Abstract:

The current knowledge-based society requires students to direct their learning. In this light, an often provided task is writing synthesis texts, in which information from sources is integrated. Collaborative writing often leads to better synthesis texts than individual writing [1]. Although collaborative writing can improve students’ learning outcomes, the process leading to these outcomes deserves more attention. Students do not always collaborate productively [2] and collaborative learning heavily depends on students’ interactions. Therefore, researchers should explore how students write collaboratively and investigate their interactions in detail [3]. This study aims to elicit how university students collaboratively write a synthesis text in terms of their overall approach, their specific interactions, and their group atmosphere.

Two groups of three master’s students in educational studies wrote a synthesis text in Google Docs within three hours, based on provided sources. They communicated via Zoom and their interactions were recorded. In the two transcripts, units of meaning were demarcated and coded using a three-tiered coding scheme distinguishing at the highest level between an epistemic dimension (knowledge-related), a regulative dimension (regulated learning) and the dimension other (e.g., social chat). Each dimension comprises several categories of actions, which in turn contain specific actions (utterances), based on Damşa [3]. The transcriptions contained time stamps, enabling to calculate the time each group spent on each specific action. Group atmosphere was determined by three independent coders based on the Fiedler Group Atmosphere Scale [4].

Results show the differences between the groups. They differed in amount of time they were talking, the overall approach of the task, the actions on which they focused, and group atmosphere. In group 1, students spoke for 66 minutes, whereas group 2 only spoke for 31 minutes. Overall, group 1 started with a clear planning and distributed the sources. Their interactions concerned primarily epistemic actions and more specifically creating shared understanding, and to a lesser extent regulative actions. In group 2, all students read all sources. They focused mainly on regulative actions and more in particular on discussing and repeatedly adjusting their planning. Group 1’s group atmosphere can be defined as productive, supportive, enthusiastic, warm and accepting, whereas the atmosphere in group 2 seemed rejecting, frustrating and non-productive.

This study shows how small groups of students write a synthesis text collaboratively. Full results will be discussed at EDULEARN21. Further research might focus on students’ interactions on a larger scale and on supporting students’ collaboration process.

References:
[1] N. Storch, “Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections,” J. Second Lang. Writ., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 153–173, Sep. 2005.
[2] B. De Wever, H. Van Keer, T. Schellens, and M. Valcke, “Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: Comparing scripting by assigning roles with regulation by cross-age peer tutors,” Learn. Instr., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 349–360, Oct. 2010.
[3] C. I. Damşa, “The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration,” Int. J. Comput. Collab. Learn., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 247–281, 2014.
[4] F. E. Fiedler, A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Keywords:

Higher education, collaborative learning, interactions, case study.