Accessing the process of asynchronous collaborative writing
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 />http://www.psyed.edu.es/grintie/<br />
Context<br /><ul><li>Teacher-students freshmen working in small groups (4x4n, aged 18-20y).
Computer supported asynchronous collaborative writing, at the end of a blended 2semesters course (Ed.Psychology).
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.
Writing as a creative activity, open to discussion and negotiation.
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 />
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 />
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
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 />
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 />