Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Collaboration Engineering to Mitigate Low Participation, Distraction, and Learning Inefficiency to Support Collaborative Learning in Industry

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is widely adopted in industry learning, but it still faces challenges, including low participation, distraction, and learning inefficiency. In our study, we follow the design science research method to develop artifacts (a process and discussion platform) to address these CSCL challenges. Collaboration engineering was used as our design theory. A Discussion Platform was designed as a tool to help non-expert practitioner instruct collaborative learning process. We carried out evaluations on the two designed artifacts through 81 managers working in various industries through a mixed-method approach, including survey and qualitative interviews. We find that our designed artifacts receive high satisfaction in industry CSCL and reduce problems of low participation, distraction, and learning inefficiency. We identified several factors that contribute to the problem solving of low participation, distraction and inefficiency in industry CSCL, including usability, expression affordance, process guidance, goal clarity, flexibility affordance, thinkLet instruction, and flow experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann F (1996) Participants’ perceptions on the role of facilitators using group decision support systems. Group Decis Negot 5(1):93–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M, Wheeler BC, Valacich JS (1995) Using IT to reengineer business education: an exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Q 19(3):293–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnott D (2006) Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Inf Syst J 16(1):55–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramanian N, Lieberman MB (2010) Industry learning environments and the heterogeneity of firm performance. Strateg Manag J 31(4):390–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts M, Corno L (2005) Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Appl Psychol 54(2):199–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs RO, De Vreede GJ, Nunamaker JF Jr (2003) Collaboration engineering with ThinkLets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):31–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs RO, Reinig BA, de Vreede GJ (2008) The yield shift theory of satisfaction and its application to the IS/IT domain. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(5):267–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs RO, Kolfschoten GL, de Vreede GJ, Lukosch S, Albrecht CC (2013) Facilitator-in-a-box: process support applications to help practitioners realize the potential of collaboration technology. J Manag Inf Syst 29(4):159–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson N, Mobolurin A (1997) An action learning evaluation procedure for multiple criteria decision making problems. Eur J Oper Res 96(2):379–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang CC, Liang C, Chou PN, Lin GY (2017) Is game-based learning better in flow experience and various types of cognitive load than non-game-based learning?: Perspective from multimedia and media richness. Comput Hum Behav 71:218–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng X, Nolan T, Macaulay L (2013) Don’t give up the community: a viewpoint of trust development in online collaboration. Inf Technol People 26(3):298–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng X, Fu S, Druckenmiller D (2016a) Trust development in globally distributed collaboration: a case of US and Chinese mixed teams. J Manag Inf Syst 33(4):978–1007

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng X, Li Y, Sun J, Huang J (2016b) Application of a novel collaboration engineering method for learning design: a case study. Br J Educ Technol 47(4):803–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison RM, Briggs RO (2000) GSS for presentation support. Commun ACM 43(9):91–97

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vreede GJ (2014) Two case studies of achieving repeatable team performance through collaboration engineering. MIS Q Exec 13(2):115–129

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vreede GJ, Briggs RO (2019) A program of collaboration engineering research and practice: contributions, insights, and future directions. J Manag Inf Syst 36(1):74–119

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vreede GJ, Briggs RO, Massey AP (2009) Collaboration engineering: foundations and opportunities: editorial to the special issue on the journal of the association of information systems. J Assoc Inf Syst 10(3):121–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2013) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S, Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q 37(2):337–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith TL, Fuller MA, Northcraft GB (1998) Facilitator influence in group support systems: intended and unintended effects. Inf Syst Res 9(1):20–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas MR, Criscuolo P, George G (2015) Which problems to solve? Online knowledge sharing and attention allocation in organizations. Acad Manag J 58(3):680–711

    Google Scholar 

  • He W, Yang L (2016) Using wikis in team collaboration: a media capability perspective. Inf Manag 53(7):846–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner A, March S, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang TC, Huang YM, Yu FY (2011) Cooperative weblog learning in higher education: its facilitating effects on social interaction, time lag, and cognitive load. Educ Technol Soc 14(1):95–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Isohätälä J, Järvenoja H, Järvelä S (2017) Socially shared regulation of learning and participation in social interaction in collaborative learning. Int J Educ Res 81:11–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä S, Järvenoja H, Malmberg J, Isohätälä J, Sobocinski M (2016) How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learn Instr 43:39–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner PA, Kreijns K, Phielix C, Fransen J (2015) Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. J Comput Assist Learn 31(1):59–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, De Vreede GJ (2009) A design approach for collaboration processes: a multimethod design science study in collaboration engineering. J Manag Inf Syst 26(1):225–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, Briggs RO, De Vreede GJ, Jacobs PH, Appelman JH (2006) A conceptual foundation of the thinkLet concept for collaboration engineering. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(7):611–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten G, Lukosch S, Verbraeck A, Valentin E, de Vreede GJ (2010) Cognitive learning efficiency through the use of design patterns in teaching. Comput Educ 54(3):652–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, Niederman F, Briggs RO, de Vreede GJ (2012) Facilitation roles and responsibilities for sustained collaboration support in organizations. J Manag Inf Syst 28(2):129–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Larusson J, Alterman R (2009) Wikis to support the ‘‘collaborative’’ part of collaborative learning. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 4(4):371–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler U (2013) Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Acad Manag J 56(6):1830

    Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak A, Beath CM, Lim RA, Chin WW (2005) Managing client dialogues during information systems design to facilitate client learning. MIS Q 29(4):653–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg J, Järvelä S, Järvenoja H, Panadero E (2015) Promoting socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: progress of socially shared regulation among high-and low-performing groups. Comput Hum Behav 52:562–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcos-García JA, Martínez-Monés A, Dimitriadis Y (2015) DESPRO: a method based on roles to provide collaboration analysis support adapted to the participants in CSCL situations. Comput Educ 82:335–353

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadzean E, McKenzie J (2001) Facilitating virtual learning groups: a practical approach. J Manag Dev 20(6):470–494

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren BM, van Gog T, Ganoe C, Karabinos M, Yaron D (2016) The efficiency of worked examples compared to erroneous examples, tutored problem solving, and problem solving in computer-based learning environments. Comput Hum Behav 55:87–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller M, Hadwin A (2015) Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Comput Hum Behav 52:573–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelmeier J, Rienties B, Tempelaar D, Hillaire G, Whitelock D (2018) The influence of internationalised versus local content on online intercultural collaboration in groups: a randomised control trial study in a statistics course. Comput Educ 118:82–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi O, Weinberger A, Biemans HJ, Mulder M, Chizari M (2013) Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Comput Educ 61:59–76

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley C, Scanlon E (1990) Computer-supported collaborative learning: problem solving and distance education. Comput Educ 15(1–3):127–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Phielix C, Prins FJ, Kirschner PA, Erkens G, Jaspers J (2011) Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Comput Hum Behav 27(3):1087–1102

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto LP, Tchounikine P, Asensio-Pérez JI, Sobreira P, Dimitriadis Y (2014) Exploring teachers’ perceptions on different CSCL script editing tools. Comput Educ 78:383–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinsen F, Volman ML, Terwel J (2007) The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. Br J Educ Technol 38(6):1037–1055

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinig BA, de Vreede GJ, Briggs RO (2017) An investigation of the yield shift theory of satisfaction using field data from the United States and the Netherlands. Group Decis Negot 26(5):973–996

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangin M, Molinari G, Nüssli MA, Dillenbourg P (2011) Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Comput Hum Behav 27(3):1059–1067

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Vijande ML, López-Sánchez JÁ, Trespalacios JA (2012) How organizational learning affects a firm’s flexibility, competitive strategy, and performance. J Bus Res 65(8):1079–1089

    Google Scholar 

  • Shorfuzzaman M, Alelaiwi A, Masud M, Hassan MM, Hossain MS (2015) Usability of a cloud-based collaborative learning framework to improve learners’ experience. Comput Hum Behav 51:967–976

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel O, Abbassi P, Zylka MP, Schlagwein D, Fischbach K, Schoder D (2016) Business model development, founders’ social capital and the success of early stage internet start-ups: a mixed-method study. Inf Syst J 26(5):421–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä P, Häkkinen P (2005) E-learning at work: theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical challenges. J Workplace Learn 17(5/6):318–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H (2013) Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q 37(1):21–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Wecker C, Fischer F (2014) Where is the evidence?: a meta-analysis on the role of argumentation for the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput Educ 75:218–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne PH (2015) What is the state of the art in self-, co-and socially shared regulation in CSCL? Comput Hum Behav 52:628–631

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu J (2015) Investigating factors that influence conventional distraction and tech-related distraction in math homework. Comput Educ 81:304–314

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71571045), Fund for building world class universities (disciplines) of Renmin University of China (No. KYGJD2020001), BISU 2020 Research Sailing Project for New Faculty (No. 21110012001) and BISU 2020 Top Youth Academic Team Project for providing funding for part of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China

    Xusen Cheng

  2. School of Tourism Science, Beijing International Studies University, No. 1 Dingfuzhuangnanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100024, China

    Shixuan Fu

  3. Research Center of Beijing Tourism Development, Beijing, 100024, China

    Shixuan Fu

  4. Muma College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, 33620, USA

    Gert-Jan de Vreede

  5. School of Information Technology and Management, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, 100029, China

    Yuanyuan Li

Authors
  1. Xusen Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shixuan Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gert-Jan de Vreede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuanyuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shixuan Fu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, X., Fu, S., de Vreede, GJ. et al. Using Collaboration Engineering to Mitigate Low Participation, Distraction, and Learning Inefficiency to Support Collaborative Learning in Industry. Group Decis Negot 30, 171–190 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09711-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09711-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation