Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Accessing the process of asynchronous collaborative writing


Published on

Mauri, T.; Remesal, A.; Clarà, M. (2011). Accessing the process of asynchronous collaborative writing. Paper presented at the ISCAR Conference; Rome, Italy.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Accessing the process of asynchronous collaborative writing

  1. 1. Accessing the process of asynchronous collaborative writing <br />Teresa Mauri, PhD<br />Ana Remesal, PhD<br />Marc Clarà<br />Paper presented at ISCAR 2011 Rome, Italy<br />Researchprojectfundedby MINISTERIO DE CIENCIA E INNOVACIÓN. Dirección General de Programas y Transferencia de Conocimiento, Spain.<br />(# EDU2009-08891)<br /><br />
  2. 2. Context<br /><ul><li>Teacher-students freshmen working in small groups (4x4n, aged 18-20y).
  3. 3. Computer supported asynchronous collaborative writing, at the end of a blended 2semesters course (Ed.Psychology).
  4. 4. LMS Moodle as basic virtual classroom with 3 different forum spaces: </li></ul>news forum<br />whole-class forum<br />small group private space<br /><ul><li>7 weeks of unscripted forum interaction.</li></li></ul><li>Theoreticalapproach<br /><ul><li>Socioconstructivist understanding of teaching and learning.
  5. 5. Writing as a creative activity, open to discussion and negotiation.
  6. 6. Writing for learning is comprised by a threefold, interwoven process of negotiation:</li></ul>Task structure.<br />Social participation.<br />Meanings/contents ( Mauri, Clarà, Remesal, 2011).<br /><ul><li>All three subprocesses are affected by criticalevents and affect each other reciprocally.</li></li></ul><li>Task and Social Participation<br />Task<br />What shall be done?<br />What are the goals?<br />What should the product look like?<br />What parts should it have?<br />What shall be done first, in second, in third place…?<br />When shall actions be undertaken?...<br />Social participation<br />Who is doing each part of the task?<br />What kind of roles are enacted or do emerge in the interaction?<br />How do participants communicate (by which means)?<br />When do participants interact?<br />
  7. 7. Goals of thestudy<br />To explore the progression of task structure and social participation as reciprocally affecting one another.<br />To explore the notion of critical event as a key phenomenon to understand the changes in both task structure and social participation.<br />
  8. 8. Methodologicalprocedure<br /><ul><li>Data sources</li></ul>Written interaction in forum<br />Written progressive products <br />Self-reports of students<br /><ul><li>Case study approach
  9. 9. Interpretive comprehensive analysis
  10. 10. Graphical representations of the process</li></li></ul><li>SOCIAL <br />PARTICIPATION MAP<br />
  11. 11. Group 4<br />Group 8<br />
  12. 12. Group 4<br />Group 8<br />
  13. 13. TASK STRUCTURE<br />MAP<br />
  14. 14. Group 4<br />Group 8<br />
  15. 15. Group 8 TM & SPM<br />
  16. 16. Group 8 overlappedtm & spm<br />
  17. 17. Group 8 overlappedtm & spm<br />
  18. 18. Phase 1<br />Phase 2<br />
  19. 19. Phase 3<br />
  20. 20. Phase 4<br />Phase 5<br />
  21. 21. Conclusions<br />The graphical artifacts allowed visualizing the task structure and the structure of social participation both independently and interconnected. <br />The triangulation with narrative analysis of the forum interaction and self-reports led to the identification of critical events that revealed different interaction phases.<br />Different groups did perform different strategies of text composition during the time provided for the assignment.<br />One single group showed a dynamic change of strategy of text composition as a response to instructional circumstances, such as poor feedback.<br />
  22. 22. Thanksforyourattention!<br />SELECTED REFERENCES<br />Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web-based discussion. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 133-158.<br />CerrattoPargman, T. (2003). Collaborating with writing tools: an instrumental perspective on the problem of computer support for collaborative activities. Interacting with Computers: the interdisciplinary journal of Human-Computer Interaction. Volume 15, p. 737 – 757.<br />Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons.In L. Ch. Wilkinson, (Ed.), Communicating in the Classroom (pp.153-182).New York: Academic Press, INC. <br />Ford, C. E.; Fox, B. A.; & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (2002). The language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />Green, J.L.; Weade H.; & Graham, K. (1988). Lesson construction and  student participation: A sociolinguistic analysis. In J.L. Green, J.L. &  J.O, Harper (Eds.) Multiple perspective analysis of classroom  discourse (11-47). Norwood, Nj: Ablex.<br />Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. (1997). Activity theory: basic concepts and applications. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia.<br />Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2008) From multiple perspectives to shared understanding: A small group in an online learning environment. Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearch, 52(1), 77-95.<br />Mauri, T., Clarà, M. y Remesal, A. (2011). La naturaleza del discurso en la escritura colaborativa online: intersubjetividad y elaboración del significado. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34(2), 219-233.<br />Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (4), 239–257.<br />Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Products, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14, 153-173.<br />Suthers, D., & Medina, R. (2008). Tracing interaction in distributed collaborative learing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA, New York, March 24th-28th.<br />Yin, R. K. (2006). Case Study methods. En J. L. Green, G. Camilli & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (pp. 111 – 122). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.<br />