Advertisement

Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Expert-Layperson-Communication

An overview and insights into the field of medical advice
  • Rainer Bromme
  • Regina Jucks
  • Anne Runde
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 5)

Keywords

Common Ground Medical Expert Specialist Term Text Material External Representation 
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. Alpay, L., Giboin, A., & Dieng, R. (1998). Accidentology: an example of problem solving by multiple agents with multiple representations. In M. W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 152–174). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  2. Bartels, M. (1992). Personzentrierte Gestaltung von Texten und Auswirkungen auf Verstehen und Behalten. Jahrbuch personzentrierte Psychologie und Psychotherapie, Band 3, 144–161.Google Scholar
  3. Beredjiklian, P. K., Bozentka, D. J., Steinberg, D. R., & Bernstein, J. (2000). Evaluating the source and content of orthopaedic information on the Internet. The case of carpal tunnel syndrome. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surger, 82-A(11) 1540–1543.Google Scholar
  4. Bormuth, J. (1968). Cloze test readability: criterion reference scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, S. E. (1998). The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Brennan, S. E., & Ohaeri, J. O. (1999). Why do electronicconversations seem less polite? The costs and benefits of hedging? Paper presented at the International Joint Conference on Work Activities, Coordination, and Collaboration, San Frnacisco.Google Scholar
  7. Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2001). Wissensdivergenz und Kommunikation: Lernen zwischen Experten und Laien im Netz. In H. F. Hesse & F. Friedrich (Eds.), Partizipation und Interaktion im virtuellen Seminar (pp. 81–103). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  8. Bromme, R., & Jucks. R. (2002). Rezipientenorientierung bei der netzgestützten, schriftlichen Kommunikation zwischen Experten und Laien. Unveröff. Projektantrag an die DFG. Westf. Wilhelms-Universität Münster.Google Scholar
  9. Bromme, R., Rambow, R., & Nückles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: the influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 7(4), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, J. D. (1983). A closer look at cloze: validity and reliability. In J. W. Oiler (Eds.) Issues in language testing research (237–251). Rowles, Massachusetts: Newbury Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, P. M., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruer, J. T. (1994). Schools for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom von John T. Bruer: Bradford.Google Scholar
  13. Buhl, H. M. (1996). Wissenserwerb und Raumreferenz. Tübingen: Niemayer.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, R., Spitulnik, M., &. Wallace, R. (in press). Designing Effective Science Inquiry in Text-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. International Journal of Research in Politics and Education.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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. 127–149).Google Scholar
  18. Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite references and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension. (pp. 287–299): North Holland.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J. F. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  21. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duden Band 8 (1997). Die sinn-und sachverwandten Wörter. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
  23. Eysenbach, G., & Diepgen, T. L. (1999). Patients looking for information on the internet and seeking teleadvice. Archives of Dermatology, 135, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Eun-Ryoung, S. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web. JAMA, 287(20), 2691–2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1991). Accuracy and bias in estimates of others’ knowledge. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 445–454.Google Scholar
  26. Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers’ assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 378–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gemini Consulting (2001). Patient Relationship Management. Die Rolle des Patienten in der Life-Sciences-Industrie. Abgerufen am 19. März 2002, von http://www.de.cgey.com/servlet/PB/menu/1001426/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerrig, R. J., Brennan, S. & Ohaeri, J. O. (2000). Illusory transparency revisited. Discourse Processes, 29, 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greene, B. (2001). Testing reading comprehension of theoretical discourse with cloze. Journal of Research in Reading, Volume 24, 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Groeben, N. (1982). Leserpsychologie: Textverständnis — Textverständlichkeit. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
  32. Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice-performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(2), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1232–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. HON (1997). HON Code of conduct for medical and health web sites, 1997, from http://hon.ch/Conduct.htmlGoogle Scholar
  35. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jucks, R. (2001). Was verstehen Laien? Die Verständlichkeit von Fachtexten aus der Sicht von Computer-Experten. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  38. Jucks, R., Bromme, R. & Runde, A. (2003). Audience Design von Experten in der netzgestützten Kommunikation: Die Rolle von Heuristiken über das geteilte Vorwissen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211,(2), 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keysar, B. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 165–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Paek, T. S. (1998). Definite reference and mutual knowledge: Process models of common ground in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kobayashi, M. (2002). Cloze tests revisited: exploring item characteristics with special attention to scoring methods. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Langer, I., Schulz v. Thun, F., & Tausch, R. (1993). Sich verständlich ausdrücken. München; Basel: Ernst Reinhard Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Langer, I., Schulz v. Thun, F., Meffert, J. & Tausch, R. (1973). Merkmale der Verständlichkeit schriftlicher Informations-und Lehrtexte. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 20, 269–286.Google Scholar
  44. Li, L., Irvin, E., Guzman, J., & Bombardier, C. (1998). Surfing for back pain patients: The nature and the quality of back pain information on the internet. Spine, 26(5), 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lowe, R. K. (1989). Search strategies and inference in the exploration of scientific diagrams. Educational Psychology, 9(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
  46. Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology and Education, 11(4), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lumbelli, L., Paoletti, G., & Frausin, T. (1999). Improving the ability to detect comprehension problems: From revising to writing. Learning and Instruction, 9(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know-and sometimes misjudge-what others know: Imputing one's own knowlege to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Piper, T. & Mc Eachern, W. R. (1988). Content bias in cloze as a general language proficiency indicator, English Quaterly, 21(1), 41–48.Google Scholar
  50. Polichak, J. W., & Gerrig, R. J. (1998). Common ground and everyday language use: Comments on Horton and Keysar (1996). Cognition, 66, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001). Gesundheitsportale 2001. Abgerufen am 07. Oktober 2002, von http://www.medical-communities.de/pdf/pricewaterhouse.pdfGoogle Scholar
  52. Rambow, R. (2000). Experten-Laien-Kommunikation in der Architektur. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  53. Reimann, P. (1997). Lernprozesse beim Wissenserwerb mit Beispielen. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  54. Roßnagel, C. (1995). Übung und Hörerorientierung beim monologischen Instruieren. Zur Differenzierung einer Grundannahme. Sprache & Kognition, 14, 16–26.Google Scholar
  55. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversations. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schürer-Necker, E. (1991). Der Einfluß des emotionalen Gehaltes eines Textes auf seine Verständlichkeit. Zeitschrifi für experimentelle Psychologie, 38(1), 63–75.Google Scholar
  58. Speck, A. (1993). Textproduktion im Dialog. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation, FU Berlin.Google Scholar
  59. Stehr, N. (1994). Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen: Zur Theorie von Wissensgesellschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  60. Suarez-Almazor, M. E., Kendall, C. J., & Dorgan, M. (2001). Surfing the net-information on the World Wide Web for persons with arthritis: patient empowerment or patient deceit? Journal of Rheumatology, 28(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  61. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002). The effects of representation on students’ elaborations in collaborative inquiry. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 472–480). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze Procedure: a new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.Google Scholar
  63. Taylor, W. L. (1957). Cloze readability scores as indices of individual differences in comprehension and aptitude. Journal of Applies Psychology, 41, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Bruggen, J. M, Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25–47). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Wittwer, J., Bromme, R. & Jucks, R. (2004). Kann man dem Internet trauen, wenn es um die Gesundheit geht? Die Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung medizinischer Fachinformationen im Internet durch Laien. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 2, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Bromme
  • Regina Jucks
  • Anne Runde

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations