This article was downloaded by: [Florida International University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 00:38Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Behaviour & Information TechnologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

The effects of a Creative Commons approach oncollaborative learningChen-Chung Liu a , Shu-Yuan Tao b , Wei-Hung Chen a , Sherry Y. Chen a & Baw-Jhiune Liu ba Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology , National Central University , Jhong-Li , Taiwanb Department of Computer Science and Engineering , Yuan-Ze University , Jhong-Li , TaiwanAccepted author version posted online: 01 Jun 2011.Published online: 10 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Chen-Chung Liu , Shu-Yuan Tao , Wei-Hung Chen , Sherry Y. Chen & Baw-Jhiune Liu (2013) The effectsof a Creative Commons approach on collaborative learning, Behaviour & Information Technology, 32:1, 37-51, DOI:10.1080/0144929X.2011.572184

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.572184

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The effects of a Creative Commons approach on collaborative learning

Chen-Chung Liua*, Shu-Yuan Taob, Wei-Hung Chena, Sherry Y. Chena and Baw-Jhiune Liub

aGraduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, Jhong-Li, Taiwan; bDepartment ofComputer Science and Engineering, Yuan-Ze University, Jhong-Li, Taiwan

(Received 5 January 2010; final version received 10 March 2011)

Social media on the World Wide Web, such as Wiki, are increasingly applied to support collaborative learning forstudents to conduct a project together. However, recent studies indicated that students, learning in the collaborativeproject, may not actively contribute to the collaborative work and are involved only in a limited level of positiveinterdependence due to the ambiguous ownership on the collaborative work. To this end, this study proposes anapproach to support collaborative learning based on the notion of Creative Commons (CC). CC may be helpful toenhance positive interdependency because it provides a mechanism which protects individual creations whileencouraging remixing and deriving new creations from them. This study conducted an empirical evaluation to examinehow students react to the collaborative learning with CC notions. The results showed that CC can significantly improveparticipants’ attitude to the derivative works, the satisfaction level of remix outcomes, perception to the peer interactionand the sense of work ownership. Such results suggest that CC may be a potential avenue for increasing individuals’responsibilities and motivating them to participate in the collaborative learning activity.

Keywords: collaborative learning; social media; creative commons

1. Introduction

With the World Wide Web, we can interact with eachother in a convenient manner. In particular, socialmedia on the World Wide Web can change a variety ofcultural forms (Alexander 2006). One of the importantfeatures of social media is that the media facilitateusers to link up and share self-generated content on aworld-wide scale. People from different locations, forexample, can work together in a collaborative writingactivity on Wikis to produce some text on the socialmedia (Noel and Robert 2003). In other words, thesocial media provide a knowledge integration platformwhich may support collaborative learning.

Among various platforms, a Project-Orientedapproach has been widely used because it providescollaboration features for users to conduct a projecttogether. In the Project-Oriented approach, users arefree to join a shared workspace of the project tocontribute, to retrieve and to modify the products. In aWiki environment, for example, all the participants ofthe Wiki share the products developed by them, so thatthey can access and modify all the contents available inWiki. Such an approach creates a new way for learnerparticipation and learner identity, which is differentfrom those in classroom setting (Greenhow et al. 2009).More specifically, this approach adopts a knowledgecombination framework which addresses the

combination of different expertise and division oflabour, which is helpful to generate a more completeset of knowledge (Hughes and Narayan 2009). In theframework, each participant can directly modifythe shared work with no need to negotiate with thecontributors of a prior work. In such context, theownership of the knowledge is ambiguous since allcontributors are allowed to use and update others’knowledge. Consequently, it is hard to claim who ownsa specific part of such knowledge (Dohn 2009).

Under the ambiguous ownership of knowledge andthe direct knowledge combination framework, stu-dents may not actively contribute to a work, as theirefforts and ideas are not credited and protected. Such asituation may impede effective collaborative learning,which is an idea-centred process where students haveto interact with others not only for combining knowl-edge they already have but also continuously improveideas (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, Engestrom 1999,Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006). In other words,effective collaborative learning needs a social processthat encourages the production and continual im-provement of ideas of value to a community throughthe reciprocal interactions (Scardamalia and Bereiter2006). On the other hand, the ambiguity ownershipcaused from the Project-Oriented approach mayimpede such a social process in collaborative learning(Lio et al. 2005, Blau and Caspi 2009). Therefore, there

*Corresponding author. Email: ccliu@cl.ncu.edu.tw

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Behaviour & Information Technology, 2013Vol. 32, No. 1, 37–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.572184

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

is a strong need to develop a mechanism which canfacilitate learners to monitor and to reflect the originsof the ideas, so that the students are willing to activelyparticipate in collaborative learning.

To this end, this study proposes a new approach tosupport the collaborative learning on the social media.This approach incorporates the notion of CreativeCommons (CC) to address aforementioned issuesbecause CC not only protects the rights of creatorsbut also encourages them to add innovative values intotheir existing works (Lessig 2005). With the CreativeCommons approach (CC-Oriented approach), peoplecan copy, distribute, perform a work and create aderivative work, but the originators’ credits arepreserved. The CC-Oriented approach may enhancecollaborative learning because it not only encouragesvalue-adding work from the existing ones but alsofacilitates learners to monitor and reflect the origins.To obtain a complete understanding of the effects ofthe CC-Oriented approach, we conducted an empiricalevaluation to examine how the CC mechanisms caninfluence the learners’ perceptions of ownership andpositive interdependency. In particular, this study willfocus on the comparison of students’ perception andactivities on the CC-Oriented approach and Project-Oriented approach. Based on the results of theempirical evaluation, this study will develop a frame-work to illustrate how students behave and perceivethe collaborative learning developed with the CC-Oriented approach.

2. Related works

2.1. The Project-Oriented approach for facilitatingcollaborative learning

Social media enabled by communication technologiesmay improve the collaborative learning since theyallow learners to perform the activities from differentlocations. With the social media, a group of users workcollaboratively to create and edit shared documents asif they are conducting a product together. Examples ofsocial media include Wiki (Leuf and Cunningham2001) and Google Docs (Craig 2007), which canprovide a sharing space to allow many editors toperform co-editing work. For example, Wiki-basedstorytelling (Desilets and Paquet 2005) utilised theWiki as a tool to perform storytelling works. With thesocial media, all participants were allowed to directlyadd or modify a new component into the sharedproduct. This type of social media can be regarded asthe Project-Oriented approach since all participantscould only work on a shared product.

All the participants shared a project in the Project-Oriented approach where students can have more

dialogues and share more information in groupprojects (Boulos et al. 2006, Parker and Chao 2007).This approach may be helpful to fulfil the goals ofcollaborative learning in different forms, such ascollaborative writing, brainstorming, course develop-ment and research projects (Tonkin 2005, Duffy andBruns 2006). The study by Hughes and Narayan(2009), for instance, utilised the Wiki as a repositoryfor learners to integrate each other’s knowledge in adomain. In the studies by Lessig (2005) and Gustavson(2008), students were also encouraged to use multi-media created by others as resources to compose theirarticles to advance their writings or narratives. Theunderlying rationale of this approach is that all theparticipants can share their labours in knowing adomain to achieve a broader understanding of thisdomain. Moreover, this approach can support peerinteraction because it allows all participants to edit,evaluate and comment the shared works. Due to such apeer interaction feature, the Project-Oriented approachwas also applied to support collaborative write-to-learn pedagogies where ideas may be improvedthrough the direct modification and evaluation fromother participants (Forte and Bruckman 2006, Chao2007). In other words, all the participants worked as ateam to conduct effective activities to generate aproduct on the Internet.

2.2. The limitations of the Project-Orientedapproach

As described in the previous section, the Project-Oriented approach enables users to actively participatein collaborative learning activities. However, thisapproach also has some limitations in facilitatingsocial interactions. As showed in the study by Cole(2009), some students chose not to post to Wiki. This isprobably because of the reason that such Project-Oriented approach can be used in pedagogical settingsthat may not involve a high degree of collaboration.Thus, it is still uncertain whether such approach candemonstrate positive learning impact (Hughes andNarayan 2009).

Further investigation also demonstrated similarclaims. Blau and Caspi (2009), for example, investi-gated how people collaboratively write Google Docsand found that people perceived lower ownership onthe shared work when the work was modified bypartners. In other words, the Project-Oriented ap-proach may lead to the confusion of ownership amongcontributors when each participant has the right toaccess and modify the shared products (Boulos et al.2006). Such confusion of ownership does not onlyappear in the co-editing activities of Google Docs but

C.-C. Liu et al.38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

also in the same activities with Wiki. In a same vein,Viegas et al. (2004) revealed that the conflict whicharises when a group of people co-edit Wiki pages on ashared work often leads to ‘edit wars’ and massdeletions. Such a conflict can impede the effects ofcollaboration and reduce the level of positive inter-dependence (Kittur et al. 2007). The aforementionedstudies suggest that the editing of shared worksweakens the perceptions of the ownership of originalcreators and strengthens the tension between subse-quent derivers. Therefore, there is a need to developtechnological platforms, which can promote partici-pants’ perceptions on ownership and positive inter-dependency. Such individual ownership and positiveinterdependence can enhance the social interactionsamong participants so that effective collaboration canbe fulfilled in the technological platforms (Constantet al. 1994, Johnson and Johnson 1994, Raban andHarper 2008).

CC may be helpful to address aforementionedissues because it works as a mechanism which protectsindividual creations while encouraging remixing andderiving new creations from them. By doing so, peoplecan flexibly copy, distribute, perform a work andcreate derivative work, but there is a restriction for theusage of creators’ works. Due to such benefits, CCmechanisms were gradually applied in various domains(Table 1) to facilitate the sharing, re-utilisation and re-creation of knowledge in professional domains, such aseducational, scientific, literature and art communities(Conhaim 2002). Educators recently also attempted toincorporate CC into teaching and learning (Tanakaet al. 2005, Knobel and Lankshear 2008, Wilson 2008,Monroy-Hernandez and Resnick 2008). However, themechanism of CC is still a new approach to supportcollaborative works on educational settings. It isnecessary to investigate how CC can be applied tofacilitate collaborative learning in educational settings.To this end, we design a collaborative learningenvironment with CC and conduct an empirical studyto obtain a better understanding of how studentsbehave and perceive the collaborative learning in theCC-Oriented approach.

3. The CC-Oriented approach

3.1. CC

The current conception of intellectual propertiesasserts that the creators of an intellectual propertyown all the rights of the property and by default a usercannot access, distribute, copy, use and modify theproperty without the creators’ legal permission. Dis-similar to the current notion of intellectual property,CC (http://creativecommons.org/) proposed in 2001works as a flexible mechanism that accelerates theprocess of derivation and remix of intellectual proper-ties. The CC mechanism makes it possible for users touse others’ intellectual properties in a more dynamicform in which the users do not have to go throughtedious legal procedures. Within the CC mechanism, acreator is granted the copyright, but other users arealso allowed to use the work. However, such a usage ofthe work can be done only under the conditions thatthe creator specifies with four primary licences asfollows:

. Attribution: the attribution licence asserts that auser can use a product only when the user givescredit to the original author.

. Non-commercial: non-commercial licence givesusers the rights to copy, distribute, display andmodify the product for non-commercialpurposes.

. No derivative: no derivative licence asserts that auser can copy, distribute and display onlyverbatim copies of a product. In other words,there is no further derivative works based uponit.

. Share alike: share alike allows others to dis-tribute derivative works only when an identicallicence that governs the original creator’s work isapplied to the derivative work.

With the CC licence policy, a user can performderivative works on an original product to generate anew product, which, in turn, can be derived to be asanother new work. Consequently, the continuous

Table 1. CC-Oriented approach versus Project-Oriented approach.

Project-Oriented platform CC-Oriented platform

People A group of people with a sharedinterest and goal

A group of people with similarinterests but different goals

Major objectives To achieve tasks which aremeaningful for the whole group

To achieve tasks which are meaningfulfor each individual

Process Co-editing of shared work Preservation of original workKnowledge development Integration of shared work A series of valued-added processStrength Accumulation of expertise Multiple derivations of existing intellectual work

Behaviour & Information Technology 39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

improvement of work can be achieved among partici-pants through a series of derivation of existingknowledge. Such a mechanism may improve the senseof ownership and positive interdependence because theparticipants are allowed to use others’ works asresources to produce an individually owned product.However, the derivation behaviours can only beapplied on the copy of the original work and mustattribute to the originator’s work in the CC mechan-ism. In other words, the originators’ works are securedand credited. As a result, the originators’ sense ofownership might be enhanced and thus a positiveinterdependency may be more likely to be achieved. Tothis end, the present study incorporates CC into thedesign of collaborative learning system to help students

develop works together. It is expected that such a moreflexible mechanism for sharing, using, repurposing andremixing of intellectual works can increase thestudents’ perception on ownership and positive inter-dependency in collaborative learning.

3.2. CC-Oriented approach for supportingcollaborative learning

This study proposes an approach to design the socialmedia which supports collaborative storytelling activ-ities, during which students have to develop multi-media stories collaboratively on the World Wide Web(Figure 1). When the students take part in this activity,they have an opportunity to share their own experience

Figure 1. Multimedia picture book developed by students.

C.-C. Liu et al.40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

with each other in order to understand how to learnand work together (Bruner 1990, Egan 1993, Benfordet al. 2000, Liu et al. 2011). As mentioned in theprevious section, the platform supporting suchactivities should be able to promote the sense ofownership and positive interdependence because ofthe collaborative and creative features of suchactivities. To this end, this study proposes a designof collaborative systems based on CC, which includeseveral integral features in collaborative learning.These features are as follows:

Peer-supported personal-owned project

With CC, all participants can share resources theycreated and utilise them to accomplish a personal-owned product through combining and derivingothers’ work. In other words, participants can supporteach other to achieve a personal goal. Based on similarrationale, this study proposes a collaborative story-telling environment where students can use and modifyothers’ work to accomplish their own stories. Studentswere provided with a HyperCard-based storyboard(Figure 2) where they can create, share, modify andlink episodes, i.e. a plot presented with drawings, togenerate a story. Students may freely copy an episodeand refine it in the storyboard. Each student mayoverlook all episodes available in the storyboard. Theycan select and combine episodes contributed by

different students to form a personal-owned picturebook by using the links provided by the storyboard.For instance, student B in Figure 2 used two episodeswhich were derived from student A’s episodes togenerate his story. In each episode in the storyboard,students can produce a narrative animation byincorporating his or her own vocalisations and textinto each episode. Thus, all students can organise anarrative animation in their own way under others’support. The story animation was then published onthe World Wide Web. Other students can thencomment the story animation in a discussion forumassociated with the story.

Visualisation of modification trajectory

With CC, a product may go through a series ofmodifications made by different participants. However,it is difficult to display the series of modifications whenthe product has gone through a complex modificationprocess. To this end, the design proposed by thepresent study enforces a product protection mechan-ism to display the trajectory of modifications. If astudent wants to derive others’ work, he or she needsto copy the work and develop a new one by derivingfrom the copied one. Direct modification to theoriginal creation is not allowed. Therefore, students,as shown in Figure 2, can copy an episode and modifythe episodes to generate a new one. Because all the

Figure 2. A HyperCard-based storyboard.

Behaviour & Information Technology 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

original and the modified works were preserved in thestoryboard, the students can be easily aware of thecontribution from each other. Moreover, the studentmay not worry that their original works will be spoiledby others.

Attribution credits to the originators

Based on CC, the users of a work have to attributecredits to the originators and give other users the rightto use the derivative work. Based on similar rationale,the design proposed by this study adopts an authorshipmechanism where the derived episode is attributed toboth the originators and the succeeding users in thestoryboard when a new work is derived from copyingand modifying others’ work. It is hoped that suchauthorship mechanism will advance the quality ofcollaboration as the originators and users wouldbenefit from each other.

3.3. Differentiating CC-Oriented approach fromProject-Oriented approach

CC-Oriented and Project-Oriented approaches facil-itate people to create new works in different patterns(Table 1). The Project-Oriented approach can sup-port a group of people with a shared interest andgoal to achieve tasks which are meaningful for thewhole group. Conversely, the CC-Oriented approachcan facilitate a group of people to achieve taskswhich are meaningful for each individual by usingeach other’s works. These people have similarinterests; however, each individual can have his orher unique goal.

Due to their different objectives, the processes bywhich new knowledge is created in the two platformsmay also be different. In the Project-Oriented ap-proach, knowledge is created by integrating the sharedworks. In other words, all the group members can co-edit all the shared works. On the other hand, the co-editing process is not allowed in the CC-Orientedapproach. Instead, each original work will be pre-served. In spite of the preservation of each individual’swork, new knowledge may be derived by addingvaluable works to the existing work. Such a mechanismmay prevent individuals’ work from being infringed byothers. In other words, an original work can be derivedby multiple remixers and thus can produce multiplederivations. Contributors in such a mechanism may bemore willing to help each other and more engaged inthe collaborative activities. Due to the aforementionedbenefits, this study thus hypothesises that the CC-Oriented approach can enhance the collaborativelearning experience. An empirical study was conductedto confirm the hypothesis.

4. Methods

4.1. Participants and the collaborative activity involved

There were 57 participants who were third gradersfrom an elementary school in Taiwan. Thirty of themare male and 27 female. The participants were fromtwo classes in the school. In other words, they knoweach other. All the students already have experience ofusing computers and the Internet because introductionto computers is one of their curricular components.This setting is a common educational context inTaiwan. Therefore, a better understanding about howCC may influence collaborative learning in classes canbe obtained from the reactions of these students. Theparticipants were required to perform collaborativestorytelling activities. Additionally, the participantswould experience various collaboration behaviours,such as creating, contributing, sharing, deriving,integrating and commenting multimedia stories whenthey collaboratively developed the multimedia stories.

This study implemented two web-based collabora-tive storytelling platforms, one of which supports aCC-Oriented approach while the other supports aProject-Oriented approach. As mentioned in previoussection, the CC-Oriented approach provided anenvironment to share works and utilise these worksto produce a personal-owned product. On the otherhand, the Project-Oriented approach provides acollaborative space for students to develop a sharedproduct. Although it provided similar support in theCC-Oriented approach for students to compose andnarrate a story, the approach facilitated the collabora-tion in a different way. First, students may directlymodify an episode to refine this episode in thestoryboard with no need to create a duplicated one.Moreover, all students shared a story with nopossibility to orchestrate a personal-owned story.There is only a narrative animation associated withthe story. The students can also add their vocalisationsto the shared animation. In other words, only anarrative animation can be published.

4.2. Procedure

The goal of this study is to explore how the CC-Oriented approach, compared to the common Project-Oriented approach, can influence the collaborativelearning experience. Thus, the students were dividedinto two groups: one is the experimental while the otheris control group, namely CC group and Project-Oriented(PJ) group, respectively. The two groups participated inthe collaborative storytelling activity. The former con-sists of 28 students who collaborate with each other withthe CC-Oriented approach while the latter includes 29students with the Project-Oriented approach. The

C.-C. Liu et al.42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

experiment was conducted in a computer classroom inwhich each student was provided with a computerequipped with microphone, keyboard, mouse, speakerand stylus pad. The experiment lasted 8 weeks. Duringthe first 4 weeks, students were introduced to thestorytelling platforms and used the platforms to createa story related to the topic ‘Adventure to the moon’individually. From the fourth to eighth weeks, theystarted to join together to participate in the develop-ment of others’ picture books and collaborate withother to develop picture books together. Studentswould experience different forms of collaborationactivities as described in the previous section. Howstudents behaved with the two approaches was loggedand videotaped for further analysis. A questionnairewas administrated to understand students’ perceptiontowards the collaborative learning experience in thetwo approaches.

4.3. Activity log and screen videos

In order to discover the influence of the CC-Orientedand Project-Oriented approaches on collaborationexperience, it is necessary to extract the potentiallybehavioural attribute for each student from activitylogs, which can reveal how the two approachesinfluence the collaboration activities. As mentionedin Section 3, students may perform four types ofcollaboration activities, including retrieving, deriving,combining and commenting behaviours. Therefore,raw activity logs, which were in the form of webaccess logs, were pre-processed to obtain acomprehensive behavioural attributes that showshow each student performed the four types of remixactivities.

Regarding the retrieving activity, two attributeswere extracted from the activity log to reflect howfrequently each student retrieved works from theshared repository. The two attributes are (1) thefrequency of checking his or her own works and (2)the frequency of checking others’ works. Regarding thederiving activity, three attributes, (1) the number ofepisodes which each student contributed to other’sworks, (2) the number of episodes each studentmodified in others’ works and (3) the average timeeach student spent to modify an episode in others’work, were identified. The three attributes can reflecthow each student was engaged in the deriving activity.Regarding the combining activity, this study alsodiscovers three attributes which include (1) thefrequency which each student added voice narrativesfor other’s work, (2) the frequency of each studentupdated the animation for other’s work and (3) thefrequency each student added text narratives forother’s work. These frequency attributes, which can

reflect how students participated in the combiningactivity, were further analysed to confirm the influenceof the CC-Oriented and Project-Oriented approacheson the collaborative activity.

To obtain a better understanding of the students’collaboration behaviours, this study videotaped thestudents’ screens while they participated in the story-telling activity. The videos were analysed by tworesearchers independently. The goal of the analysis isto extract the compound behaviours which are relatedto the collaboration but cannot be identified by thesimple activity log process. For example, somestudents would demonstrate destruction actions toothers’ stories. The results will be integrated with theresult of the activity log and questionnaire so thatbetter knowledge of students’ perception towards thetwo approaches can be obtained.

4.4. Design of the questionnaire

A questionnaire was used to examine how the twoapproaches influence the collaborative learning experi-ence on social media. This instrument was chosenbecause it has the potential to collect cognitive andaffective data quickly and easily (Kinshuk 1996).Several well-known questionnaires can be applied tocollect users’ experience in the field of computer-supported collaborative works. Among them, thequestionnaire used in this study was mainly adaptedfrom the Team Work Quality Construct proposed byHoegl and Gemuenden (2001) and a questionnairedeveloped by Blau and Caspi (2009). This is due to thefact that the former provides a set of concrete criteriato assess the quality of teamwork while the latter isuseful for the evaluation of the sense of work owner-ship during the collaborative editing activity. Inaddition to these two works, a set of closed statementswas further designed to examine students’ responses tothe two different approaches so that a deep under-standing of students’ attitudes to derivative works andsatisfaction to collaboration outcomes can beobtained.

To obtain such a deep understanding, the ques-tionnaire is used in collecting comprehensive informa-tion. The questionnaire includes four parts, as detailedin Table 2. In total, there are 15 closed statements of afive-point Likert scale. Each statement was reviewed bytwo primary school teachers. One was the teacher ofthe students. Therefore, the statements of the ques-tionnaire can be appropriately understandable by theparticipants who were young students in this study.Before administrating the questionnaire, the teacherexplained the meaning of every question. While read-ing the questions and writing the answers, studentsmay also get immediate support from the teacher if

Behaviour & Information Technology 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

they have any problems. Because the teacher was theone who reviewed the questionnaire, she could have asufficient understanding to provide the students with aproper explanation. In addition, both the question-naire of the CC group and PJ group was administeredwith the help of this teacher. Therefore, the two groupsreceived similar instructions when they were answeringthe questionnaire. With such arrangement in conduct-ing the questionnaire, the Cronbach’s reliability(alpha) of the four parts was at least 0.64 (rangesfrom 0.64 to 0.79), indicating that the analysis wasadequately reliable.

4.5. Data analysis

The main purpose of this study is to explore theinfluence of different types of remix platforms on thecollaborative learning experiences. The independentvariable is the approach to support collaborationactivities, i.e. the CC-Oriented and the Project-Oriented approaches, on which students used to createworks together. On the other hand, the collaborativelearning experience, which is the dependent variable, isa subjective perception (Hoegl and Gemuenden 2001,Blau and Caspi 2009), including four items: attitude toderivative works, level of satisfaction to remix out-come, perception of peer interaction and sense of workownership. These four items were identified bystudents’ feedbacks to the questionnaire. Independentt-test was used to analyse the perceptional differencecaused by the two approaches based on the above-mentioned four items. Further to the subjectiveperception, students’ activities were stored in a logfile where behavioural attributes were extracted. These

behavioural attributes were also analysed with inde-pendent t-test to provide an additional understandingof the two approaches. The results obtained fromstudents’ feedback to the questionnaire, activity logand the screen videos were integrated together to get acomplete picture of how students reacted to these twoapproaches.

5. Results

The data obtained from the questionnaires was appliedto identify students’ perceptions and attitudes towardsthe collaborative learning experience with the twoapproaches. As described in the Design of theQuestionnaire section, four aspects are covered instudents’ feedback, including attitude to derivativework, perceptions to the peer interactions, satisfactionto the remix outcomes and sense of work ownership.The results indicated that the CC-Oriented approachreceived significantly or marginally significant higherscores from the students for all the four parts. In otherwords, students perceived a higher level of satisfaction,ownership and supportive peer interaction in the CC-Oriented approach and are more willing to be engagedin and accept the derivative works in such anenvironment (see Table 3). The details of this feedbackis described in the sub-sections below.

5.1. Attitude to derivative works

Students who worked together in the CC-Orientedapproach rated higher scores for all the question itemsof the part of the attitude to derivative works thanthose in the Project-Oriented approach. The

Table 2. The main purposes and example questions of the questionnaire.

Part Purpose Examples of question items

Attitude to derivative works To identify students’ level of willingness to createproducts by modifying others’ products andlevel of acceptance of others’ modificationon personal products

I like to modify my classmates’ works.I feel happy when my works is

modified by others

Perception to peer interaction To identify the level of mutual supportperceived by students duringthe collaborative activity

My classmates tried their best to helpcomplete my work.

My classmates’ ideas help me improvethe quality of my work.

Satisfaction to remix outcomes To identify the level of students’satisfaction to the products produced bythe combination of each other’s products.

The remixed work is better than thatI can achieve by myself.

Both my classmates and myself can carryout ideas when we work together toproduce works.

Sense of work ownership To identify the level of ownershipon the collaborated work

I feel I am also one of the authors of thework, when I collaborated with myclassmates.

I feel happy when the work producedby my classmates and me togetheris appreciated.

C.-C. Liu et al.44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

questionnaire results show a significant differencebetween students’ view on the possible damage causedby others in the two approaches (t ¼ 2.34, p ¼ 0.02,item 1 in Table 4). In the CC-Oriented approach, thestudents do not feel worried about that others willspoil their original works when others are modifyingtheir works. This might be attributable to themechanism that in CC-Oriented approach, one mustmake a copy of a work before conducting anyderivative actions, and thus the contents of originalworks were kept. This result suggests that preservingthe original works in the social media is a critical issue.

The aforementioned attitudes to the derivativeworks are also reflected in the students’ remixactivities. The analysis of activity logs reveals thatstudents working together in the Project-Orientedapproach demonstrated more frequently retrievingactivities. More specifically, each student in theProject-Oriented approach demonstrated such activ-ities 93.7 times, exceeding the frequency 77.7 demon-strated in the CC-Oriented approach. On the otherhand, each student in the Project-Oriented approachchecked his or her own work on average 12.2 timeswhich exceeds the 9.57 demonstrated by the CC-Oriented approach. It also showed in the screen videosthat the students of the Project-Oriented approachfrequently checked who else has modified their worksafter retrieving their own works. Such high frequentchecking activities in the Project-Oriented approachhave been made, as the students may worry aboutwhether others will spoil their original works at thetime when others are modifying their works. Suchfindings showed that the students’ behaviour showedin the activity logs is consistent with their attitudes. Inother words, findings from the questionnaire andactivity logs provide solid evidence to indicate thatthe students in the Project-Oriented approach areworried much more about whether their works wouldbe damaged. In summary, students are more likely toaccept the derivative work process in the CC-Orientedapproach because the contents of their works aresecured, even though students are encouraged to createnew works from an existing one.

5.2. Perception to peer interaction

As showed in item 2 and 3 in Table 4, the results of thequestionnaire reveal students in the CC-Orientedapproach perceived a higher level of mutual supportthan those in the Project-Oriented approach. Morespecifically, students in the CC-Oriented approachalmost strongly agreed that their classmates tried theirbest to help them complete their work. Conversely, thestudents in the Project-Oriented approach agreed atthis item but the perception is not as strong as those inthe CC-Oriented approach (t ¼ 72.10, p ¼ 0.04, item2 in Table 4). Likewise, the questionnaire result revealsthat the students in the CC-Oriented approach thoughtthat the quality of their works can be improved by theideas of their classmates. However, the students in theProject-Oriented approach did not perceive suchimprovement as strongly as those in the CC-Orientedapproach. Thus, this questionnaire item is marginallysignificant (t ¼ 71.95, p ¼ 0.06, item 3 in Table 4).These results support that the CC-Oriented approachcan facilitate more supportive interaction in thecollaborative activities than the Project-Orientedapproach.

The above results may be caused by the differentlevels of participation, which can be observed from theactivity logs demonstrated by students in the twoapproaches. The students in the Project-Orientedapproach demonstrated more frequent deriving activ-ities than those in the CC-Oriented approach. Eachstudent in the Project-Oriented approach modified31.17 episodes in others’ works. However, they spentonly 62 s working on each individual modification.Conversely, students in the CC-Oriented approachonly modified 22.21 episodes in others’ work. How-ever, the average time spent to complete the modifica-tion of each individual is 76 s. The time spent by thosestudents in the CC-Oriented approach is significantlymore than the time spent by those in the Project-Oriented approach. These results reveal that studentsin the CC-Oriented approach demonstrated a deeplevel of participation while the students in the Project-Oriented approach demonstrated a more frequent butsuperficial level of participation.

Table 3. Summarised difference tests between students’ feedbacks to CC and PJ platforms.

Group N Mean SD t value p value

Attitude to derivative works PJ 29 3.72 0.74 72.01* 0.05CCs 28 4.16 0.91

Perception to peer interaction PJ 29 3.86 0.99 71.76 0.08CCs 28 4.27 0.72

Satisfaction to remix outcomes PJ 29 4.26 0.89 72.23* 0.03CCs 28 4.69 0.46

Sense of work ownership PJ 29 4.23 0.77 72.26* 0.03CCs 28 4.62 0.46

Note: *p 5 0.05.

Behaviour & Information Technology 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Screen videos were further analysed to confirmthe influence of the two approaches. For example,the screen videos also showed that the CC-Orientedapproach might be helpful to promote the positiveinterdependence because the CC-Oriented approachrestrained the destructive behaviours. Only ninestudents ever showed such behaviours at the begin-ning of the activity. On the other hand, thedestructive behaviours were showed in 15 students’videos in the Project-Oriented approach. Moreover,the students in the CC-Oriented approach demon-strated more frequently peer-help behaviours. Forinstance, the students in the CC-Oriented approachoften commented on a story or provided suggestionsto a story in the discussion forum after browsing thestory. Nineteen (68%) students demonstrated thecommenting activities. However, only 11 (38%)students showed such activities in the Project-Oriented approach.

In addition to the commenting behaviour, thestudents in the CC-Oriented approach added ideas toimprove the works of others more often than those inthe Project-Oriented approach. It is also found thatthere were 13 students who added new episodes inothers’ works. In particular, three students in the CC-Oriented approach helped to develop a story whenthey found the author of the story have helped them toimprove their works. However, only five students inthe Project-Oriented approach demonstrated such peerhelp activities. Such behaviours explain why thestudents in the CC-Oriented approach perceived ahigher level of mutual supports than those in theProject-Oriented approaches.

5.3. Satisfaction to remix outcomes

Students in the CC-Oriented approach showed ahigher level of satisfaction to the remixed outcomesthan those in the Project-Oriented approach based ontheir satisfaction to the quality of the remixed out-comes and the integration of ideas. Regarding thequality of the remix outcomes, students in the CC-Oriented approach almost strongly agreed that theremixed work is better than what they achieved bythemselves. Although students in the Project-Orientedapproach also agreed at this item, the level ofsatisfaction is not as strong as those in the CC-Oriented approach indicated (t ¼ 71.84, p ¼ 0.07,item 4 in Table 4). Regarding the integration of ideas,both students in the CC-Oriented approach andProject-Oriented approach agreed that their ideas canbe carried out in the collaborative works. However, thestudents in the CC-Oriented approach showed a moresignificantly strong agreement at this item than thestudents in the Project-Oriented approach did(t ¼ 72.23, p ¼ 0.03, item 5 in Table 4). The resultssupport that the CC-Oriented approach can promoteparticipants’ satisfaction to the remix outcomes.

The above difference in the level of satisfaction mayresult from the different collaboration patterns enabledby the two approaches, which, in turn, encouragedifferent types of combining activities. As mentioned inthe previous section, students can perform differenttypes of combining activities. For instance, studentscan combine each other’s works by modifying theanimation that was produced by others. This type ofcombining activity is simple because students only

Table 4. Selected students’ feedback in four aspects of questionnaire.

Group (N) Mean SD t value p value

Attitude to derivative works1. I don’t worry about whether others will spoil my original

works when others are modifying them.PJ (29) 3.28 1.41 72.34* 0.02

CCs (28) 4.11 1.26Perception to peer interaction2. My classmates tried their best to help complete my work. PJ (29) 4.07 1.22 72.10* 0.04

CCs (28) 4.61 0.633. My classmates’ ideas help me improve the quality of my work. PJ (29) 4.24 1.15 71.95 0.06

CCs (28) 4.71 0.6Satisfaction to remix outcomes4. The remixed work is better than that I can achieve by myself. PJ (29) 4.28 1.13 71.84 0.07

CCs (28) 4.71 0.65. Both my classmates and myself can carry out ideas

when we work together to produce works.PJ (29) 4.03 1.15 72.23* 0.03

CCs (28) 4.61 0.74Sense of work ownership6. I feel I am also one of the authors of the work,

when I collaborated with my classmates.PJ (29) 4.00 1.04 73.48* 0.01

CCs (28) 4.75 0.527. I feel happy when the work produced by my

classmates and me together is appreciated.PJ (29) 4.41 0.95 72.14* 0.04

CCs (28) 4.82 0.39

Note: *p 5 0.05.

C.-C. Liu et al.46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

have to specify some predefined features, such as thetime and the focused area of a zoom. On the otherhand, they can also perform more in-depth combiningbehaviours, such as adding vocalisations into theanimation. This type of combining activity requiremore in-depth participation since students have tointerpret and integrate different works and create acoherent story for these works.

The CC-Oriented approach is more likely toencourage the in-depth combining activities. Studentsin the CC-Oriented approach conducted fewer simplecombining activities but more substantial activitiesthan those in the Project-Oriented approach did. Morespecifically, each student in the Project-Orientedapproach conducted 22.97 modifications of anima-tions, which can simply be done by manipulating thestoryboard. However, they rarely added vocalisationsinto the animation. Each student only added suchvocalisations 0.97 times. Conversely, each student inthe CC-Oriented approach conducted 19.89 modifica-tions of animations. However, each student in the CC-Oriented approach added vocalisations 3.04 times,which is significantly more frequent than the timesperformed by those in the Project-Oriented approach.Both the questionnaire result and activity logs revealthat the CC-Oriented approach may encourage a morein-depth participation and thus improve the satisfac-tion level to the remix outcomes.

The screen videos were analysed to reveal how thestudents collaborated with each other to improve thequality of their works. It is found that studentsdemonstrated various types of behaviours to improvethe quality of others’ works. These behaviours can becategorised into structural improvement behavioursand technical improvement behaviours. Regarding thetechnical improvement behaviours, the students helpedothers improve the technical quality of the works byadding episodes based on the original storyline,improving the drawings, and fixing damages causedby destructive behaviours. With respect to suchbehaviours, the students in both the CC-Orientedapproach and those in the Project-Oriented approachdemonstrated similar frequency. However, the studentsin the CC-Oriented approach showed the structuralimprovement behaviours more frequently than thoseof the Project-Oriented approach did. Thirteen stu-dents in the CC-Oriented approach added newepisodes and linked the episodes with those createdby others while only five students demonstrated suchstructural improvement behaviours. In other words, adeeper level of combination of ideas were more likelyto happen in the CC-Oriented approach than in theProject-Oriented approach. Such results can explainwhy the students of the CC-Oriented approachindicated a higher level of satisfaction to the

remix outcomes than those of the Project-Orientedapproach.

5.4. Sense of work ownership

As showed in item 6 in Table 4, students in the CC-Oriented approach perceived to have a significantlyhigher level of authorship on their collaborative workthan those in the Project-Oriented approach(t ¼ 73.48, p ¼ 0.01). More specifically, students inthe CC-Oriented approach strongly agreed that theyare also one of the authors of the collaborative work,though they were collaborating with others on thework. The students in the Project-Oriented approachalso agreed at the authorship of the collaborativework, but the sense of the ownership is not as strong asin the CC-Oriented approach. This finding suggeststhat students in the CC-Oriented approach felt toobtain a higher level of ownership to the collaborativework than those in the Project-Oriented approach.Such views are also reflected in the other finding, whichindicates that students in the CC-Oriented approachfelt happy when their collaborative works wereappreciated by others (t ¼ 72.14, p ¼ 0.04, item 7 inTable 4). It implies that students in the CC-Orientedapproach felt to have a significantly higher level of thesense of achievement than those in the Project-Oriented approach.

Such results reflect the key effect of the CC-Oriented approaches. On one hand, each individualis allowed to own the final products though otherscould add more materials for the products andinterpret the materials of the products. Consequently,remixers who create a work by using others’ workscould still sense the ownership of the work. On theother hand, a product can be used by a user only whenhe or she gives credit to the original author. Thus, theoriginators could still perceive the ownership on thederivative works. In summary, both of the remixersand originators can perceive the ownership, which is amajor benefit of the CC-Oriented approach.

6. Discussion and conclusions

With the advancement of network technologies,empirical studies on computer-supported collaborativelearning have mushroomed. Unlike existing studies,which focus on theoretical assumptions about theimpact of computer-supported collaborative learning(Schellens et al. 2007), our study focuses on students’perception towards the collaborative learning experi-ence. However, the Project-Oriented approach tosupport the collaborative learning has limitations inpromoting such perceptions. This study thus proposeda design of collaborative systems based on the notions

Behaviour & Information Technology 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

of CC which facilitates students to learn collabora-tively on the Internet. An evaluation was conductedto investigate the influence of the proposed design. Itwas found that the CC-Oriented approach cansignificantly improve participants’ attitude to deriva-tive works, the satisfaction level of remix outcomes,perception to the peer interaction and the sense ofwork ownership.

The students’ responses indicate that some studentsin the Project-Oriented approach felt worried aboutthe possible damage caused by the modifications.Without such worry, the students in the CC-Orientedapproach were more willing to conduct derivativeworks to add values to the existing works. Suchfindings support the claim made by Dalke et al. (2007),which indicate students will not be likely to conductsuch derivative works because of the fears of changingother people’s products in the Project-Orientedapproach. It is therefore necessary to motivate studentsto conduct such derivative works. The proposed designmay enhance motivation to deeply participate in thecollaboration because of the visualisation of themodification trajectory. Such visualisation, whichshows all participants’ contributions, can enhancestudents’ intention to participate and engage incollaboration (Janssen et al. 2007). This might bebecause such visualisation enables a social comparisonwhere students compare themselves to other partici-pants and thus may be motivated to set higherstandards and to increase their participation (Wheeleret al. 2001, Michinov and Primois 2005). On the otherhand, the social comparison may also decrease thetendency of performing destructive behaviours onothers’ work because such behaviours will be displayedand viewed by all participants. Educators and thedesigners of collaborative learning systems may applysuch design to increase students’ participation insimilar collaboration activities.

The activity log shows that students working in theCC-Oriented approach demonstrated more in-depthpeer-help activities than those in the Project-Orientedapproach. This finding echoes students’ subjectiveperception to peer interaction which indicates thatthe students in the CC-Oriented approach perceived ahigher level of mutual support than those in theProject-Oriented approach. This might be due to theunclear ownership of the collaborative work in theProject-Oriented approach (Lund and Smørdal 2006)which made the students feel reluctant to interfere with‘somebody else’s material’ (Konja and Ben-Zvi 2008).In the study by Blau and Caspi (2009), they found thatcollaborative learning may be improved by encoura-ging collaboration mainly through suggesting improve-ments and less by editing each others’ work. Theirfindings support that there is a need to keep a buffer

between the help providers and receivers. In the samevein, the CC notion may be helpful to maintain thebuffer because the peer-help activity affects on thecopies of the works. Additionally, such peer-helpactivity is achieved by the help providers who areaccomplishing their own goals. As a result, thestudents of the CC-Oriented approach showed moreactive and in-depth peer help activities to improve theworks of others than those of the Project-Orientedapproach did.

The results of this study indicate that students inthe CC-Oriented approach perceived to have asignificantly higher level of authorship on theircollaborative work than those in the Project-Orientedapproach. Such results are consistent with those ofprevious studies (Viegas et al. 2004, Lund and Smørdal2006, Boulos et al. 2006, Ioannou and Artino 2008,Blau and Caspi 2009), which indicate that studentsfavour to have individual accountability and individualownership, instead of engaging in collaborative pro-jects like Wiki. This might be due to the fact that thestudents do not embrace the notion of collectiveownership in the Project-Oriented approach butcontinued a practice where the individual ownershippersisted (Lund and Smørdal 2006). In other words,the students are more likely to actively engage incollaboration when they can perceive the ownership ontheir learning activity. This finding suggests that thecollaborative platform has to provide a mechanismwhich can promote individuals’ sense of ownershipwhile the students work together. This can explain whythe students in the CC-Oriented approach demon-strated a deeper level of participation in the collabora-tive activity. Such results may be owing to the featuresof CC which make an originator felt he or she is stillthe author of the derived works since he or she iscredited in the new work. Such an approach can makeoriginators perceive the sense of the achievement insubsequent value-adding activities to the originalworks.

The results of this study show that the students inthe CC-Oriented approach integrated their own ideaswith those of others to improve the quality of thecollaborative works. They demonstrated such in-depthidea integration more often than the students in theProject-Oriented approach. Such results might be dueto the fact that students need to know how to shareresponsibilities with others so that they can work withothers in the Project-Oriented approach (Dohn 2009).However, as mentioned above, the students still do nothave rich experiences in such learning contexts (Lundand Smørdal 2006). Consequently, the collaborationwill have the risk that no individuals are assigned tocontrol the quality of interaction and production.Therefore, it is necessary to improve the individual

C.-C. Liu et al.48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

accountability in the Project-Oriented approach. Dueto its personal-owned project feature, the CC increasedindividuals’ responsibilities and motivated students toparticipate in the collaborative activities. This can alsoexplain why the CC-Oriented approach made thestudents perceive a higher level of improvementsfrom the collaboration.

Zigurs and Buckland (1998) classified the knowl-edge sharing and creation tasks into several types, suchas simple tasks, problem tasks and fuzzy tasks.Different types of tasks need different types of supportto address their specific challenges (Zack 2001). Thestory creation activity used in this study is an instanceof fuzzy tasks due to its creative nature that emphasisesoutcome multiplicity and outcome uncertainty. TheCC-Oriented approach and Project-Oriented approachprovide different types of support to share and createknowledge. The CC-Oriented approach applies amanner of pooling and display of all ideas to supportsuch fuzzy tasks while the Project-Oriented approachdoes not support such features. It is found that thestudents were more satisfied with the remix outcomesin the CC-Oriented approach than those in the Project-Oriented approach. Such a result is consistent with thefindings of the study by Hahn and Wang (2009), whichindicate the feature of pooling and display of ideas, ismore appropriate for the task that cannot be easilyquantifiable and not to have a single solution.Educators may find the CC-Oriented approach usefulto enhance knowledge sharing and creation tasks whenthe learning tasks involve creativity and uncertainty.

The aforementioned results provide a clear pictureof the differences between the CC-Oriented andProject-Oriented approaches, which can contribute asound understanding of how to effectively use socialmedia to improve the collaboration experience. How-ever, this study is only a small-scale investigation. Inparticular, the students came from two classes wherethey know each other. The results obtained by thisstudy may not be generalised to other contexts such asthe online collaborative learning, where participantsdo not know each other. Further work needs to beundertaken with a larger sample, such as Internet usersor students of different ages, to provide additionalevidence. Moreover, the results of this study wereobtained only from elementary school students inTaiwan. The results of this study may not be general-ised to students with other cultural backgrounds. Thisis because culture plays an important role in theacceptance and use of educational technologies at bothpersonal and social level (Collis 1999). In particular,students with Western cultural orientations are differ-ent from those with non-Western cultural orientations,especially in their attitude towards group cooperationand human interaction (Williams-Green et al. 1998). It

will be interesting to investigate how students withdifferent cultural backgrounds, such as students atdifferent ages or from other countries, will perceive thecollaborative learning experience on the social media.Gathering information on these issues through furtherworks is helpful to clarify the preference of differenttypes of students on the social media.

The results of this study were obtained mainlybased on the students’ subjective feedback to thequestionnaire. There is a need to conduct furtherstudies which use other approaches to provide moreevidence regarding the differences between the CC-Oriented approach and Project-Oriented approach.For example, Liu and Tsai (2008) analysed activitylogs to reveal peer interaction patterns in an onlinecollaborative learning system. Such analyses will behelpful to provide further answers for the researchquestions of the study from another perspective. Inaddition, the results of this study were obtained by thestatistical analysis. It will be worthwhile to studystudents’ activity log and subjective feedback with datamining methods, such as clustering and Bayesiananalysis. In this way, a hidden interrelationshipbetween students’ behaviours and perceptions in socialmedia can be obtained.

References

Alexander, B., 2006. Web 2.0: a new wave of innovation forteaching and learning. Learning, 41 (2), 32–44.

Benford, S., et al., 2000. Designing storytelling technologiesto encouraging collaboration between young children. In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factorsin computing systems, New York: ACM Press, 556–563.

Blau, I. and Caspi, A., 2009. What type of collaborationhelps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning andoutcome quality of collaboration using Google docs. In:Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructionaltechnologies research, 2009: learning in the technologicalera, Y. Eshet-Alkalai et al., eds. Raanana: The OpenUniversity of Israel, 48–55.

Boulos, M.N.K., Maramba, I., and Wheeler, S., 2006. Wikis,blogs and podcasts: a newgeneration ofweb-based tools forvirtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMCMedical Education, 6 (41). Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-6-41. pdf. [Ac-cessed 1 November 2009].

Bruner, J.S., 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Chao, J., 2007. Student project collaboration using Wikis. In:Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Software Engineer-ing Education and Training (CSEE&T 2007), 3–5 July2007, Dublin, Ireland. USA: IEEE Computer Society,255–261.

Cole, M., 2009. Using Wiki technology to support studentengagement: lessons from the trenches. Computers &Education, 52, 141–146.

Collis, B., 1999. Designing for differences: cultural issues inthe design of WWW-based course-support sites. BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 30, 201–215.

Behaviour & Information Technology 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Conhaim, W.W., 2002. Creative commons nurtures thepublic domain. Information Today, 19 (7), 52–52.

Constant, D., Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L., 1994. What’smine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes aboutinformation sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400–421.

Craig, E.M., 2007. Changing paradigms: managed learningenvironments and web 2.0. Campus-Wide InformationSystems, 24 (3), 152–161.

Dalke, A.F., et al., 2007. Emergent pedagogy: learning toenjoy the uncontrollable—and make it productive.Journal of Educational Change, 8 (2), 111–130.

Desilets, A. and Paquet, S., 2005. Wiki as a tool for web-based collaborative story telling in primary school: a casestudy. In: Proceedings of Ed-Media. 2005, 27 June–2 July2005, Montreal, Canada. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Dohn, N.B., 2009. Web 2.0: inherent tensions and evidentchallenges for education. Journal of Computer-SupportedCollaborative Learning, 4, 343–363.

Duffy, P. and Bruns, A., 2006. The use of blogs, wikis andRSS in education: a conversation of possibilities. In:Proceedings of the online learning and teaching conference2006, 26 September 2006, Brisbane, 31–38. Availablefrom: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5398/1/5398.pdf [Ac-cessed 1 November 2009].

Egan, K., 1993. Narrative and learning: a voyage ofimplications. Linguistics and Education, 5 (1), 119–126.

Engestrom, Y., 1999. Innovative learning in work teams. In:Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, and R.L. Punamaki, eds.Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 377–404.

Forte, A. and Bruckman, A., 2006. From wikipedia tothe classroom: exploring online publication and learn-ing. In: Proceedings of the 7th international con-ference on learning sciences, Bloomington, Indiana,182–188.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., and Hughes, J.E., 2009.Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age:Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should wetake now? Educational Researcher, 38 (4), 246.

Gustavson, L., 2008. Influencing pedagogy through thecreative practices of youth. In: M.L. Hill and L.Vasudevan, eds. Media, learning, and sites of possibility.New York: Peter Lang, 81–114.

Hahn, J. and Wang, T., 2009. Knowledge managementsystems and organizational knowledge processing chal-lenges: a field experiment. Decision Support Systems, 47,332–342.

Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G., 2001. Teamwork qualityand the success of innovative projects: a theoreticalconcept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. http://creativecommons.org/ [Accessed 1January 2010].

Hughes, J.E. and Narayan, R., 2009. Collaboration andlearning with wikis in post-secondary classrooms. Journalof Online Interactive Learning, 8 (1), 63–82.

Ioannou, A. and Artino, A., 2008. Incorporating wikis in aneducational technology course: ideas, reflections andlessons learned. In: K. McFerrin et al. eds. Proceedingsof Society for Information Technology and TeacherEducation International Conference 2008. Chesapeake,VA: AACE, 3353–3358.

Janssen, J., et al., 2007. Visualization of participation: doesit contribute to successful computer-supported colla-borative learning? Computers & Education, 49, 1037–1065.

Johnson, R.T. and Johnson, D.W., 1994. An overview ofcooperative learning. In: J.S. Thousand, R.A. Villa, andA. Nevin, eds. Creativity and collaborative learning: apractical guide to empowering students and teachers.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, 31–44.

Kinshuk, 1996. Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring toolsinterfaces in relation to student, learning topic andcurriculum characteristics. Unpublished thesis. DeMontfort University.

Kittur, A., et al., 2007. He says, she says: conflict andcoordination in wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. SanJose, CA, USA, New York: ACM Press, 453–462.

Knobel, M. and Lankshear, C., 2008. Remix: the art andcraft of endless hybridization. Journal of Adolescent &Adult Literacy, 52 (1), 22–33.

Konja, M. and Ben-Zvi, D., 2008. Collaborative learningprocesses in Wiki-based environments in higher educa-tion. In: Y. Eshet, A. Caspi, and N. Geri, eds. Learning inthe technological era. Ra’anana, Israel: The OpenUniversity of Israel, 165–170.

Lessig, L., 2005. Free culture: the nature and future ofcreativity. New York: Penguin Group.

Leuf, B. and Cunningham, W., 2001. The wiki way:collaboration and sharing on the internet. Boston, MA:Addison-Wesley Professional.

Lio, E.D., Fraboni, L., and Leo, T., 2005. TWiki-basedfacilitation in a newly formed academic community ofpractice. In: Proceedings of the 2005 InternationalSymposium on Wikis. San Diego, California. NewYork: ACM Press, 85–97.

Liu, C.C., et al., 2011. An enhanced concept map approachto improving children’s storytelling ability. Computers &Education, 56, 873–884.

Liu, C.C. and Tsai, C.C., 2008. An analysis of peerinteraction patterns as discoursed by on-line small groupproblem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50 (3),627–639.

Lund, A. and Smørdal, O., 2006. Is there a space for theteacher in a WIKI? In: Proceedings of the 2006International Symposium on Wikis, Odense, Denmark.New York: ACM Press, 37–46.

Michinov, N. and Primois, C., 2005. Improving productivityand creativity in online groups through social compar-ison process: new evidence for asynchronous electronicbrainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21 (1), 11–28.

Monroy-Hernandez, A. and Resnick, M., 2008. FEATUREempowering kids to create and share programmablemedia. Interactions, 15 (2), 50–53.

Noel, S. and Robert, J., 2003. How the Web is used tosupport collaborative writing. Behaviour & InformationTechnology, 22 (4), 245–262.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge-creatingcompany. New York: Oxford University Press.

Parker, K.R. and Chao, J.T., 2007. Wiki as a teaching tool.Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and LearningObjects, 3, 57–72.

Raban, D. and Harper, F.M., 2008. Motivations foranswering questions online. In: New media and innovativetechnologies – industry and society. Mevaseret Zion,Israel: Ben-Gurion University Press.

Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C., 2006. Knowledge building:theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: K. Sawyer, ed.Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York:Cambridge University Press, 97–118.

C.-C. Liu et al.50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Schellens, T., et al., 2007. Learning in asynchronousdiscussion groups: a multilevel approach to study theinfluence of student, group and task characteristics.Behaviour & Information Technology, 26 (1), 55–71.

Tanaka, A., Tokui, N., and Momeni, A., 2005. Facilitatingcollective musical creativity. In: Proceedings of the 13thAnnual ACM International Conference on Multimedia,Singapore. New York: ACM Press, 191–198.

Tonkin, E., 2005. Making the case for a wiki. Ariadne42.January [online]. Available from: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/tonkin/ [Accessed 10 July 2010].

Viegas, F.B., Wattenberg, M., and Dave, K., 2004. Studyingcooperation and conflict between authors with historyflow visualizations. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Vienna, Austria, New York: ACM Press, 575–582.

Wheeler, R., Suls, J., and Martin, R., 2001. Psychology ofsocial comparison. In: N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes, eds.International encyclopedia of the social & behavioralsciences. Vol. 21. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 14254–14257.

Williams-Green, J., Holmes, G., and Sherman, T., 1998.Culture as a decision variable for designing computersoftware. Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (1), 3–18.

Wilson, T., 2008. New ways of mediating learning: investi-gating the implications of adopting open educationalresources for tertiary education at an institution in theUnited Kingdom as compared to one in South Africa.International Review of Research in Open and DistanceLearning, 9 (1), 1–19.

Zack, M.H., 2001. If managing knowledge is the solution,then what’s the problem?. In: Y. Malhotra, ed. Knowl-edge management and business model innovation. Hershey,PA: Idea Group Publishing. 2001.

Zigurs, I. and Buckland, B.K., 1998. A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness.MIS Quarterly, 22 (3), 313–334.

Behaviour & Information Technology 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:38

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14