Accessing the process of asynchronous collaborative writing
1 like401 views
The document discusses a research study on asynchronous collaborative writing among teacher-student groups, focusing on the interplay between task structure and social participation. It utilizes a case study approach with various methodologies, including analysis of written interactions and self-reports, to identify critical events that influence writing strategies. The findings highlight varying strategies of text composition among groups and link instructional circumstances to changes in approach.
Accessing the process of asynchronous collaborative writing
- 1. Accessing the process of asynchronous collaborative writing Teresa Mauri, PhDAna Remesal, PhDMarc ClaràPaper presented at ISCAR 2011 Rome, ItalyResearchprojectfundedby MINISTERIO DE CIENCIA E INNOVACIÓN. Dirección General de Programas y Transferencia de Conocimiento, Spain.(# EDU2009-08891)http://www.psyed.edu.es/grintie/
- 2. ContextTeacher-students freshmen working in small groups (4x4n, aged 18-20y).
- 3. Computer supported asynchronous collaborative writing, at the end of a blended 2semesters course (Ed.Psychology).
- 4. LMS Moodle as basic virtual classroom with 3 different forum spaces: news forumwhole-class forumsmall group private space7 weeks of unscripted forum interaction.TheoreticalapproachSocioconstructivist understanding of teaching and learning.
- 5. Writing as a creative activity, open to discussion and negotiation.
- 6. Writing for learning is comprised by a threefold, interwoven process of negotiation:Task structure.Social participation.Meanings/contents ( Mauri, Clarà, Remesal, 2011).All three subprocesses are affected by criticalevents and affect each other reciprocally.Task and Social ParticipationTaskWhat shall be done?What are the goals?What should the product look like?What parts should it have?What shall be done first, in second, in third place…?When shall actions be undertaken?...Social participationWho is doing each part of the task?What kind of roles are enacted or do emerge in the interaction?How do participants communicate (by which means)?When do participants interact?
- 7. Goals of thestudyTo explore the progression of task structure and social participation as reciprocally affecting one another.To explore the notion of critical event as a key phenomenon to understand the changes in both task structure and social participation.
- 8. MethodologicalprocedureData sourcesWritten interaction in forumWritten progressive products Self-reports of studentsCase study approach
- 10. Graphical representations of the processSOCIAL PARTICIPATION MAP
- 11. Group 4Group 8
- 12. Group 4Group 8
- 14. Group 4Group 8
- 15. Group 8 TM & SPM
- 16. Group 8 overlappedtm & spm
- 17. Group 8 overlappedtm & spm
- 18. Phase 1Phase 2
- 19. Phase 3
- 20. Phase 4Phase 5
- 21. ConclusionsThe graphical artifacts allowed visualizing the task structure and the structure of social participation both independently and interconnected. The triangulation with narrative analysis of the forum interaction and self-reports led to the identification of critical events that revealed different interaction phases.Different groups did perform different strategies of text composition during the time provided for the assignment.One single group showed a dynamic change of strategy of text composition as a response to instructional circumstances, such as poor feedback.
- 22. Thanksforyourattention!SELECTED REFERENCESArvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web-based discussion. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 133-158.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.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. Ford, C. E.; Fox, B. A.; & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (2002). The language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. (1997). Activity theory: basic concepts and applications. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia.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.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.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.Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Products, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14, 153-173.Suthers, D., & Medina, R. (2008). Tracing interaction in distributed collaborative learing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA, New York, March 24th-28th.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.