Suppressing Competition in a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning System

  • Kwangsu Cho
  • Bosung Kim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4553)


The purpose of this study is to explore how student competition using the tit-for-tat strategy could be remedied with a minimum design change in order to support student to collaborate constructively in a computer supported-collaborative learning system called SWoRD (Scaffolded Writing and Reviewing in the Discipline) [5], a reciprocal peer reviewing of writing system. We identified a factor for the tit-for-tat that causes learners to compete each other, and removed the factor from the interface. The results show when with the interface improvement the tit-for-tat strategy was restrained in the SWoRD system, which helped the learners constructively respond to peer comments.


Collaborative learning Peer review of writing competition SWoRD peer evaluatio 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: Strategy Shift in Prisoner’s Dilemma Through Utility Learning. Paper presented at the 9th Annual ACT-R Workshop. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: Battling the Tyranny of the Thousands with a SWoRD: Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline. In: Proceedings of ED-Media 2003. Honolulu Hawaii USA (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: The SWoRD is Mightier than the Pen: Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Joenssu Finland (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schunn, C.D., Cho, K.: Examining Student Reflections on the Many Opportunities to Learn in Reciprocal-Evaluation Writing Settings. In: Proceedings of 11th Biennial Conference of EARLI (European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction). Nicosia Cyprus (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline: A Web-Based Reciprocal Peer Review System. Computers & Education 48(3), 409–426 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D., Charney, D.: Commenting on Writing: Typology and Perceived Helpfulness of Comments from Novice Peer Reviewers and Subject Matter Experts. Written Communication 23(3), 260–294 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D., Kwon, K.: Learning Writing by Reviewing (under review)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D., Lesgold, A.: Comprehension Monitoring and Repairing in Distance Collaboration. In: The Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D., Wilson, R.: Validity and Reliability of Scaffolded Peer Assessment of Writing from Instructor and Student Perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(4), 891–901 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crampton, C.: The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration. Organization Science 12(3), 346–371 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falchikov, N.: Improving Feedback to and from Students. In: Knight, P. (ed.), Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. pp. 157–166. Kogan Page, London (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haswell, R.H.: NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship. Written Communication 22, 198–223 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T.: Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Interaction Book Company, Edina MN (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T.: Cooperation and the Use of Technology. In: Jonassen, D.H. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 785–811. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiesler, S. (ed.): Culture of the Internet. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin, S.S.J., Liu, E.Z.F., Yuan, S.M.: Web-Based Peer Assessment: Does Attitude Influence Achievement? IEEE Transactions on Education 4(2), 211 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McDowell, L.: The Impact of Innovative Assessment on Student Learning. Innovations in Education and Training International 32, 302–313 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rushton, C., Ramsey, P., Rada, R.: Peer Assessment in a Collaborative Hypermedia Environment: A Case Study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 20, 75–80 (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Topping, K.: Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research 68(3), 249–276 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Topping, K.J., Smith, E.F., Swanson, I., Elliot, A.: Formative Peer Assessment Of Writing Between Postgraduate Students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 25(2), 149–166 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhao, Y.: The Effects of Anonymity on Computer-Mediated Peer Review. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 4(4), 311–345 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kwangsu Cho
    • 1
  • Bosung Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.221A Townsend Hall, School of Information Science & Learning Technologies, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211USA

Personalised recommendations