Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing

In the COSAR-project a computer-supported collaborative learning environment enables students to collaborate in writing an argumentative essay. The TC3 groupware environment (TC3: Text Composer, Computer supported and Collaborative) offers access to relevant information sources, a private notepad, a chat facility including a chat history, and a shared wordprocessor. Planning tools for writing – a shared argumentation diagram for content generation and a shared outline facility for content linearization – were added to the basic TC3 environment. About 145 pairs of high school students completed essays on organ donation or cloning in the TC3 environment. We analyzed the logged discussion ( chats ) and activity protocols for task-related processes present during discussion and collaboration. Processes looked into are planning, gathering information and composing the essay, as well as collaborative processes such as coordinating, turn taking and time management. Our main research question is how task-related planning activities and collaborative coordination with or without the help of planning tools relate to the quality of the resulting argumentative texts. Overall coordination and planning of the writing activities on a meta-level and on a content level were found to be crucial for the quality of the text. 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 0747-5632/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.038 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Erkens). 464 G. Erkens et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 463–486 1. Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing A recent Dutch educational law has transformed the curriculum in the last three years of college preparatory high school. Among the changes, schools are required to provide support for students to do increasingly independent research, in order to prepare them better for college studies. Working and learning actively, constructively and collaboratively are seen as important parts of this program called ‘‘studyhouse’’. The computer-supported, collaborative writing environment that is used in this research is meant to fit within this new curriculum. As a groupware environment it can emphasize both the constructivist and collaborative aspects because of its active and interactive nature. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) systems are assumed to have the potential to enhance the effectiveness of peer learning interactions (Andriessen, Erkens, Overeem, & Jaspers, 1996; Bannon, 1995; Dillenbourg, 1999; Katz, 1995). Groupware programs are used for CSCL as they generally support and integrate two functions: task support and communicative support. They are meant to support collaborative group work by sharing tools and resources between group members and by giving communication opportunities within the group and to the external world. So in groupware programs computer supported tools are generally of two kinds: task related and communicative. Task-related tools support the performance of the task and the problem-solving process. Communicative tools provide access to collaborating partners, but also to other resources like external experts or other information sources via the Internet. The function of the program is, in this respect, a communication medium (Henri, 1995). The task related aspect is mainly realized by offering computerized tools that can be helpful for collaborating students in solving the task at hand (e.g., the CSILE-program of Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Lamon, 1994; the Belvedere program of Suthers, Weiner, Connelly, & Paolucci, 1995). Tools in a groupware environment are shared and accessible to all participants. In this way they can not only support task related constructive activities, but also the collaborative deliberation about these activities. The basic components in a powerful CSCL groupware environment are the tasks and activities, the learning resources and the shared tools that support the collaborative performance of the task. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the developed computer supported writing environment and its planning tools on the final written product through differences in the participants collaboration processes. Our main research question then is how support of task-related planning activities and collaborative coordination relate to the quality of the resulting argumentative texts. 2. Planning in collaborative argumentative writing Writing argumentative texts of any length is a complex process consisting of several interrelated sub processes, each with its own dynamics and constraints (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Rijlaarsdam & van den Bergh, 1996). This task requires that G. Erkens et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 463–486 465 information is generated, collected, selected, related, and organized into a consistent knowledge structure. In addition, the writer must find a persuasive line of argumentation to convince the reader. For successful completion of the task social, cognitive, rhetorical, and cultural skills are called on. Theories of writing (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hayes & Nash, 1996) generally distinguish three types of activities within the writing process: planning (generating, organizing and linearizing content), formulating or translating (writing the text), and revising. For planning an argumentative text, arguments need to be generated and ordered based on ones position and the demands of the audience. Unlike in storytelling, the order of the content of an argumentative text does not inherently follow from the order in which events take place (McCutchen, 1987). During planning activities, ideas will probably be conceived and organized from a perspective other than time – for instance, in argument clusters. The contents need to be linearized (ordered) before the ideas can be rendered into text, and again when the contents are reorganized. Linearization, therefore, is an important activity in argumentative writing (Levelt, 1989). Converting the conceptual representation of ideas into linear text appears to be a crucial problem for the novice writer of argumentative texts (Coirier, Andriessen, & Chanquoy, 1999). The main advantage of collaborative writing, when compared to individual writing, is the possibility of receiving and giving immediate feedback. According to Stein, Bernas, and Calicchia (1997), argumentation itself facilitates learning because it necessitates searching for relevant information and using each other as a source of knowledge. In addition, the discussions generated by the argumentation task make the collaborators verbalize and negotiate, among others, purpose, plans, concepts, and doubts. Collaborating writers need to test their hypotheses, justify their propositions, and clarify their goals. This may lead to increased awareness of and more conscious control over the writing and learning processes (Gere & Stevens, 1989; Giroud, 1999). In collaborative writing, reflecting on planning becomes a natural process, because by writing a shared text, the partners will have to agree on both the content and the organization of the text. In addition, the use of sources needs to be coordinated and discussed. Thus, the constructive activities of organizing, linearizing as well as translating to the common text have to take place in mutual deliberation, necessitating verbalization and reification of ideas. This negotiation, leading to shared knowledge construction, takes place in the collaboration dialogue between the partners (Erkens, Andriessen, & Peters, 2003). We expect to find that more mutual coordinating activities in the dialogue result in a more consistent shared knowledge structure, and in a better mutual problem solution, that is, a better argumentative text (see also Baker, 1999). Furthermore, support of content generation, organizing and linearization should make these planning activities explicit and negotiable. The groupware computer environment that has been developed in the COSAR research project (COSAR stands for Computer Support for Collaborative and Argumentative Writing ) attempts to support students during planning by providing specific tools for conceptual generation, organization and linearization and by offering help on using these planning tools. 466 G. Erkens et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 463–486 3. Coordination processes A collaborative learning situation may be defined as one in which two or more students work together to fulfill an assigned task within a particular domain of learning in order to achieve a joint goal (Cohen, 1994). The collaborating partners must have a common interest in solving the problem at hand. Furthermore, they should be mutually dependent on the information, resources, tools and cooperative intention or willingness of the partners to reach their common goals. Under these conditions of mutuality, coordination of task strategy and the constructive activities to achieve a shared understanding of the problem are crucial aspects of collaborative learning. In earlier research we found that this coordination is realized by a complex interaction between task related strategies, cooperative intentions and communication processes during collaboration. In the collaborative learning situation the learning results will be influenced by the type of task, the composition of the group, the complementarity in expertise of the participants, the resources and tools available, and the educational climate. In order to achieve the common goal the collaboration partners will have to coordinate their activities and their thinking. They will have to activate their knowledge and skills and will have to establish a common frame of reference in order to be able to negotiate and communicate individual viewpoints and inferences. Furthermore, shared understanding of the problem at hand – a joint problem space (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995) – or a collective landscape of concepts (Erkens et al., 2003) must be constructed and a problem solving strategy has to be agreed upon. In this way the collaborative learning situation stimulates three main processes of coordination: (1) mutual activation and sharing of knowledge and skills, (2) grounding or creating a common frame of reference, and (3) negotiation or the process of coming to agreement. Specific activities can be distinguished within these three processes: focusing, checking and argumentation. By focusing, students try to maintain a shared topic of discourse and to repair a common focus if they notice a focus divergence. Students coordinate their topic of discourse by focusing. By checking new information (from an external source or from the partner) with regard to the knowledge that was (co-)constructed, the students guard the coherence and consistency of their collective knowledge base. By checking, students ground their communication in a common understanding (Clark & Brennan, 1991). In earlier research checking was found to be one of the major coordinating activities in dialogues of collaborative problem solving and related to the quality of the problem solving process (Van der Linden, Erkens, Schmidt, & Renshaw, 2000). Moreover, the participants also need to come to agreement with respect to task strategies, relevant concepts and relationships. By argumentation they will try to change their partner s viewpoint to arrive at the best way to solve the task at hand or at a definition of concepts acceptable for all. In this argumentation process they try to convince the other(s) by elaborating on their point of view, giving explanations, justifications and accounts (Antaki, 1994). A process of explicit argumentation should lead to agreement on the task strategies to be followed and on the inferences to be drawn (Baker, 1999). G. Erkens et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 463–486 467 Alternatives need to be deliberated and compared to each other, and a joint decision has to be made on which alternative to use (Di Eugenio, Jordan, Thomason, & Moore, 2000). 4. Research questions 1. How does support of organization and linearization relate to the quality and coherence of the collaboratively written essays? 2. How do planning tools for generating, organizing and linearizing arguments moderate writing activities like planning, translating and revising, in different phases of argumentative writing? 3. How do features of the planning process (generating, organization and linearization) and the ICT tools relate to the coordination in the dialogue of collaborating students in terms of checking, focusing and argumentation? 5. The TC3 environment A groupware environment called TC3 (Text Composer, Computer supported and Collaborative) was developed with which pairs of students can write argumentative essays collaboratively (Erkens, Prangsma, Jaspers, & Kanselaar, 2002). This environment combines a shared word processor, a chat facility, and access to a private notepad and online information sources. Each partner works at his/her own computer, and wherever possible partners were assigned to different classrooms. The basic TC3 environment, shown in Fig. 1, contains four main windows of which the upper two windows are private and the lower two windows are shared: 1. INFORMATION (upper right window): This private window contains tabs for the assignment (‘‘i’’), sources (‘‘bron’’) and TC3 operating instructions (‘‘handleiding’’). Sources are divided evenly between the students. Each partner has 3 or 5 different sources plus one – fairly factual – common source. The content of the sources cannot be copied or pasted. 2. NOTES (upper left window, ‘‘AANTEKENINGEN’’): A private notepad where the student can make non-shared notes. 3. CHAT (lower left, 3 small windows): The student adds his/her chat message in the bottom box. Every letter typed is immediately sent to the partner via the network, so that both boxes are WYSIWIS: What You See Is What I See. The middle box shows the incoming messages from the partner. The scrollable upper chat box contains the discussion history. 4. SHARED TEXT (lower right window, ‘‘GEMEENSCHAPPELIJKE TEKST’’): A simple word processor (also WYSIWIS) in which the shared text is written while taking turns. Fig. 1. The interface of the basic TC3 environment. 468 G. Erkens et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 463–486 Text from the private notes, chat, chat history and shared text can be exchanged through standard copy and paste functions. The buttons search (‘‘zoek’’), mark (‘‘markeer’’), and delete (‘‘wis’’) can be used to mark and unmark text in the source windows and to search through the marked texts. The number of words (‘‘aantal woorden’’) button allows the participants to count the number of words in the shared text editor at any given moment. The stop (‘‘stoppen’’) button ends the session. The traffic light button serves as the turn taking device necessary to take turns in writing in the shared text editor. In addition, two planning tools and a supporting facility were developed in the TC3 program for the experimental conditions: the Diagram, the Outline and the Advisor. The Diagram (see Fig. 2) is a shared tool for generating, organizing and relating information units in a graphical knowledge structure comparable to Belvédère (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2001; Suthers et al., 1995). The tool was conceptualized to the students as a graphical summary of the information in the argumentative essay. Students were instructed that the information contained in the diagram had to faithfully represent the information in the final version of their essay. This requirement was meant to help students to notice inconsistencies, gaps, and other imperfections in their texts, and encourage them to review and revise. In the Diagram, several types of text boxes can be used: information (‘‘informatie’’), position (‘‘standpunt’’), argument pro (‘‘voorargument’’), support (‘‘onderbouFig. 2. The diagram window in the TC3 program. G. Erkens et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 463–486 469 wing’’), argument contra (‘‘tegenargument’’), refutation (‘‘weerlegging’’), and conclusion (‘‘conclusie’’). Two types of connectors were available to link the text boxes: arrows and lines. The Diagram can be used to visualize the argumentative structure of the position taken by the students. The Outline (see Fig. 3) is a shared tool in the TC3 program for generating and organizing information units as an outline of consecutive subjects in the text. This tool was conceptualized to the students as producing a meaningful outline of the paper, and as for the Diagram, the participants were required to have the information in the Outline faithfully represent the information of the final text. The Outline tool was designed to support planning and organization of the linear structure of the texts. The tool allows students to make an overview or hierarchical structure of the text to be written. This should help them in determining the order of content in the text. In addition, the Outline tool has the didactic function of making the user aware of characteristics of good textual structure, thus allowing the user to learn to write better texts. The Outline has a maximum of four automatically indented, numbered levels. Both planning windows are WYSIWIS. The Advisor is a help facility that provides advise on how to use the Diagram and/ or Outline. The Advisor consists of a tab sheet added to the information window with tips and instructions for optimum use of the planning tools: the Diagram or the Outline. Fig. 3. The outline window in the TC3 program. 470 G. Erkens et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 21 (2005) 463–486