Collaborative and Individual Learning

Mixing the Two

Richard Alterman and Kendall Harsch

Computer Science Department, Brandeis University, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA, U.S.A.

Keywords:

Mixing Collaborative and Individual Learning, Loose and Tight Coordination.

Abstract:

What is the right mix of individual and collaborative learning? This position paper will explore how online

platforms can mix the two approaches, addressing problems inherent to each while increasing the learning.

Approaches to collaborative learning can be differentiated by the type of coordination that is required, either

tight or loose (Alterman and Larusson, 2013). Tightly coordinated learning tends to be more collaborative and

loosely coordinated activities have more of an individual orientation. Modifying platforms of either extreme

can achieve better balance between the individual and collaborative features of a learning activity. Heuristics

are presented that support these kinds of transformations; blog and wiki-based platforms are used to ground

the discussion. Also considered is the sequence of learning and how mixed platforms better prepare students

for future learning.

1 INTRODUCTION

There are advantages to both collaborative and indi-

vidual learning, but how should they be combined?

The think-pair-share (Kagan, 1989) – where the in-

structor poses a question and the students think alone

for a minute, then discuss their answers with a seat

mate, and then return for an open discussion with the

entire class – is an example of an in-class method

that combines individual with collaborative learning.

What are the trade-offs between alternative styles of

collaboration? This position paper will explore how

online platforms can support the mixing of individual

and collaborative learning.

Any online joint learning activity is a mix of in-

dividual and collaborative. The pedagogical scenario

can inﬂuence the balance of individual and collabora-

tive that emerges in the online learning environment.

The platform itself predisposes the participants to en-

gage one another in manner that requires greater or

lesser amounts of coordination and convergence in

understanding. From this perspective, collaborative

learning can be differentiated by the amount of coor-

dination and convergence of thought that is required,

either tight or loose (Alterman and Larusson, 2013).

In a tightly coordinated collaboration, the students

work closely together as a unit. They work together in

a joint problem space to create a shared understand-

ing. An example of a platform that supports tightly

coordinated collaborative learning is a wiki.

The reduced costs of coordination in a loosely

coordinated activity make it less work to collabo-

rate. The students work relatively independent of one

another, enabling greater coverage and diversity of

thought, while developing a collective “sense” of the

course material. A student blogging platform is an ex-

ample of a loosely coordinated collaborative learning

activity.

This position paper focuses on methods for con-

structing mixed collaborative learning platforms. The

position is that such systems have the advantage of

both individual and collaborative learning and reduce

the disadvantages of either one to the exclusion of the

other. The discussion will center on how to make a

blog-based learning platform more collaborative and

a wiki-based one more individual. A later section will

consider stages of mixed platforms as preparation for

additional learning activities.

2 TRADE-OFFS

Both individual and cooperative learning have advan-

tages (see Table 1). The individual learner has greater

autonomy. As she does her work, she can more fully

develop her own ideas. Working alone gives the stu-

dent a sense of ownership, making the student feel

more invested, responsible, and engaged. It also pro-

411

Alterman R. and Harsch K..

Collaborative and Individual Learning - Mixing the Two.

DOI: 10.5220/0005476504110417

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 411-417

ISBN: 978-989-758-107-6

 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

vides opportunities for the student to develop her per-

sonal identity – she is the one who is doing this and

it represents her in some way. Finally, different stu-

dents have different styles, and they pace themselves

differently: working independently means a student

can work according to her own way.

Table 1: Both have advantages.

Individual Collaborative

greater autonomy inter psychological;

common understanding

personal identity work in proximal zone

ownership (meta) cognitive skill

work at own pace multiple viewpoints

work according to social cohesion/ solidarity

own cognitive style

Cooperative learning also has many potential ad-

vantages (Slavin et al., 2003); for the purposes of this

article the terms “cooperative” and “collaborative” are

treated synonymously. A key advantage has to do

with notion of the zone of proximal development (Vy-

gotsky, 1980). The zone of proximal development is

the difference between what you can learn alone and

what you can learn in collaboration with peers or an

“instructor.” Take a skill like reading (Cole and En-

gestr

om, 1993). A child ﬁrst learns to read in collab-

oration with a more accomplished reader. Over time

the child learns how to read alone. The trajectory of

learning is from social and collaborative engagement

to individual skill (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2006). With

peer collaboration, learners in the same proximal zone

can work together. The skills of the learners are dif-

ferent but can be complementary. Students learn from

one another and increase the amount they learn be-

cause the sum of their skills allows them to learn from

more difﬁcult problems. Externalization and the shar-

ing of constructions enable students to develop cog-

nitive and metacognitive skills collaboratively (Stahl,

2006; Suthers, 2006; Ludvigsen et al., 2015). The

students are exposed to multiple viewpoints and per-

spectives. The social cohesion/solidarity that can de-

velop in small groups can both increase engagement

and reduce alienation (Slavin et al., 2003). The social

elements of the situation can also increase motivation

and the discipline of the group can be a powerful ad-

dition to the self-discipline required to succeed at any

extended project.

There are issues for both approaches to learning.

There are plenty of trade-offs. Working individually

creates a greater sense of competence for those that

succeed but perhaps at the cost of other students be-

ing able to learn things they could have in their zone

of proximal development with peer collaboration. En-

abling students to work at their own pace and style

reduces the potential causes of conﬂict in the class-

room but perhaps at the cost of a more disciplined

and coordinated approach to working. Working alone

simpliﬁes the problems of coordination but working

“alone” outside of the school system is more of a rar-

ity. Assessment and feedback on individual student

work is more responsive to the individual student’s

performance, but it also more labor intensive. Coop-

erative projects may reduce the load with regards to

grading and feedback, but decisions about credit as-

signment and feedback for speciﬁc learners is more

difﬁcult to achieve.

There is no inherent reason, however, for individ-

ual and collaborative learning to be an either/or. The

advantages of each are in many ways complementary:

some of the negatives of one are the positives of the

other and vice versa. A learning platform that fuses

the right mix of individual and collaborative learn-

ing activities could achieve many of the advantages

of both, while simultaneously addressing the deﬁcien-

cies of each one. With the right mix, an individual

learner can both maintain control of his work and, in

cooperation with other students, extend the range of

problems that he can solve. Or a student who is stuck

can sample the space of other student’s work to look

for alternate perspectives on an assignment. Or a stu-

dent who is creative can develop her own ideas with

the aid of feedback from her peers.

3 TIGHT AND LOOSE

COORDINATION

Both tightly and loosely coordinated activities involve

collaboration.

Small groups (roughly 5-8) can work together in

close collaboration, learning things that would be dif-

ﬁcult for the students to learn individually (Stahl,

2006). Virtual math teams chat online working to-

gether same time/different place in a joint problem

space in a tightly coordinated collaborative space

(Stahl et al., 2011). Students collaboratively writ-

ing a science article using a wiki is another exam-

ple of a tightly coordinated collaboration (Forte and

Bruckman, 2006). Argument-based dialogue systems

(Scheuer et al., 2010) and discussion forums (Guz-

dial and Turns, 2000) are yet other examples. In

each of these situations, there is a joint problem space

amongst the students (Teasley and Roschelle, 1993;

Sarmiento and Stahl, 2008). The interaction among

the students, and their communication, enables coop-

erative problem solving and grounding (Baker et al.,

1999), and meaning-making (Koschmann, 2002).

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

412

The key characteristic of tight coordination is that

there is a convergence of effort and understanding

amongst the learners. The trade-off is that the learners

have less independence. So on the scale of highly col-

laborative to complete individual independence, these

kinds of activities are decidedly collaborative (Dillen-

bourg, 1999).

In a loosely coordinated activity there are fewer

coordination requirements. The students still coop-

erate but they do so in the context of developing

their own ideas. When the students connect and

share with one another, they can, with fewer commit-

ments or constraints, collaboratively acquire knowl-

edge and build skills, while distributing amongst

their classmates knowledge relevant to their learn-

ing. Rather than converging towards a single so-

lution/understanding, the students maintain indepen-

dent solutions and viewpoints (Alterman and Larus-

son, 2013).

The key characteristic of loosely coordinated

learning activities is that learners maintain their au-

tonomy, have greater independence. They do not have

to compromise. They are free to develop their own

ideas and approach to the assignment. The interac-

tions amongst the students produce some common un-

derstanding or skill set, but the reduced dependency

between the contributions of the learners adds variety

to the understandings and skills that emerge. So on

the scale of highly collaborative to complete individ-

ual independence, these kinds of activities are collab-

orations that maintain the independence of the learn-

ers (Alterman and Larusson, 2013).

4 BLOG-BASED:

LOOSELY COORDINATED

The main features of student blogging are writing a

post, commenting, and community (Deng and Yuen,

2011). Students work in a closed blogging commu-

nity. The structure of the interaction is either a com-

munity blog, where everybody posts to the same blog,

or a collection of individual blogs, with each student

owning her own one.

In its basic form, blogging is a loosely coordinated

activity. The writing part is done by individuals. The

posts have a social orientation: the intent is to com-

municate with other members of the community. The

students have personal and intellectual ownership of

their work (Ferdig and Trammell, 2004; Williams and

Jacobs, 2004). As a participant in a blogging commu-

nity, a student develops a social presence as an indi-

vidual person. (Cameron and Anderson, 2006). The

students can browse in the blogosphere, reading and

commenting on each other’s posts. Commenting is

collaborative and interactive. The heuristics discussed

below increase the number and quality of interactions

amongst the students.

4.1 Heuristics

Each of the following design features maintains the

individual’s control of their own work (autonomy and

identity) while increasing learning and improving the

collaborative elements of the activity.

Small Groups. With smaller groups, all students

are likely to receive feedback (Larusson and Alter-

man, 2009). For a large, or even moderate-sized class,

looking at all the posts can be an overwhelming task.

With smaller groups, navigation becomes easier but

at the cost of fewer alternative viewpoints to sample.

This cost can be compensated by other phases of the

learning activity.

Drafting. In the basic blog-based architecture, stu-

dents write their posts and then collaborate by com-

menting on each other’s posts. An alternate scheme

is to enable open access to all phases of the writing

process: students publish drafts of their text, interact-

ing with each other as they write (Alterman and Gun-

narsson, 2013). With this scheme, students receive

and generate peer feedback while writing; they also

can access multiple viewpoints on the same assign-

ment. The students still own their own work and have

autonomy, but they can also learn from the open col-

laboration that is enabled. An additional constraint is

to require each student post a draft of their work be-

fore they can access the draft work of other students

and collaborate. This feature ensures students will de-

velop their own thoughts before exchanging ideas.

Promotions. With large classes, ﬁnding content in

the blogosphere that is good and relevant can be more

difﬁcult. Also, the distribution of feedback is uneven

and assessment becomes more costly.

Enabling students to promote each other’s work is

a heuristic that addresses these issues: students can at-

tach likes and badges (Antin and Churchill, 2011) to

each others’ contributions when the reader considers

the content noteworthy and wants to publicly label it

as such for the community. The promotion feature is

simple to use and easy to implement and understand.

Studies have shown that students will actively pro-

mote content; promoted content tends to be of higher

quality; the promotion data is used to navigate; and

some students are reliably better at assessing quality

CollaborativeandIndividualLearning-MixingtheTwo

413

than others (Gunnarsson and Alterman, 2014; Gun-

narsson and Alterman, 2013).

Rubrics: Where promotion identiﬁes good content,

rubrics can improve the quality of the peer feedback

and interaction. Scaffolding structures the learning

activity, making the activity simpler by focusing stu-

dents on particular tasks and ways of doing them (Pea,

2004). A rubric is a kind of scaffolding that provides

a format for giving feedback and assessing quality. It

foregrounds, for both the assessed and the assessor,

the important elements of the learning task.

5 WIKI-BASED:

TIGHTLY COORDINATED

The basic features of a wiki platform are the text,

the history of changes, and the discussion page (Leuf

and Cunningham, 2001). The text is produced as an

aggregation of small contributions and edits. Each

contribution is published when saved, and can sub-

sequently be edited, rewritten, or added to by other

participants. A contributor may choose to revert to

any earlier version of a wiki page by clicking on it in

the history list. Because wiki-writing produces a sin-

gle text, negotiation is required to produce an agreed

upon text (Bientzle et al., 2014). The community can

discuss and debate edits to the page on the discussion

page. For a large wiki community like Wikipedia,

the division of labor for most articles is not explicitly

managed, but the contributors can informally adopt

different roles (Welser et al., 2011). In an educational

context explicit roles can be assigned (West and West,

2008; Altanopoulou et al., 2014).

5.1 Heuristics

A heuristic like drafting, which increases the inter-

action and collaborative features of blogging, is built

into wiki writing. By its very nature, wiki writing pro-

vides ﬁne grained open access to writing of the text.

In an educational context, the small-group heuristic

also has value for wiki writing: too large a group

reduces the number of opportunities for the individ-

ual learner to make signiﬁcant contributions. Small

groups also make it harder for “shirkers” to hide but

perhaps at the increased cost of commitment imbal-

ance (Capdeferro and Romero, 2012). Methods that

script the revision process for wiki writing (i.e., col-

laborative scripts) have been shown to improve the

quality of the problem solving interaction (Wichmann

and Rummel, 2013). Promotions and rubrics, which

support navigation, feedback, and assessment in blog-

based writing, are less necessary for wiki-based writ-

ing because the setup of wikis, to a certain extent,

supports recognition, joint problem solving, and fo-

cused interactions. Nevertheless, promotions like

merit badges and rubrics for assessment, may achieve

better team harmony, more thoughtful conversations

about the text as it is written, and reliable peer assess-

ments (De Wever et al., 2011; Kriplean et al., 2008).

Division of Labor. Wiki writing, in itself, is very

collaborative with fewer opportunities for student au-

tonomy, individual ownership, and the development

of identity. A heuristic that introduces more of the

advantages of individual work is to divide the tasks

amongst the student wiki writers.

Suppose the assignment is to collaboratively write

a book review using a wiki by small teams of stu-

dents. Each review has two parts. The ﬁrst part is

a 1000 word summary of the central argument of the

book. The second part is a 500 word summary of each

chapter in the book. All students on a team are re-

sponsible for the text that summarizes the central ar-

gument of the book. Students within each working

group will also be assigned one of the following roles

for each chapter that the working group is asked to re-

view: primary author, copyeditor, or content discus-

sant. The primary author writes the summary for the

chapter. The copyeditor proofreads the text produced

by the primary author. The content discussant pro-

vides a commentary and raises issues on the the dis-

cussion page for the chapter summary he is assigned

to discuss.

By dividing the labor, the students are able to do

a mix of individual and collaborative tasks. They co-

author the summary of the central argument, but are

individually responsible for summarizing the chap-

ters.

6 AFTER A STAGE OF MIXED

LEARNING

During the semester, instruction can be divided into a

sequence of learning activities with earlier activities

preparing the students for later ones (Gagn

e, 1973).

Each learning activity in the sequence serves a differ-

ent function and can vary in the mix of individual and

collaborative tasks.

A stage is a collection of one or more related

learning activities that are centered on a particular

topic or skill in preparation for a later set of learn-

ing activities (Alterman and Gunnarsson, 2013). An

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

414

important element of what constitutes a stage is that at

the completion of the stage the students have reached

a point where they have some kind of common under-

standing of the topic or they have achieved a common

skill.

Collaborative learning activities that mix with in-

dividual ones have the promise of creating common

understanding and skills with a fair distribution. In-

dividual learning activities ensure that all the learn-

ers have the opportunity to learn the requisite knowl-

edge or skill for subsequent actions. Collaboration

increases the likelihood that learners working in their

zone of proximal development will have acquired the

requisite knowledge or skill.

In what follows, we look at three learning activi-

ties that beneﬁt from being next in the sequence after

a stage of mixed learning. One of them is tourna-

ments. The other two – writing papers and project-

based learning – depend on the commons of student

content created during the mixed collaboration.

6.1 Tournaments

After the completion of a mixed collabora-

tive/individual homework assignment, each learner

can be a judge in the tournament (Li and Lam,

2005). As a judge, a student is randomly assigned a

handful of assignments to assess – all assignments

are written under a pseudonym. Each judge ﬁlls out

a peer assessment form for each homework that he is

assigned to review; the peer assessments are written

anonymously. The answers to the questions require

at most a few sentences.

Dividing the assignment in this way is a form of

staging. In the ﬁrst stage the students engage in a

mixed learning activity that produces a common un-

derstanding. In the second stage, the students engage

in analytic and reﬂective activities that improve their

meta-cognitive skills for future related problem solv-

ing activities (Collins and Brown, 1988). For blogs,

the tournament is to judge the homework/post of other

students; if the small-group heuristic is used during

the earlier stage, the posts that each student judges

must originate in a working group other than the one

in which the judging student participated. For home-

work that is produced by a team on a wiki, the stu-

dents will individually judge the entries produced by

other teams.

6.2 The Commons

(Mixed) collaborative activities create an commons

of content (Bruckman, 1998; Scardamalia and Bere-

iter, 1994); alternately it is referred to as a warehouse

(Williams and Jacobs, 2004). The commons is a re-

source for all the members of the community that pro-

vides agreed upon content for subsequent stages of

learning activity. Below we discuss two examples of

learning activities where the commons created earlier

are of speciﬁc value.

Writing Papers. In one case study of a blended

course, students used a blog-based discourse com-

munity to discuss readings and lectures during the

semester. Later, students used the content as a re-

source for writing papers (Alterman and Larusson,

2013). The data showed a signiﬁcant increase of read-

ing activity within the blogosphere three days before

the deadline of the paper. For 16 of the 25 students,

their work in the blogosphere foreshadowed a major-

ity of the concepts that appeared in their two papers.

The largest group of students beneﬁted most from the

reading.

Project-based Learning. Staging can be an impor-

tant element of course design in a project-oriented

class. In a blended course on human computer in-

teraction (HCI), a team term project was an itera-

tion of working with the methods and skills taught

in the ﬁrst part of the course (Alterman and Gunnars-

son, 2013). During the ﬁrst stage of instruction, the

students worked on a mixed collaborative/individual

platform, learning techniques, methods, and argu-

mentation of HCI. During the project stage, the stu-

dents developed skill and knowledge in more depth

than what they attained from the less contextualized

homework assignments. There were roughly 50 stu-

dents in the class.

The collaborative environment was blog-based.

Students posted drafts of their homework and could

comment and promote each other’s work. After the

homework was ﬁnished, there was an ofﬁcial period

of commenting and ﬁlling out peer assessment forms;

each student was assigned two posts to assess. While

doing their homework, the 25% most active readers

read almost a third of the draft posts produced by

other students. The second quartile read roughly 16%

of the posts. During the commenting phase, the most

active readers read an additional 4.9 posts beyond the

ones they were ofﬁcially assigned to comment and

evaluate. As the students transitioned to the project

stage of the course, they were given two weeks to

write a term project proposal. During the transition,

large numbers of students used the blogosphere con-

tent to support their work. While doing the project,

the students continued to use the commons created

during the homework stage of the class.

CollaborativeandIndividualLearning-MixingtheTwo

415

7 SUMMARY

Table 2 summarizes the how the various modiﬁca-

tions effect the mix of individual and collaborative

learning. Heuristics like small groups and drafting

increase collaboration for loosely coordinated learn-

ing activities like blogging. Dividing the labor of

the students, or assigning roles, increases the individ-

ual elements of a tightly coordinated learning activ-

ity like those based on a wiki. Other modiﬁcations

improve the mix for both loosely and tightly coordi-

nated learning. Small groups improve the distribution

of feedback for blog-based learning and increase par-

ticipation for wiki-based. Regardless of the style of

interaction, collaboration scripts, rubrics, and tourna-

ments improve feedback, meta-cognitive skill, and/or

provide assessment support. Promotions provide use-

ful feedback, recognition for student achievement, as-

sessment support, and solidarity.

Table 2: Summary

Heuristic Blogging Wiki

Small better distrib. increase

Groups of feedback participation

Drafting increases

collaboration

Promotions feedback; recognition;

highlight good content

assessment support; solidarity

Rubrics meta-cognitive skills;

improve quality of feedback;

assessment support

Div. of labor plus individual

Tournament meta-cognitive skills

ensures feedback for all students

assessment support

Commons resource for later learning

8 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Future work will focus on interleaving collaborative

activities that are more oriented towards the develop-

ment of the individual with learning activities that are

more oriented towards the collaborative. In a study

underway now, the students alternate between wiki-

based and blog-based writing activities. During the

semester, the students read four books on Internet &

Society. For one book, the students work on a wiki

platform to write summaries of the book. For the next

book, the students use blogs to write opinion pieces.

For the third book they write another review, and for

the forth another blog-based opinion piece. At is-

sue is how the alternation between learning activities

with different mixtures compares in the acquisition of

knowledge and skill to a sequence of just one or the

other type of activity.

Creating mixtures of learning activities that vary

in the composition of individual and collaborative

is a necessary component of any community learn-

ing platform (Bielaczyc and Collins, 1999). We are

currently developing a community learning platform

with a curriculum for citizen science and environmen-

tal studies. The platform we are building will support

learning to plan and reason about water management

environmental studies. Within this context, issues

concerning the mixture of individual and collabora-

tive learning are “front and center” because students

work together virtually at different times from differ-

ent places, with different backgrounds, expertise, in-

terests, and educational levels.

REFERENCES

Altanopoulou, P., Katsanos, C., and Tselios, N. (2014). Ef-

fectiveness of wiki-based learning in higher educa-

tion. In Research on e-Learning and ICT in Educa-

tion, pages 137–147. Springer.

Alterman, R. and Gunnarsson, B. (2013). The blogo-

sphere as representational space. In Proceedings of

the 2013 conference on Computer support for collab-

orative learning. International Society of the Learning

Sciences.

Alterman, R. and Larusson, J. A. (2013). Participation and

common knowledge in a case study of student blog-

ging. International Journal of Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning, 8(2):149–187.

Antin, J. and Churchill, E. F. (2011). Badges in social me-

dia: A social psychological perspective. In CHI 2011

Gamiﬁcation Workshop Proceedings (Vancouver, BC,

Canada, 2011).

Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., and Traum, D. (1999).

The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks.

Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational

approaches, pages 31–63.

Bielaczyc, K. and Collins, A. (1999). Learning commu-

nities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of edu-

cational practice. Instructional-design theories and

models: A new paradigm of instructional theory,

2:269–292.

Bientzle, M., Cress, U., and Kimmerle, J. (2014). The role

of inconsistencies in collaborative knowledge con-

struction. In Proceedings of ICLS, pages 102–109.

Bruckman, A. (1998). Community support for construc-

tionist learning. Computer Supported Cooperative

Work (CSCW), 7(1):47–86.

Cameron, D. and Anderson, T. (2006). Comparing weblogs

to threaded discussion tools in online educational con-

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

416

texts. International journal of instructional technol-

ogy and distance learning, 2(11):3–15.

Capdeferro, N. and Romero, M. (2012). Are online learn-

ers frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?

The International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 13(2):26–44.

Cole, M. and Engestr

om, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical

approach to distributed cognition. In Salomon, G.,

editor, Distributed cognitions: Psychological and ed-

ucational considerations. The Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Collins, A. and Brown, J. (1988). The Computer as a Tool

for Learning through Reﬂection. In Mandl, H. and

Lesgold, A., editors, Learning Issues for Intelligent

Tutoring Systems, pages 1–18. Springer-Verlag New

York, Inc.

De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., and Valcke, M.

(2011). Assessing collaboration in a wiki: The reli-

ability of university students’ peer assessment. The

Internet and Higher Education, 14(4):201–206.

Deng, L. and Yuen, A. (2011). Towards a framework for

educational affordances of blogs. Computers & Edu-

cation, 56(2):441–451.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative

learning? In Dillenbourg, P., editor, Collaborative

Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches.

Advances in Learning and Instruction Series., pages

1–19. Elsevier Science.

Ferdig, R. and Trammell, K. (2004). Content Delivery in

the’Blogosphere’. Technological Horizons In Educa-

tion, 31(7):12–16.

Forte, A. and Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the

classroom: exploring online publication and learning.

In ICLS, pages 182–188.

Gagn

e, R. M. (1973). Learning and instructional sequence.

Review of research in education, pages 3–33.

Gunnarsson, B. L. and Alterman, R. (2013). Understanding

promotions in a case study of student blogging. In

LAK, pages 57–65. ACM.

Gunnarsson, B. L. and Alterman, R. (2014). Peer promo-

tions as a method to identify quality content. Journal

of Learning Analytics, 1(2):126–150.

Guzdial, M. and Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion

through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4):437–469.

Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative

learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4):12–15.

Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B. (2006). Activity theory in a

nutshell. Acting with technology: Activity Theory and

interaction design, pages 29–72.

Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foun-

dations of cscl research. In CSCL conference, pages

17–22.

Kriplean, T., Beschastnikh, I., and McDonald, D. (2008).

Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work

in wikipedia through barnstars. In CSCL conference,

pages 47–56. ACM New York, NY, USA.

Larusson, J. and Alterman, R. (2009). Wikis to support the

“collaborative” part of collaborative learning. Interna-

tional Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, 4(4):371–402.

Leuf, B. and Cunningham, W. (2001). The Wiki way: quick

collaboration on the Web. Addison-Wesley Longman

Publishing Co., Inc. Boston, MA, USA.

Li, M. and Lam, B. (2005). Cooperative learning. Retrieved

September, 25:2013.

Ludvigsen, S., Stahl, G., Law, N., and Cress, U. (2015).

Collaboration and the formation of new knowledge ar-

tifacts. International Journal of Computer Supported

Collaborative Learning, 10(1):1–6.

Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimen-

sions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts

for learning, education, and human activity. Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 13(3):423–451.

Sarmiento, J. W. and Stahl, G. (2008). Extending the joint

problem space: Time and sequence as essential fea-

tures of knowledge building. In ICLS, pages 295–302.

International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support

for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the

learning sciences, 3(3):265–283.

Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., and McLaren, B. (2010).

Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the

state of the art. International Journal of Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1):43–102.

Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., and Chamberlain, A. (2003).

Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and

research. Handbook of psychology.

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for

building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press.

Stahl, G., Zhou, N., Cakir, M., and Sarmiento-Klapper, J.

(2011). Seeing what we mean: Co-experiencing a

shared virtual world. In CSCL.

Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersub-

jective meaning making: A research agenda for cscl.

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collab-

orative Learning, 1(3):315–337.

Teasley, S. and Roschelle, J. (1993). The construction of

shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving.

Computers as cognitive tools, pages 229–258.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society. Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., Kossinets, G., Lin, A., Dokshin,

F., Gay, G., and Smith, M. (2011). Finding social roles

in wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference,

pages 122–129. ACM.

West, J. A. and West, M. L. (2008). Using wikis for on-

line collaboration: The power of the read-write web,

volume 15. John Wiley & Sons.

Wichmann, A. and Rummel, N. (2013). Improving revision

in wiki-based writing: Coordination pays off. Com-

puters & Education, 62:262–270.

Williams, J. and Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of

blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sec-

tor. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,

20(2):232–247.

CollaborativeandIndividualLearning-MixingtheTwo

417