to reaching shared opinions in a collaborative writing task. We examined how dyads of secondary school students, who in a previous instructional session had dealt with differing theoretical approaches to media effects, collaborated in writing a shared text about the topic of media violence. Quantitative analysis indicated that the participants engaged in different activities at different stages of the collaboration processes: In the early stages they were predominantly engaged in introducing the knowledge that they had acquired in the previous lesson. This activity was replaced in the middle stage of the collaboration by restructuring activities. Forming and phrasing shared opinions rarely occurred until very late in the collaboration, but played the leading role in the final stage. We applied a qualitative content analysis to illustrate these different activities by presenting examples of the collaboratively written texts. In doing so, we discuss the distinct activities as well as their character and functionalities for collaboration.

Keywords

Collaboration Collaborative writing Knowledge Media violence Opinions Secondary school 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 532–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2013). How students deal with inconsistencies in health knowledge. Medical Education, 47, 683–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bientzle, M., Steffen, W., Jeong, H., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2017). Text chatting in collaborative writing: Its role in coordinating activities. In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 771–772). Philadelphia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  9. Black, R. W. (2009). English-language learners, fan communities, and 21st century skills. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 688–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cesareni, D., Cacciamani, S., & Fujita, N. (2016). Role taking and knowledge building in a blended university course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 9–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multi-level analysis in CSCL research: An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damşa, C. I. (2014). The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9, 247–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, P., Horn, M., Block, F., Phillips, B., Evans, E. M., Diamond, J., & Shen, C. (2015). “Whoa! We’re going deep in the trees!”: Patterns of collaboration around an interactive information visualization exhibit. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., & Giang, M. T. (2016). Coding by choice: A transitional analysis of social participation patterns and programming contributions in the online scratch community. In U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, & H. Jeong (Eds.), Mass collaboration and education (pp. 209–240). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finn, J. (2011). Collaborative knowledge construction in digital environments: Politics, policy, and communities. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2010). Citing, writing and participatory media: Wikis as learning environments in the high school classroom. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(4), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goranson, R. E. (1970). Media violence and aggressive behavior: A review of experimental research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halatchliyski, I., Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Explaining authors’ contribution to pivotal artifacts during mass collaboration in the Wikipedia’s knowledge base. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrer, A., Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Visualizing wiki-supported knowledge building: Co-evolution of individual and collective knowledge. In Proceedings of WikiSym’08 – International Symposium on Wikis 2008. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  25. Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual-and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—And negotiated interaction—In text and voice chat rooms. Language, Learning and Technology, 9(3), 79–98.Google Scholar
  28. Jirschitzka, J., Kimmerle, J., Halatchliyski, I., Hancke, J., Meurers, D., & Cress, U. (2017). A productive clash of perspectives? The interplay between articles’ and authors’ perspectives and their impact on Wikipedia edits in a controversial domain. PloS One, 12, e0178985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karasavvidis, I. (2010). Wiki uses in higher education: Exploring barriers to successful implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 18, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2013). The effects of TV and film exposure on knowledge about and attitudes toward mental disorders. Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 931–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Harrer, A., & Cress, U. (2010a). Visualizing co-evolution of individual and collective knowledge. Information, Communication, and Society, 13, 1099–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Held, C. (2010b). The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: Technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 8, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Bientzle, M., Thiel, A., & Cress, U. (2012). Using controversies for knowledge construction: Thinking and writing about alternative medicine. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 1–8). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  34. Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Oeberst, A., & Cress, U. (2015). Learning and collective knowledge construction with social media: A process-oriented perspective. Educational Psychologist, 50, 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, S., & Song, K. (2016). Exploring the relationship between resistance and perspectival understanding in computer-mediated discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levenberg, A., & Barak, M. (2015). A table for four: Collaborative writing in shared cloud documents. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, I. Blau, A. Caspi, N. Geri, Y. Kalman, & V. Silber-Varod (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Chais Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies: Learning in the Technological Era. Raanana: The Open University of Israel.Google Scholar
  38. Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41, 66–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muñoz-Alcántara, J., Markopoulos, P., & Funk, M. (2015). Social media as ad hoc design collaboration tools. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2015 (pp. 1–8). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  40. Noël, S., & Robert, J. M. (2004). Empirical study on collaborative writing: What do co-authors do, use, and like? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 13, 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oeberst, A., Halatchliyski, I., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Knowledge construction in Wikipedia: A systemic-constructivist analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olsen, J. K., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2015). Adapting collaboration dialogue in response to intelligent tutoring system feedback. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 748–751). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Oner, D. (2016). Tracing the change in discourse in a collaborative dynamic geometry environment: From visual to more mathematical. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53, 1256–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perse, E. M. (2001). Media effects and society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Phillips, D. P. (1974). The influence of suggestion on suicide: Substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. American Sociological Review, 39, 340–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47, 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Renner, B., Prilla, M., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2016). Effects of prompting in reflective learning tools: Findings from experimental field, lab, and online studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52, 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roque, R., Rusk, N., & Resnick, M. (2016). Supporting diverse and creative collaboration in the scratch online community. In U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, & H. Jeong (Eds.), Mass collaboration and education (pp. 241–256). Cham: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rummel, N., Walker, E., & Aleven, V. (2016). Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 784–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stahl, G. (2000). Collaborative information environments to support knowledge construction by communities. AI & Society, 14, 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stahl, G. (2010). Group cognition as a foundation for the new science of learning. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Shine (Eds.), New science of learning cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 23–44). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering computer supported collaborative learning with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 573–574). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  61. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz-Institut fur WissensmedienTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.University of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.International School of ManagementFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options