Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments

Abstract

Organisations increasingly use multidisciplinary teams to construct solutions for complex problems. Research has shown that multidisciplinary teams do not guarantee good problem solutions. Common ground is seen as vital to team performance. In this paper an ICT-tool to support complex problem solving is studied. A framework for knowledge construction inspired the design of computer support for knowledge construction. The basic support principle consisted of making individual perspectives explicit, which serves as a basis for negotiating common ground. This principle was embedded in a collaborative learning environment in three ways, which differed from each other in the extent to which users were coerced to adhere to the embedded support principles. Coercion, as expected, was correlated with negotiation of common ground; the more coercion, the more participants would negotiate the meaning of contributions to the ICT-tool, and the more common ground they would have. Self-report data suggested that Intermediate coercion resulted in the least common ground. This may have been caused by some disruption of group processes.

The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL

“…Also, such codes may later help in explaining unexpected results. For example, in our own studies adding codes for regulation helped to explain some results that turned out to be related to one specific experimental setting (see Beers et al, 2005).…”

“…Common ground is especially important for multidisciplinary teams, as they tend to have little common ground to begin with (Alpay, Giboin, & Dieng, 1998). The researchers used theory about the negotiation of common ground as a basis for the design of a formalism to support multidisciplinary teams (Beers, Boshuizen, Kirschner, & Gijselaers, 2005).…”

ICT-support for grounding in the classroom

“…The first goal is to replicate the results of an earlier study (see Beers et al 2005). The main differences with the earlier study, which are discussed in detail in the next section, is that this study is performed in a more ecologically valid setting, and some social aspects of the group are measured, so as to gain an impression of how robust the positive results of the original study are when NTool is tried in a more demanding setting.…”

“…We first discuss the previous study by Beers et al (2005), the shortcomings it had in terms of measured variables and ecological validity, and how we dealt with that in the present study. We then describe our perspective on the relation between collaborative learning and negotiation of common ground, after which we present our theoretical framework.…”

“…In a prior study, Beers et al (2005) explored the influence of different levels of coercion (low, medium and high coercion conditions) on the effectiveness of NTool in terms of the negotiation of common ground and the extent to which common ground itself was established. Participants were students of business sciences, psychology, or cultural sciences university seniors who were divided into multidisciplinary groups of three.…”