Coercing knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments

Multidisciplinary teams are often employed to solve complex problems, but research has shown that using such teams does not guarantee arriving at good solutions. Good team-solutions require team members possessing a good degree of common ground. In this contribution an ICT-tool based upon making individual perspectives explicit to other team members is studied. Two versions of the tool that differed in the extent to which users were coerced to adhere to embedded support principles were used, in both a laboratory and a secondary professional education setting. Coercion, as expected, increased negotiation of common ground in both settings. However, results were contradictory with regard the amount of common ground achieved. Overall, it can be concluded that NTool and its underlying framework affect negotiation of common ground, and that adding some coercion increases this effect. However, one should be careful with the specific task and audience before implementing NTool.

[1]  R. Bromme 6. Beyond One's Own Perspective: The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity , 2000 .

[2]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[3]  Alan M. Lesgold,et al.  Computational analysis of knowledge sharing in collaborative distance learning , 2002 .

[4]  Ingrid Mulder,et al.  Assessing group learning and shared understanding in technology-mediated interaction , 2002, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[5]  F. Fischer,et al.  Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools , 2002 .

[6]  D. Roger,et al.  Conversational Exchange Analysis , 1982 .

[7]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 1997 .

[8]  Erik R. Larsen,et al.  Adaptive Learning in Organizations: A System Dynamics-Based Exploration , 1997 .

[9]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[10]  A. N. Leont’ev The Problem of Activity in Psychology , 1974 .

[11]  R. Tamblyn,et al.  Problem-based learning : an approach to medical education , 1980 .

[12]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design , 2002 .

[13]  Colin Eden,et al.  Strategic options development and analysis : the principles , 2001 .

[14]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. , 1998, Annual review of psychology.

[15]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Support for the sense-making activity of managers , 2001, Decis. Support Syst..

[16]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Supporting the evolution of design artifacts with representations of context and intent , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.

[17]  Brigid Barron When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[18]  J. Walsh Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane , 1995 .

[19]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Contributing to Discourse , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  Simon Peck,et al.  Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics , 1996, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[21]  D. Perkins,et al.  Individual and Social Aspects of Learning , 1998 .

[22]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[23]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Towards a Systematic Study of Representational Guidance for Collaborative Learing Discourse , 2001, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[24]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[25]  Nikolaos M. Avouris,et al.  On analysis of collaborative problem solving: an object-oriented approach , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..