Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2013). How students deal with inconsistencies in health knowledge. Medical Education, 47, 683–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Black, R. W. (2009). English-language learners, fan communities, and 21st century skills. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 688–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. (2011). Collaborative knowledge construction in digital environments: Politics, policy, and communities. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goranson, R. E. (1970). Media violence and aggressive behavior: A review of experimental research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—And negotiated interaction—In text and voice chat rooms. Language, Learning and Technology, 9(3), 79–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karasavvidis, I. (2010). Wiki uses in higher education: Exploring barriers to successful implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 18, 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Harrer, A., & Cress, U. (2010a). Visualizing co-evolution of individual and collective knowledge. Information, Communication, and Society, 13, 1099–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53, 1256–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perse, E. M. (2001). Media effects and society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. P. (1974). The influence of suggestion on suicide: Substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. American Sociological Review, 39, 340–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47, 332–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., Walker, E., & Aleven, V. (2016). Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 784–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2000). Collaborative information environments to support knowledge construction by communities. AI & Society, 14, 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz-Institut fur Wissensmedien, Schleichstraße 6, D-72076, Tuebingen, Germany

    Joachim Kimmerle, Johannes Moskaliuk, Dieter Brendle & Ulrike Cress

  2. University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

    Joachim Kimmerle & Ulrike Cress

  3. International School of Management, Frankfurt, Germany

    Johannes Moskaliuk

Authors
  1. Joachim Kimmerle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes Moskaliuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dieter Brendle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrike Cress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joachim Kimmerle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Brendle, D. et al. All in good time: knowledge introduction, restructuring, and development of shared opinions as different stages in collaborative writing. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 12, 195–213 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9258-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9258-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation