Shared technology resources can act as positioning artifacts around which students negotiate power and status differentials in CSCL groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Qualitative analysis of two dyads at an all-female cryptography summer camp found that social positioning around shared technology resources offered an opportunity for vying for power differentials in interaction. → Carolyn P. Rosé 2017 q1 i? The editorial warns that subtle effects of social positioning on interaction and ultimately learning may go undetected when data is viewed in terms of statistical distributions. → Carolyn P. Rosé 2017

Evidence¶

Carolyn P. Rosé 2017¶

Carolyn P. Rosé, Sten Ludvigsen, Nancy Law, Ulrike Cress & Gerry Stahl. (2017). Divisive or facilitative: The two faces of technology in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12:215–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9265-7

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

The editorial summarizes Simpson, Bannister, and Matthews' qualitative video analysis of two collaborative pairs at an all female Cryptography Summer Camp for secondary school students, using both verbal and nonverbal cues, finding technology use divisively tied to power differentials.

"the first article exposes one face of technology: inves tigating the extent to which social positioning around technology may be divisive in that i t offers an opportunity for vying for power differentials in interaction."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AI systems are non-neutral socio-technical artifacts embedding cultural assumptions and power relations — a broader claim this one bears on
• 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