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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Group B's dialogue shifted toward intrapersonal voices in the latter part of its collaboration as it negotiated values inputted into the computer and elaborated results, whereas group A consulted the computer or personal self without negotiating inputs among members. → 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 · r3

Discussion of the utterance-level I-position coding across both groups' dialogues: the quote contrasts the two groups' voice use during empirical evaluation. The authors tie this to differences in students' paths of knowledge construction and knowledge artifacts from personal and group levels.

"unlike group A, there was a shift toward intrapersonal voices in the latter of their collaborative learning as they empirically evaluated by negotiating the use and values inputted into the computer and further elaborated their results."

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
• Group A's brainstorming was repeatedly unproductive because individual interjections redirected the group's dialogue toward personal concerns — related
• 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
• Shared technology resources can act as positioning artifacts around which students negotiate power and status differentials in CSCL groups — related
• 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 — related