Link: Five?
Vince: We can only indicate the auditorium’s importance by introducing
its activities, but not the activities themselves?
Link: That’s right.
John: Alright, it’s about time.
David: So? What’s the first part?
Vince: History?
Amanda: Yes, history.
Link: OK.
John: Yes, I agree.
Vince: The second?
Amanda: Materials of the building maybe?
Vince: Its shape and material.
John: OK Link: Good.
John: The third part is the words on the wall. OK….?
David: And then?
Link: The third part is the words.
David: Yeah, ok.
Vince: And next? Functions?
Vincent: Design concepts?
Vince: Both.
Link: Design concepts should be in the second part.
David: Oh~ right!
Amanda: What is the difference between functions and “shapes and
materials?”
Vincent: Well…….
Link: “Shape and material” is about how the building looks like.
And what it’s made of.
Amanda: Oh, I understand now.
John: The fifth part?
As seen from the above excerpt, in addition to John and Link, other members, including David and Vince also contributed to monitor the discussion by asking “(s)o what’s first part?” or “(a)nd next? Function?” It was not just one member who took total control of the discussion, but all members seemed to contribute and take turns monitoring the whole process. Amanda seemed to be one of the less active participants but still did not hesitate to bring up her doubts to ensure mutual understanding and group consensus were reached.
Link: List of events.
Amanda: What about the fourth part?
John: Oh, I forgot the fourth.
Vincent: How about the functions?
Vince: Maybe
Link: Or the functions and its meanings to students.
Vince: Great.
David: 1. History 2. Shape & materials 3. Words on the wall 4.
Functions 5. List of events. Right?
John: Exactly!
Argus: OK
Vince: Yes, thank you.
Amanda: Ok.
Vincent: y
David: Great. And what do we do next?
Link: Wait. The fourth part is only about functions?
John: Let’s think about a title for each part and a main title.
Link: The fourth part can be functions and meaning to us.
Argus: Do we have to go there in person?
David: Alright. The fourth part is functions and meanings to us.
Vince: And take some pictures.
Link: Pictures are good.
Vincent: Hey, don’t forget the titles.
John: Yes, we need a funny (?) and “eye-catching” title.
Link: Like “Where we met in NTHU?”
(Note: The auditorium is used for freshman orientation.) Vince: I like where we met.
Vincent: Nice!
David: Or some exaggerations?
Link: How about “don’t’ read this!” :P Vincent: Ha-ha.
Vince: XD Argus: =_=
Link: Ok, what’s the conclusion?
John: I like where we met.
Vince: Where we met +1 Amanda: OK
Vincent: How about where we FIRST met?
David: OK~ next one!
Vince: OK
Vince: What the subtitle for the first part?
………..
The above quotation as a whole presents the highly collaborative process.
Compared to the earlier topic discussions, much more elaboration and exploration on ideas were found in outline discussion. In the quoted case, Amanda asked about differences between sections of the writing, and Link tried to convince others with his proposal on important performances held in the auditorium. It seems that they did not simply take others’ opinion, combine them together and jump to a conclusion (quick consensus-building); on the contrary, they reflected on and evaluated the contributions instead. Also, when Link proposed the main title of the writing, Vincent suggested a better revision, where we FIRST met, which is a perfect example that “learners build on their reasoning of their partners, work with each other’s idea and are willing to adjust their own ideas based on the sound arguments of their fellow students” (Gijlers e al., 2009, p.254). Another episode is that Link thought of introducing important performances held at the auditorium but Vince came up with the idea of making a list,
which is a good representation of integration-oriented consensus-building. Thus, many learners contributed and reflected on their own and others’ ideas, co-constructing and refining the intellectual production, the outline of their collaborative writing.
Also, in this quoted case, no one student took charge of the process; instead, different learners took turn reminding each other of next points of discussion. At the beginning, John started the discussion by addressing the goal of the task (producing the outline). Then Vince followed and added more details about the goal (who does what). In the chat that followed, David, John, Vince, and Link took turns specifying the next points to be discussed, or summarizing the results at the point, such as saying,
“What’s next?” and “How many parts do we have now?” and “Anything else?” Also, by expressing doubts and confirming understanding, they also helped each other to elaborate and refine their ideas. The quantity and quality of collaboration was thus increased and improved.
As seen from the quoted excerpt on the previous page, the learners first brainstormed potential aspects of their topics for writing, and one member would summarize the information they had had so far. More new ideas might be proposed after someone summarizing or updating the current discussion. Through the co-construction of the outline, learners likely had more of a sense of ownership of the collaborative writing and a feeling of responsibility for it. Although quick consensus-building is considered effective in certain contexts, educators would like to see more integration-oriented consensus-building, in which leaners reflect, adjust, and negotiate ideas and are more likely to have conceptual change (Weinberg & Fishcher, 2006).