Collaboration, multi-tasking and problem solving performance in shared virtual spaces
- 482 Downloads
Collaborative problem-solving is often not a sequential process; instead, it can involve tasking switching or dual tasking (i.e., multitasking) activities in that the collaborators need to shift their attention between the targeted problems and the conversations they carry on with their collaborators. It is not known to what extent the multitasking activities increase or decrease collaborators’ problem-solving performance. This current paper examined collaborative problem solving in shared virtual spaces. The main question asked was: How do collaboration and performance differ between collaborative problem solvers in multitasking and single-tasking conditions over time? We hypothesized that (1) there is a relationship between multitasking, collaboration, and problem solving performance; and that (2) collaboration is positively related to the overall problem solving performance. A total of 104 university students (63 female and 41 male) participated in this experimental study. Participants were randomly assigned to four different experimental conditions: individual and multi-tasking, collaborative and multi-tasking, individual and single-tasking, and collaborative and single-tasking. Results showed that the participants who collaborated and had multi-tasking activities outperformed the others. Additionally, collaboration helped to improve overall problem solving performance over time. The study offers insights for collaborative learning from both theoretical and methodological perspectives.
KeywordsCollaboration Multitasking Split screens Problem solving Shared space Virtual and online learning spaces
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Alavi, M., & Dufner, D. (2005). Technology-mediated collaborative learning: A research perspective. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 191–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R (p. 2). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
- Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Burgess, P. W. (2000). Real-world multitasking from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 465–472). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin. 3–6 October. Last retrieved on July 31, 2015 at http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.
- Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London, UK: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
- Cross, R., Rebele, R., & Grant, A. (2016). Collaborative overload. Harvard Business Review. 2016: January-February issue. https://hbr.org/2016/01/collaborative-overload.
- Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam, NL: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors, and pairings. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
- Ifenthaler, D., Lin, L., Mills, L., Bellin-Mularski, N., & Mah, D. (2016). A longitudinal perspective on multitasking and collaborative problem-solving. Paper accepted to the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2005). The measurement of change: Learning-dependent progression of mental models. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 317.Google Scholar
- Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the association for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 785–811). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Just, M., Carpenter, P., Keller, T., Emery, L., Zajac, H., & Thulborn, K. (2001). Interdependence of nonoverlapping cortical systems in dual cognitive tasks. Neuro Image, 14, 417–426.Google Scholar
- Kaufman, S. B. et al. (2001). A cognitive model of analytical reasoning using GRE problems. Last retrieved on July 31, 2015 from http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kaufman-Etal-2001-GRE-Problems.pdf.
- Kaye, A. R. (Ed.). (2012). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (Vol. 90). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Retrieved from the Pew Internet & American Life Project website: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-MobileYoung-Phones.aspx.
- Lin, L., Mills, L., & Ifenthaler, D. (2015). Collaborative problem solving in shared space. In Proceedings of IADIS international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in digital age (CELDA) (pp. 233–239).Google Scholar
- Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1 basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 229–233.Google Scholar
- Mills, L. A., Knezek, G. A., & Wakefield, J. S. (2013). Understanding information seeking behavior in technology pervasive learning environments of the 21st century. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(4), 200–208.Google Scholar
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., et al. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association, 48(2), 327–336.Google Scholar
- Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. http://www.commonsensemedia.org.
- Rideout, V. J. (2015). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. http://www.commonsensemedia.org.
- Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8–18 year olds. Retrieved from Kaiser Family Foundation website: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/mh012010pkg.cfm.
- Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual’s cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Stone, A. A., Turkkan, J. S., Bachrach, C. A., Jobe, J. B., Kurtsman, H. S., & Cain, V. S. (Eds.). (2000). The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Totten, S. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland.Google Scholar