| |
The Effect of External Representation in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Collaborative Peer Review on More and Less Experienced Writers
Author: Thomas Joseph Hajduk
Degree: Ph.D. in Rhetoric, Carnegie Mellon University, 1999
This dissertation examines how writers collaborate with peer reviewers
in face-to-face situations and in on-line situations. The study reported
here was experimental and employed a 2x3 factorial design, with one
between-subjects factor (writing experience) and one within subjects
factor (type of collaborative interaction). The purpose of this design
was to examine the relationship between writing experience and two
different types of collaborative review: Face-to-Face and
Computer-Mediated. Twelve more experienced writers and twelve less
experienced writers cycled through (A) three writing tasks, (B) three
collaborative peer review tasks, (C) three revising tasks, and (D) one
cued interview at the end. Results showed significant differences
between more experienced writers and less experienced writers when the
final essays were rated using an improvement quality scale. As with many
previous studies, a main effect was found for experience level. More
experienced writers (MEWs) were significantly better at revising their
essays compared to the less experienced writers (LEWs). A post hoc
analysis revealed a significant correlation between the number of
challenges and improvement quality in the computer-mediated
collaborative condition, but not in the face-to-face condition. Although
additional analysis of the data is necessary as well as additional
studies, the finding raises some interesting issues regarding the
assumed advantages of face-to-face collaboration. One possible cause for
the significant relationship in the computer-mediated condition may be
the primacy of print theory, which suggests that people tend to remember
and recall ideas and points better after reading them when compared with
listening to them. In the computer-mediated condition, the writers
were able to read the reviewer's challenges on line and also in a
computer printout of the on-line conversation, which was available to
writers during the revision session. A possible explanation might be
that writers paid more attention to the reviewer challenges--and,
therefore, revised more--because they simply may have been able to
recall the challenges more readily while revising.
|