The effects of a visible-annotation tool for sequential knowledge construction on discourse patterns and collaborative outcomes

Abstract

This study aimed to explore learners’ discourse patterns and outcomes while using a visible-annotation tool as a collaborative representation tool. The tool used in this study introduced two types of sharing activities before the problem-solving phase to support sequential knowledge construction. Forty participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups according to two variables: type of sharing activities (meaning sharing activity (M) and opinion sharing activity (O)), and type of representation function to guide sharing activities (word-based function (W) and sentence-based function (S)). All three groups performed sharing activities during the same period. After completing these, the participants carried out a lesson-planning task in pairs during the problem-solving phase. All annotations across three learning phases were categorised to investigate discourse patterns. The findings revealed that Group MWOS, provided with M based on W and O based on S, had the most effective knowledge construction process, showing sequential discourse patterns. In addition, differences in discourse patterns among groups positively influenced the level of collaborative outcomes.

An automatic knowledge graph construction approach to promoting collaborative knowledge building, group performance, social interaction and socially shared regulation in CSCL

“…Second, the AAUKG approach can construct both activated and unactivated knowledge graphs, unlike the other two approaches, which may demonstrate the common understanding of subject matter and provide a common reference for collaborative knowledge building. Previous studies found that a shared reference is essential to foster fruitful knowledge building (Shin et al, 2018).…”

“…For example, Li et al (2021) adopted a group awareness tool to enhance knowledge construction. Shin et al (2018) employed visible annotation tools to enhance the level of constructed knowledge in the CSCL context.…”

“…However, learners often have difficulties with collaborative knowledge building during CSCL. For example, the complexity of the learning content often results in inaccurate shared knowledge (Shin et al, 2018). Additionally, learners often do not know how to improve and refine knowledge during CSCL (Chen et al, 2021).…”

Exploring behavioural patterns of virtual manipulatives supported collaborative inquiry learning: Effect of device‐student ratios and external scripts

“…Meanwhile, the external scripts may also affect students' collaborative behaviours. Collaborative processes require more attention to reveal variations in interaction patterns via process analysis tools (Shin & Jung, 2020). However, previous studies paid less attention to how the impact of technology affordances on group interaction patterns varies (Lin et al, 2012;Wang et al, 2020a).…”

An automated group learning engagement analysis and feedback approach to promoting collaborative knowledge building, group performance, and socially shared regulation in CSCL

“…Previous studies on CSCL featured a wide variety of research foci, including the use of technological tools to facilitate CSCL (Chen et al, 2018;Shin & Jung, 2020), employment of various strategies to promote CSCL (Pietarinen et al, 2021), and analysis and evaluation of CSCL processes and outcomes using various methods (Lämsä et al, 2021). Recently, learning engagement has received increasing attention in the CSCL field.…”