Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 344–357 | Cite as

Collaboration, multi-tasking and problem solving performance in shared virtual spaces

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Collaboration Multitasking Split screens Problem solving Shared space Virtual and online learning spaces 

References

  1. 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
  2. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R (p. 2). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  3. Andrade, J. (2010). What does doodling do? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailor, L. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity and the Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): The development of an instrument to measure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Chalifour, C. L., & Powers, D. E. (1989). The relationship of content characteristics of GRE analytical reasoning items to their difficulties and discriminations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(2), 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London, UK: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  12. Conte, J. M., & Jacobs, R. R. (2003). Validity evidence linking polychronicity and big five personality dimensions to absence, lateness, and supervisory performance ratings. Human Performance, 16(2), 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cross, R., Rebele, R., & Grant, A. (2016). Collaborative overload. Harvard Business Review. 2016: January-February issue. https://hbr.org/2016/01/collaborative-overload.
  14. 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
  15. Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors, and pairings. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gurvich, I., & Van Mieghem, J. A. (2015). Collaboration and multitasking in networks: Architectures, bottlenecks, and capacity. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 17(1), 16–33. doi:10.1287/msom.2014.0498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The Laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Ifenthaler, D., Masduki, I., & Seel, N. M. (2011). The mystery of cognitive structure and how we can detect it: tracking the development of cognitive structures over time. Instructional Science, 39(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2013). Model-based reasoning. Computers & Education, 64, 131–142. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Hagg, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. Kaye, A. R. (Ed.). (2012). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (Vol. 90). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Kolfschoten, G. L., & Brazier, F. M. (2013). Cognitive load in collaboration: Convergence. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(5), 975–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Lin, L. (2009). Breadth-biased versus focused cognitive control in media multitasking behaviors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) USA, 106, 15521–15522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, L. (2013). Multiple dimensions of multitasking phenomenon. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 9(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin, L., Lee, J., & Robertson, T. (2011). Reading while watching video: The effect of video content on reading comprehension and media multitasking ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Lin, L., Robertson, T., & Lee, J. (2009). Reading performances between novices and experts in different media multitasking environments. Computers in the Schools, 26(3), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Mills, L. A., Knezek, G., & Khaddage, F. (2014). Information seeking, information sharing, and going mobile: Three bridges to informal learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  40. National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Ophir, E., Nass, C. I., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 15583–15587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Poldrack, R. A., & Foerde, K. (2007). Category learning and the memory systems debate. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. http://www.commonsensemedia.org.
  46. Rideout, V. J. (2015). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. http://www.commonsensemedia.org.
  47. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 818 year olds. Retrieved from Kaiser Family Foundation website: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/mh012010pkg.cfm.
  48. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosen, L. D., et al. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Scardamali, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences., 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Totten, S. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  55. Wegerif, R. (2006). Towards a dialogic understanding of the relationship between teaching thinking and CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.St. Edwards UniversityAustinUSA
  3. 3.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  4. 4.Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations