Abstract
This paper seeks to contribute new insight to the process of learning during idea generation (i.e., brainstorming) by proposing and evaluating two alternative operationalizations for learning, which we refer to as connection-based learning and multi-perspective learning, during a carefully designed idea-generation task in the earth-sciences domain. Specifically, this paper presents two controlled experiments. In the first study we manipulate two independent factors, first whether students work individually or in pairs, and second whether students work with the VIBRANT agent or not. The second study includes one additional hybrid agent condition motivated by results from the first study as well as other enhancements to the VIBRANT agent’s discussion-analysis technology. Our finding is that while brainstorming in pairs leads to short-term process losses in terms of idea-generation productivity, with a corresponding reduction in connection-based learning, it produces a gain in multi-perspective learning. Furthermore, automatically generated feedback from VIBRANT improves connection-based learning. In the second study, support from an enhanced version of VIBRANT showed evidence of mitigating the process losses that were associated with reduced learning in the pairs condition of the first study.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For the automatic analysis we used a publicly available verbal analysis toolset called TagHelper tools, available at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cprose/TagHelper.html.
References
Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications, Sixth edition. NY: Worth.
Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 208–212.
Chang, C., & Weng, Y. (2002). An exploratory study on students’ problem-solving ability in earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 441–451.
Chang, C., Barufaldi, J. P., Lin, M., & Chen, Y. (2007). Assessing tenth-grade students’ problem solving ability in the area of Earth sciences. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1971–1981.
Chi, M. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–488.
Connolly, T. (1993). Behavioral decision theory and group support systems. In L. Jessup & J. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems (pp. 270–280). NY: Macmillan.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.
Donmez, P., Rose, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with Automatic Corpus Analysis Technology, Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.
Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 722–735.
Dutoit, A. H. (1996). The role of communication in team-based software engineering projects, PhD Thesis, Computer and Electrical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22–30.
Graesser, A. C., Person, N., Harter, D., & TRG. (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in AutoTutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(3).
Gustafson, K., & Bennett, W. (1999). Issues and difficulties in promoting learner reflection: Results from a three-year study. www: http://it.coe.uga.edu/~kgustafs/document/promoting.html.
Gweon, G., Rosé, C. P., Carey, R., & Zaiss, Z. S. (2006). Providing support for adaptive scripting in an on-line collaborative learning environment. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2006).
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: are N+1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517–539.
Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 21–46.
Kraut, R. E. (2003). Applyling social psychological theory to the problems of group work. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Theories in human-computer interaction (pp. 325–356). New York: Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers.
Kumar, R., Beuth, J., & Rosé, C. P. (2011). Conversational strategies that support idea generation productivity in groups. In: Proceedings of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
Mayfield, E., & Rosé, C. P. (2011). Recognizing authority in dialogue with an integer linear programming constrained model. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 186–213.
NIST (2002). The economic impact of inadequate infrastructure for software testing, RTI, Research Triangle Park for the National Institute of Standards & Technology, Report 02–03, May 2002.
Piaget, J. (1985). Equilibration of cognitive structures. University of Chicago Press.
Popescu, O., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2003). A knowledge based approach to understanding students explanations. Proceedings of the AI in Education Workshop on Tutorial Dialogue Systems: With a view towards the classroom. IOS Press.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134.
Renkl, A. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning & Instruction, 12, 529–556.
Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y. C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., et al. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 237–271.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241–271.
Wang, H., & Rosé, C. P. (2007). A Process Analysis of Idea Generation and Failure. Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
Wang, H., Li, T., Huang, C., Chang, C., & Rosé, C. P. (2006). VIBRANT: A brainstorming agent for computer supported creative problem solving. Proceedings of the Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference (ITS 2006).
Wang, H. C., Kumar, R., Rose, C. P., Li, T., & Chang, C. (2007). A Hybrid Ontology Directed Feedback Generation Algorithm for Supporting Creative Problem Solving Dialogues, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Education, 46(1), 71–95.
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by NSF grants HCC-0803482, DRL-0835426, and SBE 0836012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, HC., Rosé, C.P. & Chang, CY. Agent-based dynamic support for learning from collaborative brainstorming in scientific inquiry. Computer Supported Learning 6, 371–395 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9124-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9124-x