2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tracing knowledge co-evolution in a realistic course setting: A wiki-based field experiment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Research conducted on confirming the theorised co-evolution processes has produced promising results by analysing learning outcomes on individual and collaborative levels in wiki-based environments. Positive effects on processes of co-evolution of knowledge and individual learning have been reported with regard to incongruities between information sources (Kimmerle et al, 2011;Moskaliuk et al, 2009), positive effects between internal and external accommodation and assimilation processes (Kump et al, 2013;Moskaliuk et al, 2009) and on the polarity of information and redundancy of prior knowledge (Moskaliuk et al, 2012). These studies provided evident support for the co-evolution in wiki-based learning, but specifically addressed the construction of knowledge artefacts on the article level of wikis.…”
Section: Knowledge Building and Co-evolutionmentioning
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Research conducted on confirming the theorised co-evolution processes has produced promising results by analysing learning outcomes on individual and collaborative levels in wiki-based environments. Positive effects on processes of co-evolution of knowledge and individual learning have been reported with regard to incongruities between information sources (Kimmerle et al, 2011;Moskaliuk et al, 2009), positive effects between internal and external accommodation and assimilation processes (Kump et al, 2013;Moskaliuk et al, 2009) and on the polarity of information and redundancy of prior knowledge (Moskaliuk et al, 2012). These studies provided evident support for the co-evolution in wiki-based learning, but specifically addressed the construction of knowledge artefacts on the article level of wikis.…”
Section: Knowledge Building and Co-evolutionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…General processes of accommodation and assimilation that are triggered by conflicting knowledge have been identified in both systems (Kimmerle et al, 2011;Kump et al, 2013;Moskaliuk et al, 2009Moskaliuk et al, , 2012. In wiki-related research to date, individual differences regarding the processing of ambiguous information and new perspectives in controversial discussions have not been reported.…”
Section: Individual Cognitive Influencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The search for a clearer and more specific definition is, we believe, responsible for the elimination of dubious expressions or buzzwords 9 . In some changes made to the article, this attempt to promote clarification is explicitly stated, as in 21 November 2011, where the segment "that facilitates machines to understand the semantics, or meaning, of information on the World Wide Web" was taken from the definition and classified as "obscure" 10 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In the case of Wikipedia, the massive number of collaborators (more than 32 million registered users 1 ) contributes to the hypothesis that it is the most comprehensive project in the scope of Digital Humanities [3]. Its dynamics make it used as a field for investigation of the interaction between humans and computational artefacts under several foci, such as sociological [4,5], informational [6,7], or educational [8,9]. A systematization of the research areas of studies related to Wikipedia can be found in Tramullas' work [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This model was refined and tested in later work [9][10][11][12][13]. Besides this, other approaches were made to the study of collective knowledge construction or collaborative learning [10,[14][15][16][17]. In another perspective, some comparative studies are also mentioned by the points of contact with the present study:…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%