Advertisement

Instructional Support for Collaboration in Desktop Videoconference Settings

How It Can be Achieved and Assessed
  • Nikol Rummel
  • Hans Spada
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 5)

Abstract

Innovative computer-mediated settings can help to overcome many traditional barriers to knowledge communication and collaborative work. However, successful collaborative learning and task-solving can be a challenge, which is aggravated in the case of complementary expertise of the collaborating partners. To meet these challenges, we propose providing support for computer-mediated collaboration by instructional methods. The goal is to improve the collaborative skills and knowledge of the people jointly working on a task. We outline different instructional approaches using the example of a situation in which experts from different fields are required to jointly solve psychiatric cases communicating via a desktop videoconference. In addition, we discuss assessment methods for evaluating the effects of these approaches on three levels: collaborative process, joint outcome, and individual knowledge. Finally, we summarize an experiment in which instructional support methods were tested by assessing their effects on all three of these levels.

Keywords

Collaborative Process Instructional Support Joint Solution Instructional Explanation Good Collaboration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, A. H., O'Malley, C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Langton, S., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., Fleming, A. M. & Van der Felden, J. (1997). The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 133–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Angiolillo, J. S., Blanchard, H. E., Israelski, E. W. & Mane, A. (1997). Technology constraints of video-mediated communication. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 51–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joinier, H. & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond one's own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In P, Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practicing Interdisciplinarity (pp. 115–133). Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bruhn, J. (2000). Förderung des kooperativen Lernens über Computernetze: Prozess und Lernerfolg beim dyadischen Lernen mit Desktop-Videokonferenzen. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. Bruhn, J., Fischer, F., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H., (2000). Kooperatives Lernen mit Mapping-Techniken. In H. Mandl & F. Fischer (Eds.), Wissen sichtbar machen. Wissensmanagement mit Mapping-Techniken, 119–133. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  10. Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C, Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (1997). Kalegoriensystem zur Erfassung der gemeinsamen Wissenskonstruktion im Diskurs. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München: Institut für Empirische Pädagogik und Pädagogische Psychologie.Google Scholar
  11. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Team performance and training in complex environments: Recent findings from applied research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P. & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–148). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J. & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialog and discourse. Instructional Science, 27, 431–458.Google Scholar
  16. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  17. Decker, P. J. (1984). Effects of different symbolic coding stimuli in behavior modeling training. Personnel Psychology, 37(4), 711–720.Google Scholar
  18. Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dillenbourg, P. & Traum, D. (1999). Does a shared screen make a shared solution? In C. M. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference (pp. 127–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. & O'Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier/Pergamon.Google Scholar
  21. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C, Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S. Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Goldstein, A. P. & Sorcher, M. (1974). Changing supervisor behavior. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Greeno, J. G. and the Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Groß Ophoff, J. (2003). Elemente einer erfolgreichen Kooperation. Analyse zum Zusammenhang von Kooperationsprozess und-produkt bei netzbasiertem kooperativen Problemlösen unter komplementärer Expertise. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg.Google Scholar
  25. Gürer, D., Kozma, R. & Millán, E. (1999). Impact of shared applications and implications for the design of collaborative learning environments. In S. Lajoie (Ed.), Proceedings for the ninth world conference on artificial intelligence in education (AI-ED99, pp. 439–445). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hermann, F., Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2001). Solving the case together: The challenge of net-based interdisciplinary collaboration. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 293–300). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute.Google Scholar
  27. Hron, A., Hesse F. W., Reinhard, P. & Picard, E. (1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computergestützten kollaborativen Lernen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25(1), 56–69.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Joiner, R., Scanlon, E., O'shea, T. Smith, R. B. & Blake, C. (2002). Evidence from a series of experiments on video-mediated collaboration: Does eye contact matter? In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002 Conference (pp. 371–388). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Jucks, R., Bromme, R. & Runde, A. (2003). Audience Design von Experten in der netzgestiitzten Kommunikation: Die Rolle von Heuristiken über das geteilte Vorwissen. Zeitschrift für Psychologic, 211(2), 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kato, H., Yamazaki, K., Suzuki, H., Kuzoka, H., Miki, H. & Yamazaki, A. (2002). Designing a video-mediated collaboration system based on a body metaphor. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Kneser, C. & Plötzner, R. (2001). Collaboration on the basis of complementary domain knowledge: Observed dialogue structures and their relation to learning success. Learning and Instruction, 11, 52–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kollar, I. (2001). Gewissheits-und Ungewissheitsorientierung beim kooperativen Lernen mil Videokonferenzen-der Einfluss verschiedener Strukturierungsmaßnahmen. Unveröffentlichte Magisterarbeit. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München: Institut für Empirische Pädagogik und Pädagogische PsychologicGoogle Scholar
  34. Larson, J. R., Christensen, C, Franz, T. M. & Abbott, A. S. (1998). Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latham, G. P. & Saari, L. M. (1979). Application of social-learning theory on training supervisors through behavior modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Leskovac, H. (1998). Distance learning in legal education: Implications of frame relay videoconferencing. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 8, 305–335.Google Scholar
  38. Lewis, C. & Sycara, K. (1993). Reaching informed agreement in multispecialist cooperation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malone, T. W. & Crowston, K. (1990). What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 357–370.Google Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. E. & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving and transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (8. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  42. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Meyer, H. H. & Raich, M. S. (1983). An objective evaluation of a behavior modeling training program. Personnel Psychology, 36, 755–761.Google Scholar
  44. Nardi, B. A., Kuchinsky, A., Whittaker, S., Leichner, R. & Schwarz, H. (1997). Video-as-data: Technical and social aspects of a collaborative multimedia application. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 487–517). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  45. O'Conaill, B. & Whittaker, S. (1997). Characterizing, predicting, and measuring video-mediated communication: A conversational approach. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 107–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. O'Donnell, A. M. & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. O'Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Olson, G. M., Malone, T. & Smith, J. (Eds.). (2001). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plötzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C. & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem-solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 177–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reimann, P. (1997). Lernprozesse beim Wissenserwerb aus Beispielen: Analyse, Modellierung, Forderung. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  52. Reiserer, M., Ertl, B. & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction in desktop videoconferencing. Effects of content schemes and cooperation scripts in peer-teaching settings. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002 Conference (pp. 379–388). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Renkl, A., Mandl, H. & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H. & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (accepted). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  60. Sacks, H., Schlegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Salomon, G. & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schornstein, K. (2003). Kooperation lernen: Entwicklung eines Ausbildungselementes zur Förderung der Kooperation zwischen Studierenden der Psychologie und der Medizin. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg.Google Scholar
  63. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  64. Sosa y Fink, S. (2003). Merkmale gelungener Kooperation. Eine qualitative Analyse netzgesttitzter Zusammenarbeit. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg.Google Scholar
  65. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D. & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stenning, K., McKendree, J., Lee, J., Cox, R., Dineen, F. & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from educational dialog. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference (pp. 341–347). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  68. Suthers, D. (2001). Collaborative representations: Supporting face to face and online knowledge-building discourse. Proceedings of the 34th Hawai'i International Conference on the System Sciences1 (HlCSS-34), January 3–6, 2001, Maui, Hawaii (CD-ROM), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
  69. Sweller, J. & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sweller, J., VanMerrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thompson Klein, J. & Porter, A. L. (1990). Preconditions of interdisciplinary research. In Ph. H. Birnbaum-More, F. A. Rossini & D. R. Baldwin (Eds.), International research management. Studies in interdisciplinary methods from business, government and academia (pp. 11–19). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. VanBruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12, 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Veermann, A. & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic eduaction. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 625–632). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute.Google Scholar
  75. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Whittaker, S. (1995). Rethinking video as a technology for interpersonal communication: Theory and design implications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42, 501–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Whittaker, S., Geelhoed, E. & Robinson, E. (1993). Shared workspaces: How do they work and when are they useful? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 813–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. World Health Organisation: Tenth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases, Chapter V (F): Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Diagnostic Criteria for Research. World Health Organisation, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikol Rummel
  • Hans Spada

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations