Cited by 18Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

University Students’ Knowledge Construction during Face to Face Collaborative Writing

Open access
Nykopp, Minna, Marttunen, Miika, Laurinen, Leena·2014·Writing as a Learning Activity

Abstract

Collaborative writing combines social processes of writing with cognitive knowledge construction processes, and thus may lead to deeper learning than individual working. This study examined students’ knowledge construction during face-to-face collaborative writing. University students (n = 21) prepared themselves for the collaborative task by reading about developmental theories in a course book and writing individual summaries of them. In small groups, the students discussed each others’ summaries and wrote a joint essay on one of the theories. The data comprise the students’ individual summaries (n = 21), the students’ discussions during the essay writing (8177 speech turns), and the students’ joint essays (n = 6). The utterances from the students’ discussions indicating knowledge construction (n = 3865) were broadly categorized under the headings of collaborative interaction (Asking questions, Answers to questions, Collaborative completion, Expressing disagreement or conflict, Quick agreement, Quick disagreement and Discussing edits) and content processing (Conceptualizing ideas; Clarifying ideas and Expressing an idea or a thought). When constructing knowledge during collaborative writing, the students mainly completed each others’ ideas and asked questions. They rarely expressed disagreement or conflict. A2 collaborative writing task that combines reading, summary writing and group discussion seems to assist students in their construction of knowledge.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/9789004265011_013

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • During collaborative writing, a series of exchanges takes place that facilitates the elaboration of thought, the relation of information with prior knowledge, and/or the understanding of the content.

    “This is because during collaborative writing a series of exchanges takes place that facilitates the elaboration of thought, the relation of information with prior knowledge, and/or the understanding of the content (Nykopp et al., 2014).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1988). "Let's brighten it up a bit": Collaboration and cognition in writing. In B. A. Rafoth & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), The social construction of written communication (pp. 249-269). Norwood (NJ): Ablex.
  2. Herring, S. C. (1996). Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in computer- mediated communication. In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer- mediated communication (pp. 115-145). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  3. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2011). Metacognitive experiences during collaborative online reading. In V. Kaartinen, C. Kiili, & M. Mäkinen (Eds.) Proceedings of 2nd Baltic Sea Reading Conference -15th Nordic Reading Conference. Online publication available at http://www.parnet.fi/~finra/proceedings_of_second-baltic_sea_reading_conference (pp. 52-62). Turku: FinRA Ry.
  4. Littleton, K., & Häkkinen, P. (1999). Learning together: Understanding the process of computer-based collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approach (pp. 20-29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  5. Munneke, L., & Andriessen, J. (2000). Learning through collaborative writing an argumentative text. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG Writing conference, Verona, Italy.
  6. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In K. Sayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Science (pp. 97-118. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nykopp, M., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L.
Affiliations
University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Venue
Writing as a Learning Activity
Publisher
BRILL
Published
2014-01-01
Pages
277-299
OpenAlex
W848296616
Cited by
18
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.50
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BRILL eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
collaborative writing, knowledge construction, face-to-face collaboration, university students, group discussion, summary writing, cognitive processes in writing, deep learning, developmental theory, collaborative interaction, content processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review