Group A's two most common I-positions were I–it and I–me, while group B's were I–me and I–we, indicating different reliance on interpersonal versus intrapersonal voices¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2030: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Across 34 dialogues and 121 utterances, group A's two most common I-positions were I–it (16 utterances) and I–me (16 utterances), whereas group B's were I–me (26 utterances) and I–we (24 utterances). → Aaron J. Peltoniemi 2025
Evidence¶
Aaron J. Peltoniemi 2025¶
Aaron J. Peltoniemi, Joni Lämsä, Sami Lehesvuori, Raija Hämäläinen. (2025). Understanding the role of I-positions facilitating knowledge construction in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-025-09447-6
q2 · i? · qualitative · r2
Utterance-level coding of audio recordings for both groups, with I-positions grounded at the utterance level and reviewed through intersubjectivity among the four authors. The printed utterance counts per position for group A and group B are reported as "I–it (16 utterances)" and "I–me (26 utterances)" respectively.
"the two most common I-positions for Group A were I–it (16 utterances) and I–me (16 utterances), whereas the two most common I-positions for group B were I–me (26 utterances) and I–we (24 utterances)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Group A, who failed the learning task, devoted most dialogues to orientation and conceptualization and asked yes-no questions at the personal level, while group B, who succeeded, distributed dialogue across investigation and discussion
- In group B, usage of I–we gradually increased and peaked in the final stage during critical evaluation, suggesting intrapersonal collective voice drives critical evaluation of evidence — related
- Group B showed a shift toward intrapersonal voices (I–you/I–we) during its later empirical evaluation, while group A remained interpersonal (I–it/I–me) even when investigating, with un-negotiated inputs — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
iposition-distribution-two-groups-cscl |
title |
Group A's two most common I-positions were I–it and I–me, while group B's were I–me and I–we, indicating different reliance on interpersonal versus intrapersonal voices |
description |
Group A's two most common I-positions were I–it and I–me, while group B's were I–me and I–we, indicating different reliance on interpersonal versus intrapersonal voices |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
recheck_by |
2030 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — aaron-j-peltoniemi-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.