Advertisement

How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving

  • Tanja Engelmann
  • Friedrich W. Hesse
Article
First Online:

Abstract

For collaboration in learning situations, it is important to know what the collaborators know. However, developing such knowledge is difficult, especially for newly formed groups participating in a computer-supported collaboration. The solution for this problem described in this paper is to provide to group members access to the knowledge structures and the information resources of their collaboration partners in the form of digital concept maps. In an empirical study, 20 triads having access to such maps and 20 triads collaborating without such maps are compared regarding their group performance in problem-solving tasks. Results showed that the triads being provided with such concept maps acquired more knowledge about the others’ knowledge structures and information, focused while collaborating mainly on problem-relevant information, and therefore, solved the problems faster and more often correctly, compared to triads with no access to their collaborators’ maps.

Keywords

Computer-supported collaboration Computer-supported collaborative problem solving Group awareness Knowledge and information awareness 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research project was supported by the Knowledge Media Research Center in Tuebingen (Germany). The first author is supported by the European Social Fund and by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts Baden-Württemberg (Germany). We especially thank Prof. Dr. John Coffey of the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (USA), as well as the Media Development Group of the Knowledge Media Research Center for their technical assistance.

References

  1. Bortz, J. (1999). Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, H., & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, R. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2007). Fostering audience design of computer-mediated knowledge communication by knowledge mirroring. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (pp. 168–170). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Engelmann, T., Tergan, S.-O., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). Evoking knowledge and information awareness for enhancing computer-supported collaborative problem solving. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 1–20.Google Scholar
  7. Fjermestad, J. (2004). An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decision Support Systems, 37(2), 239–263.Google Scholar
  8. Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1989a). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1989b). Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1991). Accuracy and bias in estimates of others’ knowledge. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross, T., Stary, C., & Totter, A. (2005). User-centered awareness in computer-supported cooperative work-systems: Structured embedding of findings from social sciences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 323–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49, 1037–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keller, T., & Tergan, S.-O. (2005). Visualizing knowledge and information: An introduction. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization—Searching for synergies (pp. 1–23). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Keysar, B., Ginzel, L. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (1995). States of affairs and states of mind: The effects of knowledge of beliefs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9, 2–24.Google Scholar
  18. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pierce, C. A., Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 916–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism. A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  25. Tergan, S.-O. (2005). Digital concept maps for managing knowledge and information. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization. Searching for synergies (pp. 173–191). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Tergan, S.-O., Keller, T., & Burkhard, R. (2006). Integrating knowledge and information: Digital concept maps as a bridging technology. Information Visualization, 5(3), 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behaviour (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13(3), 319–339.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knowledge Media Research CenterTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options