A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge
building with wikis
Ulrike Cress & Joachim Kimmerle
Received: 22 February 2007 /Accepted: 26 November 2007 /
Published online: 10 January 2008
# International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Wikis provide new opportunities for learning and for collaborative knowledge
building as well as for understanding these processes. This article presents a theoretical
framework for describing how learning and collaborative knowledge building take place. In
order to understand these processes, three aspects need to be considered: the social
processes facilitated by a wiki, the cognitive processes of the users, and how both processes
influence each other mutually. For this purpose, the model presented in this article borrows
from the systemic approach of Luhmann as well as from Piaget’s theory of equilibration
and combines these approaches. The model analyzes processes which take place in the
social system of a wiki as well as in the cognitive systems of the users. The model also
describes learning activities as processes of externalization and internalization. Individual
learning happens through internal processes of assimilation and accommodation, whereas
changes in a wiki are due to activities of external assimilation and accommodation which in
turn lead to collaborative knowledge building. This article provides empirical examples for
these equilibration activities by analyzing Wikipedia articles. Equilibration activities are
described as being caused by subjectively perceived incongruities between an individuals’
knowledge and the information provided by a wiki. Incongruities of medium level cause
cognitive conflicts which in turn activate the described processes of equilibration and
facilitate individual learning and collaborative knowledge building.
Keywords Collaboration . Computer support . Knowledge building . Equilibration . Wiki
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (2008) 3:105–122
DOI 10.1007/s11412-007-9035-z
U. Cress (*)
Knowledge Media Research Center, Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40, 72072 Tuebingen, Germany
e-mail: u.cress@iwm-kmrc.de
J. Kimmerle
Department of Applied Cognitive Psychology and Media Psychology, University of Tuebingen,
Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40, 72072 Tuebingen, Germany
e-mail: j.kimmerle@iwm-kmrc.de

Introduction
Recently, a variety of new tools and technologies fostering computer-supported collaborative
learning (CSCL) and computer-supported cooperative working (CSCW) appeared and
established themselves on the Internet (Beldarrain 2006; Bryant 2006). This development is
frequently referred to as Web 2.0 (Bridsall 2007; Murugesan 2007). On the one hand, the
term Web 2.0 describes a set of new interactive technologies and services on the internet
(Richardson 2006). On the other hand, it refers to a modified utilization of information
(Tredinnick 2006). What is of particular importance in the Web 2.0 context for CSCL
researchers is the integration of so-called social software (Kesim and Agaoglu 2007;
Kolbitsch and Maurer 2006). Social software refers to systems which facilitate human
communication, interaction, and collaboration in large communities (Wagner and Bolloju
2005; Ward 2006). These systems support the constitution and maintenance of self-organizing
social networks and communities (Köhler and Fuchs-Kittowski 2005; Lin et al. 2006; Moore
and Serva 2007; Wasko and Faraj 2005). Weblogs (blogs), file-sharing communities, and
especially wikis loom large in this social-software context (Wagner and Bolloju 2005). Blogs
are websites which are used as online diaries (Chau and Xu 2007). They periodically contain
new entries. Usually, blogs are produced by a single author or by a small group of users
(Moore and Serva 2007; Sweetser and Metzgar 2007), but they are open to the public for
reading (Blood 2002; Maurer and Tochtermann 2002). Blogs can be used for purposes of
learning and knowledge sharing (Ras et al. 2005). However, contrary to wikis, entries in blogs
cannot be changed anymore by other users. File-sharing web pages provide private spaces
where users can store their documents, and a public space where files can be shared with
other users (Ceballos and Gorricho 2006). Popular examples of file-sharing communities are
services such as photo-sharing or video-sharing websites (Rodriguez et al. 2005).
Whereas blogs and file-sharing systems mainly serve for pooling information, wikis
have special potential for computer-supported collaborative knowledge building and
learning (Bruns and Humphreys 2005; Chong and Yamamoto 2006; Kim et al. 2006;
Reinhold 2006; Wang and Turner 2005; Yukawa 2006).
Wikis’ potential for collaborative knowledge building
As we agree with Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) who emphasize the importance of
knowledge-creating competencies “in a knowledge society” (Scardamalia 2002, p. 67), we
wish to point out the necessity of systematically analyzing the potential of wikis as tools for
knowledge building. Wikis are web sites which allow users not only to have access to its
content but also to change the content online (Leuf and Cunningham 2001; Raitman et al.
2005). Wikis are not only available in the WWW but can also be implemented in intranets
or on local computers. Wikis do not require software, are easily accessible, and are simple
to use for everybody (Désilets et al. 2005). These qualities make wikis valuable tools for a
multitude of purposes (Joyce 2005). Wikis are used for knowledge-management (Fuchs-
Kittowski and Köhler 2005; Wagner 2006; Wagner and Bolloju 2005) as well as for
educational purposes (Bruns and Humphreys 2005; Chong and Yamamoto 2006; Notari
2006; Wang and Turner 2005); in economical (Wagner and Majchrzak 2007) or in political
contexts (Makice 2006). Wikis are mostly used to develop written text. Their special feature
is that people can do all kinds of revision of the text: they can create hyperlinks and fill
them with content, they can revise a text by adding, deleting, or changing any parts they
want to (Raitman et al. 2005). In this way, large groups of like-minded people are able to
work collaboratively on one and the same text about a certain topic. In wikis, all users
106 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle

jointly create one hypertext, an activity which allows the collaborative generation of
knowledge (Fuchs-Kittowski and Köhler 2005; Köhler and Fuchs-Kittowski 2005). Wikis’
potential for collaborative learning lies in their ability to allow for debate-based learning
experiences (Chong and Yamamoto 2006) or to facilitate shaping of knowledge (Reinhold
2006). Wikis can be regarded as media which support learning due to their ability to facilitate
collaboration (Kim et al. 2006; Notari 2006), to allow for design-based learning (Rick and
Guzdial 2006), to enhance inventiveness (Guzdial et al. 2001), and to support inquiry
learning and the co-construction of knowledge (Yukawa 2006). Overall, wikis can be
considered to support social constructivist learning in general (Bruns and Humphreys 2005).
Collaborative activities in wikis give rise to, for example, the production of encyclopedias or
dictionaries (Joyce 2005). An example which illustrates the potential of wikis is the online
encyclopedia Wikipedia (Korfiatis et al. 2006; Lih 2004; Pentzold and Seidenglanz 2006;
Wagner 2006). Here, users collaboratively develop the world’s largest encyclopedia. Every
internet user is allowed to participate in this undertaking. The Wikipedia example will be
applied in this article in order to make our theoretical analysis more concrete. In a wiki people
work jointly on one common artifact (cf. Stahl 2002 for the relevance of artifacts in CSCL).
And a multitude of people around the world are able to participate in this process anywhere
and at anytime. In this article we will ask what makes wikis supportive of learning and
knowledge building1 (for the particular importance of knowledge building for CSCL cf. Hewitt
and Scardamalia 1998; or Scardamalia and Bereiter 1996). To examine this question, our
considerations will be based on fundamental perspectives on learning and knowledge building
(for diverse implementations of knowledge-building principles in CSCL cf. Kali 2006; Lee
et al. 2006; Oshima et al. 2006). We presuppose that a person’s individual knowledge can
serve as a resource for other peoples’ learning (Kafai 2006; Scardamalia and Bereiter 1994).
We base our arguments on findings as to how people make use of each others’ knowledge
through collaborative knowledge building with artifacts (Bruckman 2006; Norman 1991). In
this regard we refer to Papert’s approach of constructionism (e.g. Papert 1980, 1987, 1993,
1997; cf. also Kafai 2006) pointing out that our perspective is grounded in a tradition that
emphasizes the learner’s active participation in the learning process (cf. Greeno 2006; for a
contribution considering this activity approach in wiki research cf. Notari 2006; for an
approach analyzing constructivist learning on the WWW cf. Wilson and Lowry 2001).
In the remainder of this article we will present a theoretical model of collaborative
knowledge building with wikis by assuming a systemic perspective. In this context we will
discuss the differential modes of operation in social and cognitive systems. Psychological
research has described the cognitive processes responsible for individual learning as
assimilation and accommodation. The question arises if there are equivalent processes in
social systems such as wikis. Since we are convinced there are equivalent processes, we
present this article to lead to a better understanding of the processes of collaborative
knowledge building. In the following presentation, we will distinguish between the
processes of externalization and internalization. We will clarify these processes by applying
Wikipedia examples to our model in order to illustrate our notions and to provide an
empirical basis. We will then describe the four processes of learning and knowledge
building that result from the distinction between external and internal processes on the one
hand, and between assimilation and accommodation on the other hand. Finally, we will
describe the motivational aspects of collaborative knowledge building with wikis. We
attribute people’s motivation to participate in collaborative knowledge building to their
1 Of course, wikis do not only have advantages. However, as this is an article about the potential of wikis for
collaborative knowledge building, possible shortcomings will not take center stage in this analysis.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 107

perception of incongruities and to the perceived valence of the topic. We are aware that, in
the strict sense, the motivational aspects are intrinsically tied to the processes of knowledge
building, and that the cognitive and socio-cognitive processes cannot be separated from the
motivational ones. However, we decided to present our model in an order which makes
clear that the cognitive and the socio-cognitive processes can help to explain the
motivational processes. Therefore, for the purpose of clarity and examination, we are
obliged to isolate our presentation of the motivational aspects.
A Model of collaborative knowledge building with wikis
In the model presented here we consider from a systemic point of view the processes
necessary for the exchange of knowledge and for collaborative knowledge building with
wikis. For this purpose we borrow perspectives from systems theoretical approaches (cf.
Luhmann 1984, 1995, 1997; von Bertalanffy 1950, 1968). According to Luhmann’s
sociological systems theory social systems can be distinguished from cognitive systems. In
this section we will first of all outline the functionality of a social system, and then we will
address the functionality of cognitive systems. After that, we will describe the processes
responsible for transitions between the social system and people’s cognitive systems. In this
context, we distinguish the process of externalization from the process of internalization,
and we describe both processes in detail. In order to present our ideas as comprehensibly as
possible, we will first introduce the major concepts on a general level, and then we will
explain them in more detail, applying real-life examples from Wikipedia.
Social and cognitive systems
Luhmann describes systems as dynamic, that is, they develop over time and consist of
operations. A system ceases where its mode of operation ceases. Such operations are
defined as the production of elements with the help of the elements of the same system.
This definition implies that systems are autopoietic and self-referential. They produce their
own elements (for a detailed elaboration on the phenomenon of autopoiesis cf. Maturana
and Varela 1980; Varela et al. 1974; or Luhmann 1986, 1990). Luhmann presumes that
systems continuously develop and recreate themselves. This way, autopoiesis guarantees
the system’s permanent continuance. In other words, systems exist due to operations which
are followed by further operations of the same kind and so on. That means subsequent
operations always build on the results of preceding operations.
Luhmann distinguishes three different kinds of systems: Biological systems operate by
means of biological processes. They are autopoietic in the sense that cells create other cells.
Psychological or cognitive systems operate via processes of consciousness and cognitive
processes, such as retrieval of knowledge from long-term memory (Baddeley 1986, 1992),
elaboration of knowledge (Craik and Lockhart 1972), or processes of externalization and
internalization of knowledge. They are also autopoietic as cognitions develop further cog-
nitions. Finally, social systems operate by means of communication. In this context, com-
munication is not intended to be a result of people’s activities but a product of social systems.
Each system selects its own elements by establishing a criterion for difference. For this
purpose the system applies a specific “binary code”: the social system “arts”, for
example, applies a binary code which decides if something is aesthetic or not, the system
“science” applies a binary code which decides if something is valid or not, or the systems
“politics” applies a code which decides if something has to do with power or not.
Applying such a binary code is the way systems operate and develop.
108 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle

From a system’s perspective the environment is contingent. This means the system
cannot anticipate what will happen in the environment, and thus, the environment can
irritate the system. So, for each system its environment is more complex than the system
itself. But after being irritated, a system may be able to select a limited amount of
information available outside its borders. By operating on this information it reduces
external complexity, establishes new elements and relations, and thus increases its internal
complexity.
Social systems depend on cognitive systems, because there would be no communication
without cognitions. Luhmann points out that systems are operationally closed, i.e. every
system has an idiosyncratic mode of operation, social and cognitive systems cannot directly
correspond with each other. Nevertheless, systems can influence each other, e.g., the social
system wiki responds to stimuli from cognitive systems. In order to solve the problem of
systems that are open and closed at the same time, Luhmann applies the concept of
structural coupling. Social systems are structurally coupled with cognitive systems via
language. Since systems are sensitive to irritations from their environment, and since
irritations can be incorporated into system-immanent operations, different systems can
make use of other systems’ complexity. So a cognitive system, for example, can take on the
social system’s elements and the social system can take on the cognitive system’s elements
if they irritate each other. So structural coupling allows for a co-evolution of both systems.
Both systems, the cognitive and the social system, can become more and more complex
over time.
Since social and cognitive processes have to be considered separately in the first
instance, it is all the more interesting to examine what results from their interplay.
Consequently, clearly delineating the “border” between the social system (here: the wiki)
and the cognitive systems (of the users) is crucial for understanding how collaborative
knowledge building works. What processes are going on when people share their
knowledge by creating wikis? What is happening when people work mutually on one
common artifact, thereby introducing their knowledge to the community and building new
knowledge collaboratively?
In the approach presented here, we propose two processes as the basis for the “crossing
of the border” between the social and the cognitive system: we refer to these processes as
“externalization” and “internalization” respectively.
Externalization2
For contributing to the development of a wiki, people first have to externalize their
knowledge (Klein 1999). They do this by introducing information which reflects their own
knowledge. For that purpose, a person’s own knowledge has to be conveyed into a wiki
article in a form that maps the person’s knowledge.
The wiki article, then, exists independently from the people who created it, and it
develops in a way that is determined by people’s knowledge. The information in the wiki
relates to the contributor’s individual knowledge: therefore, the person’s cognitive
processes are represented by and reflected in the wiki. A user is only able to contribute
something to a wiki if she or he has corresponding knowledge about that topic. Of course,
the information in the wiki and the knowledge in a person’s mind are not identical, but they
2 At this point it has to be emphasized that “externalization” and “internalization” are meant from the
cognitive system’s point of view. What externalization is from the cognitive system’s perspective can be
considered internalization from the social system’s perspective and vice versa.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 109

are equivalent to a certain degree. After the process of externalization, the wiki exists
independently from the person’s knowledge.
Contributing to an article does not only allow the creation of an artifact, it can also lead
to individual learning processes in the contributors. The mental effort necessary for the
externalization of knowledge can extend people’s individual knowledge, because
externalization requires deeper processing and clarification. This aspect is addressed by
the work of Flower and Hayes (1980) as well as Webb (1982). So normally, people who
contribute to a wiki article cannot externalize their own knowledge without some changes
in their individual knowledge. Through the externalization process people often deepen
their knowledge and clarify their understanding. So externalization can lead to individual
learning processes, and people who contribute to a wiki article can expand their own
individual knowledge.
These processes are tentatively presented in Fig. 1. This illustration is unavoidably a
makeshift one, since the matter’s procedural character cannot be expressed adequately in a
static figure. In Fig. 1 this learning process is displayed by the grey symbols which expand
the cognitive systems CS to CS’. In this figure each symbol represents another aspect of
knowledge. Each of the three people externalizes knowledge by contributing to the wiki,
and person 1 and 3 develop new knowledge through this activity.
Once a person has contributed to a wiki, then each individual group member can have
access to the wiki’s information. This is indicated by the symbols within the wiki in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Three cognitive systems (CS1 to CS3) and the social system wiki. The grey symbols represent novel
aspects of knowledge as a result of learning through externalization. CS1′ and CS3′ represent extended
cognitive systems correspondingly
110 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle

For the time being, this process of externalization does not require the interaction with other
people in a narrow sense. People can externalize their knowledge (and thereby extend their
own knowledge) without necessarily addressing other people in the first place. However,
with respect to the process of internalization, which will be described in the next section,
participation of other people is indispensable.
Internalization
Inter-individual knowledge transfer and collaborative knowledge building take place when
people have the opportunity to work with a wiki and to internalize the information available
in the wiki. So people have to process the information and integrate it into their individual
knowledge. Through this internalization people develop new knowledge, i.e. people use the
wiki’s information to expand their own knowledge. In Fig. 2 the results of such an
internalization process is indicated by the striped symbols. Through internalization a
cognitive system is expanded to CS”.
Besides this individual creation of knowledge resulting from the internalization of
information in a wiki, an additional kind of knowledge-creating process can occur: If
people internalize information from the wiki, knowledge can develop which was formerly
neither part of their personal knowledge nor part of the wiki. Such additional knowledge
development can happen if new knowledge that people have internalized from a wiki
interacts with their prior individual knowledge in a way that enables people to create new
Fig. 2 Process of internalization: Each of the three cognitive systems internalizes information (striped
symbols). CS3 additionally develops new knowledge (light-grey) through a process of inference from
internalized knowledge and prior knowledge. The occurrence of such knowledge shows an emergent process
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 111

knowledge, i.e. if people are able to infer new knowledge out of the knowledge they
internalized through the work with the wiki and the knowledge they had before. This
knowledge can be described as emergent knowledge. A person would not have been able to
create this knowledge if she or he had not been internalizing information from work with
the wiki. This emergent knowledge is a result of the collaboration and as such represents
collaborative knowledge building which is more than mere knowledge sharing. In
collaborative knowledge building something qualitatively new has developed. Emergent
knowledge has not been part of the individual’s knowledge before (for more elaborate detail
on the phenomenon of emergence cf. Holland 1998 or Johnson 2001). In Fig. 2 the
cognitive system 3 has developed such emergent knowledge.
Four processes of learning and knowledge building
The model so far has described different kinds of individual learning. Individual learning
occurs as a result of externalization (due to processes of deeper elaboration which are
activated by the externalization process). And individual learning occurs as a result of
internalization (due to the simple adding of new knowledge or due to the expansion of a
person’s individual knowledge through internalization and, arising from that, an opportunity
to interconnect old and new knowledge). All forms of learning take place when people
interact with the wiki in a way that knowledge and information are interchanged between the
individual’s cognitive system and the wiki. So, to refer back to Luhmann’s perspective,
learning occurs by the crossing of the border between the individual’s cognitive system and
the wiki. The processes of internalization and externalization cause these individual learning
processes. And processes of structural coupling and mutual irritation may enable the co-
evolution of the users’ knowledge and the wiki’s content.
To facilitate being able to describe the complex processes of this co-evolution it is
reasonable to make use of theories which describe cognitive processes of individual
learning. A prominent approach that describes how people deal with new information is
Piaget’s model of equilibration (Piaget 1970, 1977a and b). This model explains how
people take in new information from their environment, then how they perceive and encode
this information from outside and integrate it into their own knowledge. The equilibrium
theory describes the way people try to maintain a balance between the environmental
information on the one hand and their prior knowledge on the other hand. If information is
new and not in line with existing knowledge this incongruity causes a cognitive conflict.
When information cannot be promptly decoded and integrated into existing knowledge,
people have to adapt to this new environment (cf. also the taxonomy of responses in
anomalous data provided by Chinn and Brewer 1993, 1998). Piaget points out that such
cognitive conflicts can lead to new knowledge. There are two possibilities to solve a
cognitive conflict, i.e. two ways of adaptation: people can assimilate the new information or
they can accommodate their knowledge (in order to make it compatible with the
information). Assimilation describes a process where an individual understands new
information on the basis of existing knowledge and then integrates the information into
prior knowledge. This means that information coming from the environment is perceived
and modified in a way that makes it fit into the individual’s knowledge. Assimilation
describes predominantly a quantitative aspect of individual learning. An individual’s
knowledge remains pretty much the same and only additional pieces of information which
fit into this knowledge are added.
The other process of adaptation which Piaget describes is the process of accommodation.
Here, people interact with new information in a way that changes their knowledge. In this
112 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle

case, people do not simply assimilate new information into existing knowledge, but actually
change knowledge in order to better understand the environment and its information. In
contrast to the quantitative process of assimilation, we consider the creation of new
knowledge, in the process of accommodation, as an indicator of learning in a qualitative
manner.
We apply this distinction between assimilation and accommodation to our model of
people’s interaction with wikis. When interacting with the wiki, people can learn as a result
of externalization, or as a result of internalization (with or without inferences). This learning
can take place by assimilation or by accommodation respectively: people can extend their
knowledge by simply adding new information, or they can modify their prior knowledge
and create new knowledge.
For collaborative knowledge building with wikis, we state that accommodation and
assimilation do not only take place internally (in people’s cognitive systems) but also
externally (in the social system wiki). It is proposed that a wiki can be made to
accommodate or assimilate as well (Majchrzak et al. 2006) draw a similar distinction by
categorizing contributors to a wiki as “adders” and “synthesizers”). If information is
contributed to the wiki without being linked to previously existing information, the wiki is
only extended by the addition of some information. If information is contributed this way,
the wiki assimilates the new information, which means that the organization of the wiki
remains the same, only some information is added. Majchrzak et al. (2006), examining
users of a corporate wiki, found as well that the mere adding of information can be
observed very often. The authors report that this activity comprises either simply adding
content to existing pages or adding new pages.
Besides assimilating information the wiki can also accommodate. This happens when new
information is not only attached to the existing information, but the information in the wiki is
organized in a new way. Majchrzak et al. (2006) also report activities that correspond to
accommodation processes. With respect to the corporate wiki examined by the authors
these processes play an important role. Accommodation processes incorporate the
integration of ideas which have already been contributed, the reorganization of pages, or
the rewriting of complete paragraphs.
In sum, in collaborative knowledge building with wikis four different forms of learning
and knowledge building can be distinguished: Internal assimilation (quantitative individual
learning), internal accommodation (qualitative individual learning), external assimilation
(quantitative knowledge building), and external accommodation (qualitative knowledge
building). The first two are processes of individual learning; the latter two are processes of a
collaborative knowledge building with respect to the wiki. What is essential with respect to
these considerations is that this is a sample situation which helps us understand how
cognitive and social systems develop mutually. Luhmann labels this mutual development
“co-evolution”. This co-evolution of systems constitutes the foundation of collaborative
knowledge building.
In order to illustrate the external and internal processes of assimilation and
accommodation that are presented in the theoretical model, two articles from the English
language version of Wikipedia are applied as examples in the following section (the reader
can trace all the descriptions by visiting the articles’ history pages in Wikipedia3.
3 The current versions of the articles can be found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-supported_
collaborative_learning and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin respectively.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 113

Empirical evidence
The first example which is intended to illustrate the model is the article on “Computer-
supported collaborative learning”. The Wikipedia article on “AIDS origin” serves as
another example. The CSCL article is an article that with only a few contributions develops
rather slowly, while the article on AIDS origin is processed extensively. We have chosen
these different articles deliberately in order to show that the processes which we describe do
not depend on the speed of development.
According to Luhmann (1995) a social system operates via communication. In the case
of wikis this is text-based communication. With respect to Wikipedia the wiki community
establishes itself through interaction and collaboration which results in written encyclopedia
articles. The wiki articles comprise the information people share.
Example 1: “Computer-supported collaborative learning”
In the following text we provide concrete examples for the processes of assimilation and
accommodation in the wiki.
The Wikipedia article on CSCL was established by one user who knew that there is a
field called CSCL and decided to write an article on this topic. On the 28th of March 2006
this user created an article and contributed some information on the general goals and
purposes of CSCL. On the 29th of August 2006 another user read the provided information,
decided to act in response to this information, and contributed some external links she or he
considered useful in the context of CSCL and so on. This way, communicative processes
take place, and the CSCL article continues to develop out of provided information and
becomes more and more complete. The wiki develops autopoietically by operations
building on preceding operations.
The articles are traceable on the internet where they are accessible for all members of the
community. Each member can contribute to an article. On the one hand, she or he can
extend or diminish an article by adding or deleting information. On the other hand, a
participant can change the artifact’s structure by revising an article. In this sample article
both processes of assimilation as well as processes of accommodation can be found.
If we compare, for example, the first version on the 20th of February 2007 with the
preceding version we find that there was only an external link (the CSILE/Knowledge
Forum link) added. With regard to our presented model we describe this process as an
external assimilation. A user simply added a link without any further changes of the
previous text. It could be that the user knows more about CSILE and would be able to
describe in deeper detail how CSILE fits to CSCL and what significance CSILE has for the
development of CSCL, but she or he did not describe this explicitly. In the article’s history
we only see that this person first simply added the link and named it “CSILE (Computer-
supported intentional learning environment)/ Knowledge Forum”, then – a few minutes
later—she or he made a small extension and added “CSILE, the first CSCL environment,
and its second generation: Knowledge Forum”. Another reader of the article can interpret
this link on the basis of the existing article about CSCL. She or he learns that CSILE was
the first environment for CSCL. But this information does not change the information of the
article in a deeper way, it is only an amendment. So this represents an example for an
external assimilation.
However, information was not only simply attached to the existing information in the
CSCL article, but there is also evidence that information in the wiki was also organized in a
new way and major concepts were changed in their meaning. For example, this happened in
114 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle

the first version on the 8th of June 2007. On the left hand side of the following schema the
previous version can be seen, the right hand side presents the later version4. The sentences
have been numbered for reference purposes.
A1 “CSCL supports and facilitates group processes
and group dynamics in ways that are not
achievable by face-to-face, but they are not
designed to replace face-to-face
communication”
A2 “This type of learning is typically tailored for
use by multiple learners working at the same
workstation or across networked machines,
working synchronously or asynchronously”
B2 “CSCL is a major method for bringing the
benefits of collaboration and cooperative
learning to users of distance learning via
networked computers, such as the courses
offered via the Internet”
A3 “The purpose of CSCL is to scaffold or support
students in learning together effectively”
B3 “The purpose of CSCL is to scaffold or support
students in learning together effectively”
A4 “This system can support communicating ideas
and information, accessing information and
documents, and providing feedback on
problem-solving activities”
B4 “CSCL supports the communication of ideas
and information among learners, collaborative
accessing of information and documents, and
instructor and peer feedback on learning
activities”
B5 “CSCL also supports and facilitates group
processes and group dynamics in ways that are
not achievable by face-to-face communication
(such as having learners label aspects of their
communication)”
“…” “…”
B6 “Due to the surge of distance learning via the
Internet, including courses that employ CSCL,
it is important that educators and instructional
designers better understand the benefits and
limitations of CSCL”
A7 “CSCL is much more ambitious than previous
approaches of ICT-support in education”
B7 “Like many educational activities, …”
A8 “It is therefore more difficult to evaluate the
effectiveness and efficiency of CSCL
activities”
B8 “… it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness
and efficiency of CSCL activities”
A9 “Nonetheless, all actors involved in ‘e-
learning’, and more specifically in CSCL
processes,—from policy makers to everyday
practitioners—need to have evidence of
whether, how and when expected
improvements in learning take place”
B9 “Early efforts focused on suspected detrimental
effects of communication filtering of computer
mediated communication (CMC) and ignored
the potential benefits of CMC. Historically, the
lack of evidence that technological innovations
have improved learning in formal education
highlights the need for evidence of whether,
how and when expected improvements in
learning take place”
A10 “Significant effort is required to provide
systematic evaluation of innovative projects,
the specific experiences within an action/
research framework, the new CSCL systems
developed, and so on”
4 Typing errors in the original text were not corrected.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 115

The article was revised, the information was rearranged and reconfigured. A1 was moved
back to B5, B6 was inserted, and A10 was not accepted. The user emphasized novel aspects,
and novel relations became clear. For example A2 was changed in a way that in B2 CSCL is
described as aiming to support learners for distance learning and courses offered via internet.
In A2 this was much broader and CSCL was referred to “learners working at the same
workstation or across networked machines, working synchronously or asynchronously”. The
author revising the article introduced the aspect of distance learning also in B6. Whereas in
A7 it was said that “CSCL is much more ambitious than previous approaches of ICT-support
in education”, in B7 this is revised into “Like many educational activities…”. So in the
revised text CSCL is linked very explicitly to distance education, and brings the text to
another focus compared to the old text. So we can interpret this revision as an external
accommodation, where the orientation of the whole text has changed.
Example 2: “AIDS origin”
In the following text we provide further examples for the processes of equilibration in
Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article about AIDS origin deals with a very controversial topic
which led to many revisions, both in terms of assimilation as well as accommodation.
An example for assimilation is the addition of the Russian abbreviation on the 10th of
February 2007 (09:27; see footnote 4): “In Russian it got the name SPID (Sindrom
Priobretyonnoy Immunitetnoy Defitsitnosti).” On the 6th of May 2007 the Irish
abbreviation is added: “… and in Irish SEIF (Siondróm Easpa Imdhíonachta Faighte)”.
As an example for accommodation processes we describe how a contentious theory is
integrated into the article. It concerns the theory that blames the research into a polio
vaccine for the transition of the AIDS virus to human beings. First of all, the sentence that
describes this transition (“[The viruses] most likely got into humans via the hunting and
eating of the original primate species. A bite would be another possible route”) is changed
on the 3rd of March 2006: “Possible ways for this virus to have originally infected humans
include the hunting and eating of the original primate species; a bite would be another
possible route”. This relativized the possible explanation. Later an additional sentence is
amended (“From this point, the virus ultimately spread to the rest of the world”) which is
replaced on the 28th of November 2006 (16:07) by referring to the contentious polio
vaccine theory:
“A more controversial theory known as the OPV AIDS hypothesis suggests that the
AIDS epidemic was inadvertently started in the late 1950s in the Belgian Congo by
Hilary Koprowski’s research into a polio vaccine… After the initial transfer of AIDS
from primate to human, the virus ultimately spread to the rest of the world.”
What we can observe here is the reconsideration of this theory which had been
introduced before in the version from the 20th of February 2006:
“One currently controversial possibility for the origin of HIV/AIDS was discussed in a
1992 Rolling Stone magazine article by freelance journalist Tom Curtis. He put
forward the theory that AIDS was inadvertantly caused in the late 1950’s in the
Belgian Congo by Hilary Koprowski’s research into a polio vaccine. Although
subsequently retracted due to libe issues surrounding its claims, the Rolling Stone
article encouraged another freelance journalist, Edward Hooper, to travel to Africa for
7 years of research into this subject. Hooper’s research resulted in his publishing a
1999 book, The River, in which he alleged that an experimental oral polio vaccine
116 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle

prepared using chimpanzee kidney tissue was the route through which SIV mutated
into HIV and started the human AIDS epidemic, some time between 1957 to 1959.”
So this example represents a very elaborate form of accommodation where first a new
idea was brought in, then it was weakened and finally it was integrated into the text and the
theory received its position besides the other theories.
In Wikipedia such processes of accommodation and assimilation often occur. The
application of a history flow diagram could be a method which makes such activities visible
(Viégas et al. 2004). Such visualizations of Wikipedia articles show that sometimes only
new information is merely added to an existing article, and sometimes an article is
completely restructured.
Motivational processes in knowledge building
What motivates people to engage in this collective process of knowledge building? We
know from many scenarios where shared databases, forums, or blogs are used for
knowledge exchange that people often are reluctant to contribute their own knowledge
(Ardichvili et al. 2003; Huber 2001; Jian and Jeffres 2006) because of the costs of the
contribution: people have to write down information, they fear embarrassing themselves
through publishing information which might contain mistakes, or they may be afraid of
losing power if they share information which only they have (Cress et al. 2006). All these
problems are described in knowledge-exchange settings, where the main aim is to pool
information and to make it accessible (Cress and Hesse 2006; Cress and Kimmerle 2007a;
Kimmerle and Cress 2008). In knowledge-building scenarios like Wikipedia this seems to
be different. The success and quality of this encyclopedia shows that many people take part
in this collaborative process of knowledge building voluntarily and with plenty of effort and
enthusiasm. What motivates people to do this?
Following Piaget’s model of equilibration we propose that people engage in knowledge
building by contributing new information to wikis and by restructuring existing articles
because of cognitive conflicts5. Using Luhmann’s theory, this conflict can be described as
irritation. We propose that when people work with a wiki they have to see if their own
individual knowledge matches with the information the wiki provides. This matching
process can lead to different results: If people feel that the wiki’s information is congruent to
their individual knowledge then there is no need for equilibration and people do not
accommodate or assimilate, either internally nor externally. In contrast, if people feel that the
wiki’s information differs from their own knowledge, there is a need for equilibration, which
people can satisfy by processes of internal or external assimilation or accommodation.
If people realize that important aspects which are part of their knowledge are missing in
the wiki they will perhaps externalize these and add them to the wiki (external
assimilation). For example, the user who added the CSILE/Knowledge Forum link
probably found that the absence of this link was a shortcoming which had to be
compensated. If people find that the wiki’s information describes aspects which are not part
of their individual knowledge they will develop new knowledge by internal assimilation.
Probably, users who already knew where to find additional information about CSCL can
5 In this case this is a matter of a social-cognitive conflict since the incongruent information is provided by
other people. Socially mediated cognitive conflicts play an important role in approaches of collaborative
learning (e.g. Johnson & Johnson 1987). However, in order to present our ideas on a generic level we stick to
the term cognitive conflict.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 117

simply add CSILE/Knowledge Forum to their knowledge about potential sources of
information on CSCL.
If people find that their knowledge and the wiki’s information are basically incongruent
they will accommodate their knowledge (internal accommodation) or revise the wiki article
(external accommodation). With internal accommodation, for example, users who did not
consider CSCL to be an interdisciplinary field might modify their beliefs on CSCL
fundamentally when they read the Wikipedia version from the 23rd of August 2007. Here
they read what they did not know beforehand, that “CSCL cuts across research in
psychology, computer science, and education”. And there are also internalization processes
that allow for inferences. If a person who reads the corresponding Wikipedia article comes
to know that CSCL is an interdisciplinary field involving psychology amongst other
disciplines, and if this person previously knew that CSCL is interested in supporting
collaboration, then this person can draw conclusions with respect to how psychological
findings can be used for CSCL (e.g. how group majority influences can interfere with
collaborative learning and how these perturbing influences might be avoided). With
external accommodation a user can decide to revise the article as we have described it in the
previous section. The question is whether perceived incongruities lead to equilibration
processes in every case. A user who does not care about CSCL research at all would
probably not bother to deal with the subject.
Consequently, we propose that the motivation for the described activities of equilibration
is a function of two features: The size of the incongruity between the individual’s
knowledge and the wiki’s information on the one hand, and the valence which the topic has
for people on the other hand. With regard to the valence we propose a linear relation: the
higher people rate the valence of the topic, the higher the perceived cognitive conflict is and
the more interest (Krapp 1999) people feel. If a certain topic, such as CSCL research, has a
positive valence for people, then the probability raises that they will look into the subject
and contribute to its development (for a detailed discussion on the concept of valence cf.
Colombetti 2005).
Following Hunt (1965) we propose an inverted u-shaped relation between the
incongruity and the cognitive conflict with respect to the incongruity between individual
knowledge and the wiki’s information. This perspective is displayed in Fig. 3. If the
incongruity between the individual’s knowledge and the wiki’s information is very small,
there is no need for equilibration. For example, if a user’s knowledge about CSCL
Fig. 3 The inverted u-shaped
relation between cognitive con-
flict and incongruities between an
individual’s knowledge and the
wiki’s information. The figure
provides this relation for four
different levels of valence (v),
ranging from a low level to a high
level
118 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle

corresponds to the information in the Wikipedia article the user will neither learn anything
nor will she or he revise the article. If the incongruity is very large, the information in the
wiki and the individual’s knowledge will hardly be perceived as describing one and the
same topic. This situation will reduce the need for making both congruent. We propose that
only a medium-level incongruity causes a cognitive conflict which motivates people to
engage in one of the equilibration processes described above.
In this model the incongruity between people’s individual knowledge and the wiki’s
information is the motor of the system’s development. In a process of mutual development
people learn and enhance their individual knowledge and the wiki improves, becoming
more exhaustive and more and more complete. Thus, what can be observed here is a co-
evolutionary development of social and cognitive systems. This co-evolution of systems is
the foundation of collaborative knowledge-building processes. Through equilibration the
wiki tends to incorporate more and more knowledge from the users. Through external
assimilation the wiki consists of increasingly more information. Through external
accommodation processes it enables new understandings, allows for new emergent
knowledge, and, accordingly, facilitates collaborative knowledge building.
Conclusions
In this article we developed a model which helps us to better understand collaborative
knowledge building with wikis. For this purpose we combined Luhmann’s systems theory
with Piaget’s cognitive theory. Luhmann’s approach is very thorough with respect to social
systems, whereas Piaget’s theory primarily focuses on cognitive development. Consequently,
it was clearly necessary to examine whether the processes described by Piaget could be
translated into social systems in order to better understand collaborative knowledge building.
The model attempts to demonstrate the interplay of the social system wiki and
individuals’ cognitive systems. This consideration of the structural coupling of social and
cognitive systems illustrates collaborative knowledge building with artifacts and might be a
fertile approach for CSCL research.
Our next steps will comprise experimental tests of the model in various contexts in order
to further elaborate on this approach and to expand its empirical foundation. Examinations
in controlled settings will allow not only for describing external processes of equilibration
but also for analyzing indicators for internal processes of assimilation and accommodation.
We believe that this will help us to better understand the interplay of individual learning and
computer-supported collaborative knowledge building.
Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank Gerry Stahl and three anonymous reviewers for their
comments on an earlier version of this article. An earlier version of this paper appeared in the proceedings of
the 7th Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (Cress and Kimmerle 2007b).
References
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-
sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 64–77.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction
and collaboration. Distance Education, 27, 139–153.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 119

Blood, R. (2002). The weblog handbook: Practical advice on creating and maintaining your blog.
Cambridge: Perseus.
Bridsall, W. F. (2007). Web 2.0 as a social movement. Webology, 4(2).
Bruckman, A. (2006). Learning in online communities. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
the learning sciences (pp. 461–472). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment: The M/Cyclopedia project. WikiSym
2005—Conference Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, pp. 25–32.
Bryant, T. (2006). Social software in academia. Educause Quarterly, 29, 61–64.
Ceballos, M.-R., & Gorricho, J.-L. (2006). P2P file sharing analysis for a better performance. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Software Engineering, 2006, 941–944.
Chau, M., & Xu, J. (2007). Mining communities and their relationships in blogs: A study of online hate
groups. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 65, 57–70.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical
framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.
Chong, N. S. T., & Yamamoto, M. (2006). Collaborative learning using Wiki and flexnetdiscuss: A pilot
study. Proceedings of the Fifth IASTED International Conference on Web-based Education 2006,
pp. 150–154.
Colombetti, G. (2005). Appraising valence. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, 103–126.
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal
Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Cress, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). The social complexity in establishing and sharing information resources. In
J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Research and Theory
(pp. 67–87). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2007a). Guidelines and feedback in information exchange: Behavioral anchors and
descriptive norms in a social dilemma. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 42–53.
Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2007b). A theoretical framework for collaborative knowledge building with
wikis: A systemic and cognitive perspective. In Proceedings of the 7th Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning Conference (pp. 153–161). New Brunswick: International Society of the
Learning Sciences, Inc.
Cress, U., Kimmerle, J., &Hesse, F.W. (2006). Information exchange with shared databases as a social dilemma:
The effect of metaknowledge, bonus systems, and costs. Communication Research, 33, 370–390.
Désilets, A., Paquet, S., & Vinson, N. G. (2005). Are wikis usable? WikiSym 2005—Conference
Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, pp. 3–15.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College
Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.
Fuchs-Kittowski, F., & Köhler, A. (2005). Wiki communities in the context of work processes. WikiSym
2005—Conference Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis 2005, pp. 33–39.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning
sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-created collaborative
activities in higher education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 265–279.
Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes.
Educational Psychology Review, 10, 75–96.
Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence from chaos to order. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.
Huber, G. P. (2001). Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: Unexplored issues and
suggested studies. European Journal of Information Systems, 10, 72–79.
Hunt, J. McV. (1965). Intrinsic motivation and its role in psychological development. In D. Levine (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium of Motivation (pp. 189–282). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Jian, G., & Jeffres, L. W. (2006). Understanding employees’ willingness to contribute to shared electronic
databases: A three-dimensional framework. Communication Research, 33(4), 242–261.
Johnson, S. B. (2001). Emergence. The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software. Allen Lane:
The Penguin.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Creative conflict. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Joyce, J. (2005). Wiki wiki. Scientific Computing and Instrumentation, 22.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning
sciences (pp. 35–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the Design Principles Database. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 187–201.
120 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle

Kesim, E., & Agaoglu, E. (2007). A paradigm shift in distance education: Web 2.0 and social software.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8, 66–75.
Kim, S.-H., Han, H.-S., & Han, S. (2006). The study on effective programming learning using wiki
community systems. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 3(8), 1495–1500.
Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information
exchange. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (in press). DOI
10.1007/s11412-007-9027-z.
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology
Review, 11, 203–270.
Köhler, A., & Fuchs-Kittowski, F. (2005). Integration of communities into process-oriented structures.
Journal of Universal Computer Science, 11, 410–425.
Kolbitsch, J., & Maurer, H. (2006). The transformation of the web: How emerging communities shape the
information we consume. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 12(2), 187–213.
Korfiatis, N. T., Poulos, M., & Bokos, G. (2006). Evaluating authoritative sources using social networks: An
insight from Wikipedia. Online Information Review, 30, 252–262.
Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(1), 23–40.
Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & Van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge
building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 57–87.
Leuf, B., & Cunningham,W. (2001). The wiki way. Quick collaboration on the web. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Lih, A. (2004). Wikipedia as participatory journalism: Reliable sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative
media as a news resource. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Online Journalism.
Lin, S.-C., Chen, Y.-C., & Yu, C.-Y. (2006). Application of wiki collaboration system for value adding and
knowledge aggregation in a digital archive project. Journal of Educational Media and Library Science,
43, 285–307.
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. Van der Zouwen (Eds.),
Sociocybernetic paradoxes (pp. 172–192). London: Sage.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York and Oxford: Columbia University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006) Corporate wiki users: Results of a survey. Proceedings of
WikiSym‘06—2006 International Symposium on Wikis 2006, pp. 99–104.
Makice, K. (2006). PoliticWiki: Exploring communal politics. Proceedings of WikiSym‘06—2006
International Symposium on Wikis 2006, pp. 105–118.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dodrecht: Reidel.
Maurer, H., & Tochtermann, K. (2002). On a new powerful model for knowledge management and its
applications. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 8(1), 85–96.
Moore, T. D., & Serva, M. A. (2007). Understanding member motivation for contributing to different types of
virtual communities: A proposed framework. Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMIS Computer Personnel
Research Conference: The Global Information Technology Workforce, SIGMIS-CPR 2007, 153–158.
Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 9, 34–41.
Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the
Human–Computer Interface (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: University Press.
Notari, M. (2006). How to use a Wiki in education: Wiki based effective constructive learning. Proceedings
of WikiSym‘06—2006 International Symposium on Wikis 2006, pp. 131–132.
Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Yamamoto, T., et al. (2006). Knowledge-
building activity structures in Japanese elementary science pedagogy. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 229–246.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism versus technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 24–28.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic
Books.
Papert, S. (1997). Tinkering towards utopia: A century of public school reform. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 6(4), 417–427.
Pentzold, C., & Seidenglanz, S. (2006). Foucault@Wiki: First steps towards a conceptual framework for the
analysis of wiki discourses. Proceedings of WikiSym‘06—2006 International Symposium on Wikis 2006,
pp. 59–68.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (pp. 703–
732). New York: Wiley.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 121

Piaget, J. (1977a). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: The Viking
Press.
Piaget, J. (1977b). Problems of equilibration. In M. H. Appel & L. S. Goldberg (Eds.), Topics in cognitive
development, Vol. 1 (pp. 3–14). New York: Plenum.
Raitman, R., Augar, N., & Zhou, W. (2005). Employing wikis for online collaboration in the e-learning
environment: Case study. Proceedings—3rd International Conference on Information Technology and
Applications, ICITA 2005 II, art. no. 1488944, pp. 142–146.
Ras, E., Avram, G., Waterson, P., & Weibelzahl, S. (2005). Using weblogs for knowledge sharing and
learning in information spaces. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 11, 394–409.
Reinhold, S. (2006). Wikitrails: Augmenting Wiki structure for collaborative, interdisciplinary learning.
Proceedings of WikiSym‘06—2006 International Symposium on Wikis 2006, pp. 47–57.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, procasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin.
Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 89–115.
Rodriguez, P., Tan, S.-M., & Gkantsidis, C. (2005). On the feasibility of commercial, legal P2P content
distribution. Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International Workshop on Web Content Caching and
Distribution. Sophia Antipolis, France.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith
(Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Student communities for the advancement of knowledge.
Communications of the ACM, 39, 36–37.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Education (pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan.
Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL
2002 (pp. 62–71). USA: Boulder.
Sweetser, K. D., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a relationship
management tool. Public Relations Review, 33, 340–342.
Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and business: A pointer to the intranets of the future? Business Information
Review, 23, 228–234.
Varela, F. J., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its
characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5, 187–196.
Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with
history flow visualizations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 575–582). Vienna, Austria.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An Outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of
Science, 1, 139–164.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York:
George Braziller.
Wagner, C. (2006). Breaking the knowledge acquisition bottleneck through conversational knowledge
management. Information Resources Management Journal, 19, 70–83.
Wagner, C., & Bolloju, N. (2005). Supporting knowledge management in organizations with conversational
technologies: Discussion forums, weblogs, and wikis. Journal of Database Management, 16, i–viii.
Wagner, C., & Majchrzak, A. (2007). Enabling customer-centricity using wikis and the wiki way. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 23, 17–43.
Wang, C.-M., & Turner, D. (2005). Extending the wiki paradigm for use in the classroom. International
Conference on Information Technology: Coding Computing, ITCC, 1, 255–259.
Ward, R. (2006). Blogs and wikis: A personal journey. Business Information Review, 23, 235–240.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining knowledge contribution in networks of
practice. MIS Quarterly, 29, 35–58.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 52
(3), 421–445.
Wilson, B., & Lowry, M. (2001). Constructivist learning on the web. In E. J. Burge (Ed.), The strategic use
of learning technologies (pp. 79–88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 203–228.
122 U. Cress, J. Kimmerle