Collaboration or Cooperation? Analyzing Group Dynamics and Revision Processes in Wikis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the online writing and revision behaviors of university language learners. In small groups, 53 intermediate German students from three classes at three different universities created wiki pages with background information about a novel read in class. All meaning- and language-related revisions were analyzed to determine whether students revised only their own contributions (cooperation) or took responsibility for the text as a whole (collaboration). Results indicate that students utilized both collaborative and cooperative strategies to make formal revisions, but they worked more cooperatively when making content changes. Group members did not take on any specific task roles with regards to formal revisions, but they were engaged in the project to varying degrees. While most students contributed to content and editing of their wiki page as required, some students did not do their share of the work and engaged in social loafing and free riding. The study demonstrates wikis’ great potential for collaborative and autonomous work, but it also underlines the need for clear tasks and some teacher intervention. Suggestions to mitigate social loafing and free riding in group work are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it