Skip to main content

Text signals influence team artifacts

Educational Technology Research and Development volume 63, pages 35–52 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

This exploratory quasi-experimental investigation describes the influence of text signals on team visual map artifacts. In two course sections, four-member teams were given one of two print-based text passage versions on the course-related topic “Social influence in groups” downloaded from Wikipedia; this text had two paragraphs, each with a prominent heading. Teams in one section (10 teams, 40 participants) were given the version that included the original hyperlinks (HTS) displayed as underlining, while teams in the other section (nine teams, 36 participants) were given an alternate version with the hyperlinks removed but with the same number of important text topics underlined (TTS). Participants worked during class time to create team visual maps of this passage using large sheets of newsprint. Both headings and text topic terms predominated in the TTS team maps, but only hyperlink terms and not headings predominated in the HTS team maps. The team visual map forms, as measured by vector pattern matching and by graph centrality, were also significantly different. Relative to the HTS team maps, on average the TTS team map forms were more complex and more like the expert’s map, while the HTS team map forms were more linear, showing a primacy effect. Further, the HTS team maps were substantially more alike. These results indicate that text signals in these print-based readings strongly influenced team collaboration artifacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Bai, L. (2013). Parallel-pattern versus linear-pattern discussion online collaborations. In A master’s thesis in instructional systems. Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/17658/.

  • Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cauchard, F., Eyrolle, H., Cellier, J.-M., & Hyönä, J. (2010). Vertical perceptual span and the processing of visual signals in reading. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 40–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, E. H., Gumbrecht, M., & Hong, L. (2007). Visual foraging of highlighted text: An eye-tracking study. In J. Jacko (Ed.), Human-computer interaction, Part III (pp. 589–598). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, R. B. (2010). Deriving individual and group knowledge structure from network diagrams and from essays. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 117–130). New York, NY: Springer.

  • Clariana, R. B., Draper, D., & Land, S. M. (2011). An automated measure of group knowledge structure convergence. A presentation at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology, November. Jacksonville, FL: AECT. Retrieved from http://www.personal.psu.edu/rbc4/AECT_2011.pdf

  • Clariana, R. B., Engelmann, T., & Yu, W. (2013). Using centrality of concept maps as a measure of problem space states in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 423–442. 

  • Curşeu, P. L., Schalk, M. J. D., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). The use of cognitive mapping in eliciting and evaluating group cognitions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1258–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooling, D. J., & Lachman, R. (1971). Effects of comprehension on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 216–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooling, D. J., & Mullet, R. L. (1973). Locus of thematic effects in retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 404–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dynarski, M., Honey, M., & Levin, D. (2002). Designing a study of the effectiveness of education technology: Background material for the first meeting of the Technical Writing Group. U.S. Department of Education, Nov, 2002. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/background.pdf.

  • Engelmann, T., Kozlov, M. D., Kolodziej, R., & Clariana, R. B. (2014). Fostering group norm development and orientation while creating awareness contents for improving net-based collaborative problem solving, Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 298–306.

  • Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5, 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external knowledge representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 405–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbis, C., & Artman, H. (1998). Team communication and coordination as distributed cognition. In: Coop Third International Conference on the design of cooperative systems, Cannes, France. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:479674/FTTSLTEXT01.Pdf.

  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Cognitive processes and mechanisms in language comprehension: The structure building framework. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 217–263). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 340–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijlers, H., Saab, H. N., Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 25, 252–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 427–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, C. H. (1940). An evaluation of certain popular science misconceptions. Science Education, 24(4), 208–213. doi:10.1002/sce.3730240409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and Training, 48, 127–142. doi:10.1108/00400910610651764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 307–331. doi:10.1080/10508400701413401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., Jr, & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1985). The technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text (Vol. 2). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M. (2013). Concept mapping and the fundamental problem of moving between knowledge structures. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 4, 96–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42, 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., & Siegel, J. (2003). Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 13–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. R., Jr, Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). The discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemarié, J., Lorch, R. F., & Péry-Woodley, M.-P. (2012). Understanding how headings influence text processing, Discours, 10. http://discours.revues.org/8600.

  • Lorch, R. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Inman, W. E. (1993). Effects of signaling topic structure on text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Matthews, P. D. (1985). On-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 350–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 54–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of the top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Ray, M. N., & Middlemiss, W. (2012). Children’s use of comparative text signals: The relationship between age and comprehension ability. Discours [En ligne]. http://discours.revues.org/8637.

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, M. N., & Meyer, B. J. F. (2011). Individual differences in children’s knowledge of expository text structures: A review of literature. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. C., & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science, 29, 1045–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007). The art of conversation is coordination: Common ground and the coupling of eye movements during dialogue. Psychological Science, 18, 407–413. http://www.eyethink.org/resources/lab_papers/Richardson2007_The_Art_of_Con.pdf.

  • Rickards, J. P., Fajen, B. R., Sullivan, J. F., & Gillespie, G. (1997). Signaling, notetaking, and field independence-dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 508–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2013). Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E., & Swinney, D. (1992). The role of schemas in reading text: A teal-time examination. Discourse Processes, 15, 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulin, R. A., & Dooling, D. J. (1974). Intrusion of a thematic idea in retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103(2), 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taricani, E. M., & Clariana, R. B. (2006). A technique for automatically scoring open-ended concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 61–78.

  • Thompson, B. (1999). Common methodology mistakes in educational research, revisited, along with a primer on both effect sizes and the bootstrap. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED429110.

  • Tinsley, H. E. A., & Brown, S. D. (2000). Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (Eds.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Rayner, K. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1011–1021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worchel, S., Coutant-Sassic, D., & Grossman, M. (1992). A developmental approach to group dynamics: A model and illustrative research. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 181–202). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R. S. (1988). Social memory and social judgment. In Paul. R. Solomon, et al. (Eds.), Perspectives on memory research. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Roy B. Clariana, Monica D. Rysavy & Ellen Taricani

Authors
  1. Roy B. Clariana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monica D. Rysavy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ellen Taricani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roy B. Clariana.

Appendices

Appendix

The Wikipedia text passage with the hyperlinked terms shown within brackets and the text topic terms shown with underlines.

Social influence in groups

Work relevant to social influence in groups has a long history. Two early examples of social psychological research have been particularly influential. The first of these was by [Muzafer Sherif] in 1935 using the [autokinetic effect]. Sherif asked participants to voice their judgments of light movement in the presence of others and noted that these judgments tended to converge. The second of these was a series of studies by [Solomon Asch], in which naive participants were asked to voice their judgments of the similarity of the length of lines after hearing the “judgments” of several [confederates] (research assistants posing as participants) who purposely voiced the same obviously wrong judgment. On about 1/3 of the cases, participants voiced the obviously wrong judgment. When asked why, many of these participants reported that they had originally made the correct judgment but after hearing the partners, decided the judgments of several others (the partners) should be trusted over theirs. As a consequence of these and other studies, social psychologists have come to distinguish between two types of social influence; informational and [normative] (see [conformity]). Informational influence occurs when group members are persuaded by the content of what they read or hear to accept an opinion; Sherif’s study appears to be an example. Normative influence occurs when group members are persuaded by the knowledge that a majority of group members have a view. Normative influence should not be confused with compliance, which occurs when group members are not persuaded but voice the opinions of the group majority. Although some of the participants in the Asch studies who conformed admitted that they had complied, the ones mentioned above who believed the majority to be correct are best considered to have been persuaded through normative influence.

Group decisions

By the end of the 1950s, studies such as Sherif’s led to the reasonable conclusion that social influence in groups leads group members to converge on the average judgment of the individual members. As a consequence, it was a surprise to many social psychologists when in the early 1960s, evidence appeared that group decisions often became more extreme than the average of the individual prediscussion judgments. This was originally thought to be a tendency for groups to be riskier than their members would be alone (the [risky shift]), but later found to be a tendency for extremity in any direction based on which way the members individually tended to lean before discussion (group polarization). Research has clearly demonstrated that [group polarization] is primarily a product of persuasion not compliance.

From: http://wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/s/m/a/Small-group_communication.html

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clariana, R.B., Rysavy, M.D. & Taricani, E. Text signals influence team artifacts. Education Tech Research Dev 63, 35–52 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9362-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9362-5

Keywords

  • Collaborative teams
  • Hyperlinks
  • Instructional design
  • Text signals
  • Text topic structure