The studies display active student participation in the web-based environ- ment. In Study I, the most active group on the wiki pages engage in as many as 22 versions of text. Also, on the discussion forum the most active group post 15 contributions on seven different topics. In Study II, the majority of all groups (15 out of 25) are engaged in collaboration on the wiki and a high number of groups co-operate. For Study III, the number of postings is regulated in the instructions of a set number of postings per student, which the students adhere to. In the final study, Study IV, the students are actively involved in responding through text, showing a high number of peer comments in their assignments. The seven students are involved in giving and receiving 314 peer comments for their assignments, which is an average of 45 comments per student. This is in line with previous research which has shown that since using web-based writing environments requires little specialized technical knowledge to operate, efforts can be devoted to developing skills in co-constructing content (e.g., Mak & Coniam, 2008; Arnold et al., 2009)
Taking the step from presenting and distributing information to social networking implies a challenge to foster learning through online collabora- tion (Kuteeva, 2011). The four studies in this thesis show a range of ways
students use web-based environments for interaction in different activities such as discussing, collaborating and co-operating, and responding through text. The activities have their starting point in sharing web-based work spaces. Even though the students are encouraged to take turns editing and modifying their assignments jointly, the work is carried out in quite differ- ent ways depending on the technology. This is shown in Study II where the wiki pages call for more in-text alterations and commenting, whereas the discussion forum mode opens for parallel scrutiny of the posted threads.
Displaying different forms in which the interaction is enacted, diverse activities are mapped out on the wiki in the discussion forum mode and wiki page mode (Study I). One of the activities is contributing and writing together, which implies that students produce text jointly by taking turns,
revising and adding to each other’s ideas. The next activity, evaluating and peer reviewing, implies that students take turns evaluating and peer reviewing co-
STUDENT INTERACTION IN WEB-BASED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
The studies display active student participation in the web-based environ- ment. In Study I, the most active group on the wiki pages engage in as many as 22 versions of text. Also, on the discussion forum the most active group post 15 contributions on seven different topics. In Study II, the majority of all groups (15 out of 25) are engaged in collaboration on the wiki and a high number of groups co-operate. For Study III, the number of postings is regulated in the instructions of a set number of postings per student, which the students adhere to. In the final study, Study IV, the students are actively involved in responding through text, showing a high number of peer comments in their assignments. The seven students are involved in giving and receiving 314 peer comments for their assignments, which is an average of 45 comments per student. This is in line with previous research which has shown that since using web-based writing environments requires little specialized technical knowledge to operate, efforts can be devoted to developing skills in co-constructing content (e.g., Mak & Coniam, 2008; Arnold et al., 2009)
Taking the step from presenting and distributing information to social networking implies a challenge to foster learning through online collabora- tion (Kuteeva, 2011). The four studies in this thesis show a range of ways
students use web-based environments for interaction in different activities such as discussing, collaborating and co-operating, and responding through text. The activities have their starting point in sharing web-based work spaces. Even though the students are encouraged to take turns editing and modifying their assignments jointly, the work is carried out in quite differ- ent ways depending on the technology. This is shown in Study II where the wiki pages call for more in-text alterations and commenting, whereas the discussion forum mode opens for parallel scrutiny of the posted threads.
Displaying different forms in which the interaction is enacted, diverse activities are mapped out on the wiki in the discussion forum mode and wiki page mode (Study I). One of the activities is contributing and writing together, which implies that students produce text jointly by taking turns,
revising and adding to each other’s ideas. The next activity, evaluating and peer reviewing, implies that students take turns evaluating and peer reviewing co-
produced text. Yet another activity, arguing and discussing, implies inviting a
person into discussion and maintaining a conversation. It can be concluded that a certain mode of interaction lends itself to specific activities. For instance, contributing and writing together primarily takes place on the wiki pages and arguing and discussing in the discussion mode. There have been discussions of distinctions between written and spoken language (Barton, 2007; Halliday, 2007b) and due to the nature of the web-based environment being a writing environment drawing on spoken language, Neil Mercer’s (2000) division of talk is applicable to the written activities. These three types of talk; cumulative, disputational and exploratory talk, are discussed in the wiki interaction in Study I. Cumulative talk, which implies uncritical acceptance of ideas of others, is found in most of the students’ texts. A certain amount of disputational talk is seen in the student interaction in the discussion forum mode, where students debate each other’s views. Explora- tory talk, finally, where content is shared, building on previous ideas and making joint decisions is also found. The various types of talk make it pos- sible to see the breadth in the students’ collective endeavor.
In relation to research on collaborative work (e.g., Donato, 2004; Dillen- bourg, 1999), the students are engaged in qualitatively different processes of interaction. In Study II, two forms of activities of writing together are displayed, co-operation and collaboration. Co-operation, implying individ- ual posting to a joint theme, involves the least visible interaction. Here, the students express their views in a dialogic mode, taking turns posting ideas. Some of the contributions show more collaborative effort than others. Collaboration, on the other hand, is shown when students produce texts together and make alterations and additions in the joint texts. The results indicate that the collaborating groups produce more text versions than the co-operating groups, which gives a greater amount of text to generate ideas to work with. The more material there is to work with, the more practice students get at revising and refining content. This is also in line with ideas of the productive match between overproduction of text edits in combi- nation with the traditional focus on grammatical and stylistic training in school (Jones, 2008). When writing together, collaboration with contribu- tions from diverse perspectives changes the dynamics not only of text pro- duction but the text in itself. Collaborating by going into each other’s text
has more potential for language learning since peer work can be performed at a very detailed level in the text. Dooly (2008) emphasizes that collabora- tion is more than co-operation since it means that students show mutual involvement.
The students are working collaboratively with their posted content. Con- sidering the outcomes of research suggesting that students may be reluctant to altering peer texts (e.g., Mak & Coniam, 2008; Kessler, 2009), this is something that is not the case according to the present studies. A plausible reason could be the student body in this thesis, where the engineering stu- dents are used to having certain focus engaging in peer work in projects.
Discussing the progression in the student co-production from the point of view of the framework of multiliteracies (Cope & Kalanzis, 2000) (Study II), the wiki technology provides a space for the students to participate in interactive work, and inviting them to be both productive on their own as well as questioning others’ work. This implies that through the process of working together, learners can gain new perspectives and knowledge, hav- ing a potential to lead to what Cope and Kalanzis (2000) refer to as trans- formed practice.