Skip to main content
Log in

Implementing dynamicity in research designs for collaborative digital writing

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper implements a dynamic (i.e. temporal and local) research design for collaborative digital writing (CDW) in writing assignments in higher education. This research design builds on my paper “Temporality revisited: Dynamicity issues in collaborative digital writing research”, published in this journal (Engerer 2020). The design identifies current state-of-the-art approaches to digital writing and introduces 1) the components of text (the process and products of writing and learning communication), 2) external variables such as learning orientations and group composition, 3) an intermediate layer of time management that is related to organizing the assignment, and 4) the sphere of knowledge construction. The main modification, however, is the addition of four features specifically connected to time-related aspects: 5) micro-analysis, 6) dynamicity, 7) writer relevance and 8) source status. This dynamized research design is applied in a study of writing assignments carried out by the author with students of information science in the spring term of 2016. It is demonstrated how the temporal organization of a CDW process can be visualized and how central concepts such as Task structure, Reference structure and Final target structure are construed, operationalized and dynamically related to each other. Furthermore, a real-time analysis of sequential concept building is provided. The discussion shows that the study integrates all the above elements 1)-8) of a dynamic research design for CDW, although to different degrees. The study presented here can provide a general background for designing research in CDW and can inspire CDW researchers to capture in their research designs the dynamic, time-related features in CDW.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beck, E. E. (1993). A survey of experiences of collaborative writing. In M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative writing (pp. 87–112). London, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berlanga, A. J., Brouns, F., Van Rosmalen, P., Rajagopal, K., Kalz, M., & Stoyanov, S. (2009). Making use of language technologies to provide formative feedback. In AIED 2009: 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education Workshops Proceedings (p. 1–8).

  • Berlanga, A., Van Rosmalen, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Sloep, P. B. (2012). Exploring formative feedback on textual assignments with the help of automatically created visual representations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00425.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (1975). Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9089-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engerer, V. (2020). Temporality revisited: Dynamicity issues in collaborative digital writing research. Education and Information Technologies, (2020), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10262-9.

  • Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Bakhtiar, A., & Miller, M. (2018). Challenges in online collaboration: Effects of scripting shared task perceptions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9279-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Brendle, D., & Cress, U. (2017). All in good time: Knowledge introduction, restructuring, and development of shared opinions as different stages in collaborative writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9258-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavy, P. (2017). Research design, quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York: Guilford Publications https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kbdk/detail.action?docID=4832778#.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachler, N., & Daly, C. (2011). Key issues in e-learning: Research and practice. London: Continuum International Pub. Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.483513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative feedback and metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9219-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Prusak, N., Swidan, O., Livny, A., Gal, K., & Segal, A. (2018). Orchestrating the emergence of conceptual learning: A case study in a geometry class. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9276-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1985). Speech acts: An essay in philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., Papadopoulos, P. M., & Weinberger, A. (2016). Conversational agents for academically productive talk: A comparison of directed and undirected agent interventions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9246-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, H. C. (2014). Exploring how collaborative dialogues facilitate synchronous collaborative writing. Language Learning and Technology, 18(1), 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volkmar P. Engerer.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Engerer, V.P. Implementing dynamicity in research designs for collaborative digital writing. Educ Inf Technol 26, 2657–2684 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10365-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10365-3

Keywords

Navigation