The study reported in this article aims at empirically testing a theoretical model of collaborative knowledge building with wikis which was recently introduced by Cress and Kimmerle (2007; in press). This model assumes that individual learning and collaborative knowledge building are based on the interplay between people's knowledge and the information available in the wiki. This interplay takes place in the form of externalization and internalization respectively. Individual learning is considered as happening through internal processes of assimilation and accommodation. Collaborative knowledge building happens through activities of external assimilation and accommodation. This study demonstrates these four processes in an experimental setting. As postulated by Cress and Kimmerle, the results show that a medium level of incongruity between people's knowledge and a wiki's information supports individual learning. A medium level of incongruity also leads to more external accommodation processes, despite the fact that high and medium levels of incongruity result in the same amount of text complements.

1. Learning and Knowledge Building with Wikis: The Impact of Incongruity between People’s Knowledge and a Wiki’s Information. Johannes Moskaliuk, University of Tuebingen Joachim Kimmerle, University of Tuebingen Ulrike Cress, Knowledge Media Research Center ICLS 2008, June 25th, Utrecht

4. Systemic point of view (acc. to Luhmann) wiki‘s information social system people‘s knowledge cognitive system

5. Co-evolution of user‘s knowlege and wiki‘s information knowledge building individual learning

6. Cognitive point of view (acc. to Piaget) existing knowledge information from the enviroment perturbation incongruity cognitive conflict equilibration accommodation assimilation

7. Four processes of learning and knowledge building qualitative individual learning (acquisition of conceptual knowledge) qualitative knowledge building accommodation quantitative individual learning (acquisition of factual knowledge) quantitative knowledge building assimilation internalization externalization

8. Motivation to participate is determined by incongruity linking to prior knowledge is difficult motivational barriers no cognitive conflict no new information low incongruity high incongruity cognitive conflict

11. Three conditions with different levels of incongruity biological/genetic social diathesis/stress medium incongruity low incongruity high incongruity complete wiki no content a b one-sided content condition 1 condition 2 condition 3

12. Three conditions with different levels of incongruity wiki‘s information people‘s knowledge 3 conditions constant

13. Dependent variables Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information

14. Dependent variables Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information

15. Dependent variables accommodation index Allusion to the diathesis-stress model structure of the arguments on the one hand… on the other hand… in contrast… nevertheless… however… Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information

16. Dependent variables 21 statements about the causes of schizophrenia The double bind theory is an empirically proven statement about the causes of schizophrenia. correct not correct I don‘t know  Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information

17. Dependent variables open question „ Describe the best argument, to explain the causes of schizophrenia learned through the work with the wiki.“ simple answers complex answers expert rating Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information

18. Results Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information 1790,45 1413,32 519,22 268,70 210,00 78,78 high medium low

19. Dependent variables M med = 3.29 (SD med = 2.70) vs. M low = 1.78 (SD low = 1.78), t(37) = 2.04, p=.02 M med = 3.29 (SD med = 2.70) vs. M high = 2.05 (SD high = 0.94), t(37) = 1.93, p=.03 Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information

20. Dependent variables M med = 15.50 (SD med = 2.30) vs. M low = 13.70 (SD low = 2.98), t(37) = 2.16, p=.02 M med = 15.50 (SD med = 2.30) vs. M high = 14.20 (SD high = 1.96), t(37) = 1.96, p=.03 Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information

21. Dependent variables low vs., medium Chi 2 = 1, N = 43) = 4.23, p = .02. high vs. medium Chi 2 = 1, N = 43) = 5.23, p = .03. Conceptual knowledge Accommodation index Accommodation Factual knowledge Sum of added words Assimilation People’s knowledge Wiki’s information