On analysis of collaborative problem solving: an object-oriented approach

Avouris, Nikolaos; Dimitracopoulou, Angélique; Komis, Vassilis

doi:10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00056-0

Cited by 81 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A coding scheme for coding function and content of messages during collaboration was developed (cf., e.g., Avouris, Dimitracopoulou, & Komis, 2003;Fischer, Bruhn, Gräsel, & Mandl, 2002;cf., e.g., Mulder, Swaak, & Kessels, 2002;Thomas, Bull, & Roger, 1982). All messages were coded with regard to:…”

Section: Quality Of Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments

Beers

Boshuizen

Kirschner

et al. 2005

Computers in Human Behavior

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Quality Of Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments

Beers

Boshuizen

Kirschner

et al. 2005

Computers in Human Behavior

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As implied in the OCAF study (Avouris et al, 2003) discussed at the beginning of this paper, investigating grounding and problem-solving processes in online dual-interaction environments like VMT requires close attention to the relationships among actions performed in multiple interaction spaces. Detailed math discussions in the VMT environment present practical challenges for mathematical models that aim to exhaustively capture their relationships.…”

Section: Grounding Through Interactional Organizationmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Soller & Lesgold's (2003) use of Hidden Markov Models and b. Avouris et al's (2003) Object-oriented Collaboration Analysis Framework. In these studies the online environment is tailored to a specific problem-solving situation so that researchers can partially automate the coding process by narrowing the possibilities for user actions to a well-defined set of categories.…”

Section: Approaches In Cscl To Analyzing Multimodal Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction analysis of dual-interaction CSCL environments

Çakır

Stahl

2009

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning - CSCL'09

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In order to collaborate effectively in group discourse on a topic like mathematical patterns, group participants must organize their activities so that they have a shared understanding of the significance of their utterances, inscriptions and behaviors-adequate for sustaining productive interaction. The need for participants to coordinate their actions becomes particularly salient in dual-interaction environments, where, e.g., chat postings and graphical drawings must work together; analysts of such interactions must identify the subtle and complex ways in which meaning making proceeds. This paper considers the methodological requirements on analyzing interaction in dual-interaction environments by reviewing several exemplary CSCL studies. It reflects on the nature of social organization, grounding and indexicality that frame the interaction to be analyzed."Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted." Albert Einstein The Problem of Social Organization in Dual-Interaction Collaboration SpacesA central issue in the theory of collaborative learning is how students can solve problems, build knowledge, accomplish educational tasks and achieve other cognitive accomplishments together. How do they share ideas and talk about the same things? How do they know that they are talking about, thinking about, understanding and working on things in the same way? Within CSCL, this has been referred to as the problem of the "attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem" (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995), "building common ground" (Baker et al., 1999;Clark & Brennan, 1991) or "the practices of meaning making" (Koschmann, 2002). We have been interested in this issue for some time: (Stahl, 2006) documents a decade of background to the Virtual Math Teams (VMT) research reported here-chapter 10 (written in 2001) argued the need for a new approach and chapter 17 (written in 2002) proposed the current VMT project. During the past six years (see Stahl, 2009), we have been studying how students in a synchronous collaborative online environment organize their interaction so as to achieve intersubjectivity and shared cognitive accomplishments in the domain of school mathematics.Knowledge building in CSCL has traditionally been supported primarily with asynchronous technologies (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996). Within appropriate educational cultures, this can be effective for long-term development of ideas by learning communities. However, in small groups and in many classrooms, asynchronous media encourage exchange of individual opinions more than co-construction of progressive trains of joint thought. We have found informally that synchronous interaction can more effectively promote what we term "group cognition"-the accomplishment of "higher order" cognitive tasks through the coordination of contributions by individuals within the discourse of a small group.In CSCL settings, interaction is mediated by a computer environment. Students working in suc...

show abstract

“…A coding scheme for the ICT-support for grounding in the classroom 547 coding of function and content of messages during collaboration was developed (cf. e.g., Avouris et al 2003;Fischer et al 2002;Mulder et al 2002;Swaak et al 1998;Thomas et al 1982). All messages were coded with regard to:…”

Section: Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICT-support for grounding in the classroom

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More and more educators and researchers use ICT-tools to support collaborative learning. Research has shown that, for collaborative learning to be more effective than individual learning, individual learners have to achieve a sufficiently common cognitive frame of reference, or common ground. This common ground does not appear by itself, but rather often needs to be negotiated. This negotiation is seen as an important aspect of collaborative learning. This article presents a study with NTool, an ICT-tool to support the negotiation of common ground. NTool supports learners in making their individual perspectives explicit to others so that common ground can be negotiated. Two versions of the tool differing in the extent to which users were coerced into adhering to embedded support principles were used in a secondary vocational education setting. Coercion, as expected, increased negotiation of common ground in both settings. However, results were contradictory with regard to the extent to which common ground was achieved. Overall, it can be concluded that NTool and its underlying framework affect negotiation of common ground, and that adding some coercion increases this effect. However, when learners have no prior experience in collaborative complex problemsolving, NTool may only affect surface aspects of communication.

show abstract

On analysis of collaborative problem solving: an object-oriented approach

Cited by 81 publications

References 11 publications

Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments

Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments

Interaction analysis of dual-interaction CSCL environments

ICT-support for grounding in the classroom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About