Editors: Jürgen Buder and Friedrich W. Hesse March 2002
1
stDocumentation on the
Special Priority Program (SPP)
“Net-based Knowledge
Communication in Groups”
funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
S P P
W i s s e n s
1
stDocumentation on the Special Priority Program (SPP)
“Net-based Knowledge Communication in Groups”
Table of Contents
Preface 9
Overview 10
List of Teams and Projects 15
Work Reports 17 Team 1 19 Team 2 44 Team 3 75 Networking Activities 95 Review Board 100 The SPP in a Nutshell 101
Preface
In March of 1999 an interdisciplinary group of researchers (Friedrich W. Hesse, H. Ulrich Hoppe, Heinz Mandl) with a common interest in the analysis of New Communication Media set up a proposal within the funding scheme of so-called Special Priority Programs (SPP or “Schwerpunktprogramm”) of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The program entitled “Net-based Knowledge Communication in Groups” was finally approved by the DFG senate a couple of months later. After a start-up meeting in October 1999 in Bonn, more than 40 proposals from all over Germany were submitted, with an interdiscipli-nary mixture of contributions from cognitive science, social psychology, educational psychology, education, computer science, linguistics, and sociology. DFG established a Review Board which had the difficult task to select the most promising proposals for funding. In the end, the Review Board came up with a list of 15 research projects and one coordination project. By October of 2000 the SPP on “Net-based Knowledge Communi-cation” was established. The funding period will cover six years in three 2-year stages.
Although research within this Program has begun less than one and a half year ago, the SPP has developed into quite a busy community of research. This first documentation on the work within the SPP will give you an impression of activities and advances in our field. Every SPP should be more than just a collection of singular research projects, and we think this one actually is more. Mutual and overlapping research questions within and across the three SPP Research Teams, joint workshops and conference contributions, and a network of national and international cooperating partners bear witness of these developments. We would like to thank all those who contributed to this ongoing enterprise: the project members within the SPP, the DFG section headed by Dr. Manfred Nießen, the members of the Review Board, and national and international colleagues, for their engaging advice and support.
Tübingen, March 2002
Overview
Net-based Knowledge Communication in Groups – Roots of a Neologism
One of the first questions that arise when someone comes across the term of this program “Net-based Knowledge Communication in Groups” is about its heritage and particular meaning. Why not call it “Computer-mediated Communication”, a notion that is much more familiar in the scientific community? To answer this question one needs to decompose these terms into their respective parts, thereby approaching to a definition of our research field. We are referring to “Communication in Groups” in order to limit our research field to types of communication that are bi-directional, i.e. we are interested in scenarios where, in principle, all participants can be both sending and receiving information. The annex “in Groups” excludes mass media and mass communication formats like newspapers, radio, television, or isolated Web pages because they usually lack the interactive nature of bi-directional communication settings.
The second issue to be resolved if you track down the origins of our terminus technicus is about the use of “Net-based” instead of based” or “Computer-mediated”. We decided to use the former notion in order to underscore the idea that we are dealing with computers that foster communication and interaction by being connected to other computers.
Finally, there is the use of “Knowledge Communication” instead of “Communi-cation”. This term might be a little irritating because, quite literally, knowledge cannot be communicated – only information can. But this information can become part of the know-ledge of the participants. Wherever this building or modifying of knowknow-ledge is at the heart of the communication episode, we are in the realm of our research field. Cooperative lear-ning, group decision making, collaborative planning and problem solving are all tasks that rely heavily on knowledge building and knowledge re-constructing. Other forms of com-munication, e.g. informal Internet Relay Chats, have a stronger social and emotional instead
of cognitive function. They are less related to the institutionalized forms of knowledge-related information exchange that can be found in universities or organizations, and therefore will not be addressed in our SPP (Special Priority Program). To summarize, “Knowledge Communication” in itself is just a short form of “Knowledge-related Communication”.
Taking these three components together our research field can be defined as focusing on forms of cooperative learning and collaborative working which enable knowledge-related information exchange among two or more persons via modern networking technologies.
What Were the Reasons to Establish this SPP?
There is already a lot of research dealing with net-based knowledge communication in groups. But in most cases this research is too focused on the technological level and innovative potential of a given application. To be sure, technological innovation is highly important, and our research program should be well aware of most recent developments. However, most empirical research in our field exclusively focuses on the application, implementation and, if at all, superficial evaluation of new technologies. Moreover, quite often research in our field is not theoretically grounded very well (to exaggerate just slightly, the typical empirical study classifies itself as “somehow constructivist”).
We believe that this doesn’t have to be the case. For instance, cognitive science, social psychology, and educational psychology have a host of theoretical concepts, models, and ideas that can be related to net-based knowledge communication. Our main focus therefore is to analyze cognitive, social, and educational implications of net-based knowledge communication on a more basic level. It goes without saying that our research should serve the application and implementation of communication technologies in the long term. But we believe that by establishing a link between generic qualities of net-based knowledge communication and basic “mainstream” concepts from the related disciplines we can contribute to the understanding of the impact of these new technologies.
What Are the Goals of the SPP?
As stated above, projects within the SPP emphasize basic research by applying concepts from an interdisciplinary context (cognitive science, social psychology, education, and computer science) to scenarios of net-based learning and work. One should note that this should not be seen as a one-way connection. While research on net-based knowledge communication certainly can benefit from “mainstream” theories and concepts in related domains, this relation also works vice versa. Firstly, as net-based communication technologies more and more become part of our daily lives, researchers from psychology and education simply cannot afford to ignore these developments. Secondly, applying concepts e.g. from mainstream cognitive science to net-based settings can help to refine our knowledge about the concepts themselves. Thirdly, because of the unique characteri-stics of some new communication technologies (e.g. temporal lags, spatial distribution, anonymity, permanent storage of exchanged information) mainstream researchers should be encouraged to use net-based scenarios as a research setting if they have an interest in phenomena that possibly are affected by one of these characteristics.
In sum, one of the main goals of this SPP is to bridge the gap between research in CSCL/CSCW (computer-supported cooperative learning / computer-supported colla-borative work) and mainstream research in cognitive science, psychology, education, and computer science by combining the innovative potential and applied focus of the former with the tradition and extensive knowledge base of the latter.
In its framework proposal the SPP began to set an agenda for research on net-based knowledge communication (the proposal – in German – can be downloaded from our Web site). It provided a top-down perspective on the field by listing three general research goals:
• Analysis of distributed representations, • Analysis of “virtual identity”, and
However, the 15 projects funded within the SPP chose a bottom-up approach to build three Research Teams. While the research topics of the three Teams do not exactly cover the three goals, there is still substantial overlap between the structure as it was envisioned, and the structure as it actually turned out to be.
• Team 1 “Divergence and Convergence in Net-based Communication” covers aspects of our field that are strongly related to cognitive science. The interest in the distribution and subsequent sharing of information and knowledge fits quite well with the first goal from the Framework Proposal.
• While there are currently no research projects within the SPP addressing issues of “virtual identity” as formulated in the Framework Proposal, the underlying social psychology perspective can be found in the research of Team 2. This team deals with “Coordinative Processes in Net-based Knowledge Communication”, quite often with respect to tasks that are usually analyzed within social psychology (e.g. group decision making), or with respect to social psychological methodo-logies (e.g. interaction analysis).
• Team 3 on “Methods and techniques for structuring collaborative processes in group learning” fits very well with the third research goal from the initial proposal, both in terms of the research topic, and participating research fields (educational and computer science approaches).
In addition to these research goals the SPP pursues the general goal to establish a network of research. This goal is accomplished by building an infrastructure (Web site, a shared workspace, regular meetings within and across Teams), by establishing contact and cooperative partnerships with related national and international institutions, and by offering support for early career scientists. For further information on the networking efforts please refer to the corresponding section within this Documentation.
If you want more information on our program you can visit our Web site at http://www.wissenskommunikation.de/spp
or read the following articles:
Buder, J. & Hesse, Friedrich W. (2001). Bericht über das DFG-Schwerpunktprogramm “Netzbasierte Wissenskommunikation in Gruppen”.
Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 13, 150-152.
Hesse, F. W., Oestermeier, U. & Buder, J. (2000). Neue Medien, neue Forschungs-initiativen. Kognitionswissenschaft, 9, 54-58.
or contact the coordination project: Jürgen Buder
Department of Applied Cognitive Psychology and Media Psychology Psychological Institute of the University of Tübingen
Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40 D – 72072 Tübingen Tel.: (49)-7071-979-326 Fax: (49)-7071-979-100 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/psychologie/abtkmps/buder.htm
List of Teams and Projects
Team 1: Divergence and Convergence in Net-based Communication • Recipient Design in Net-based Written Communication among
Experts and Novices: The Illusion of Evidence (Rainer Bromme, Münster) • Co-construction of Knowledge in Web-based Collaborative Learning:
Facilitating Knowledge Convergence with Scripts and Scaffolds (Frank Fischer, Tübingen & Heinz Mandl, Munich)
• Knowledge Exchange with Shared Databases
(Friedrich W. Hesse, Ulrike Creß & Stephan Schwan, Tübingen) • Two Methods to Promote the Competence for Computer-mediated
Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Vicarious Learning from an
Exemplary Collaboration and Learning from Scripted Collaboration (Hans Spada & Franz Caspar, Freiburg)
• WebSharK: Web-based Sharing of Knowledge in Teams of
Heterogeneous Experts (Gerhard Strube & Dietmar Janetzko, Freiburg) Team 2: Coordinative Processes in Net-based Knowledge Communication
• Computer-mediated Information Sampling in Small Groups (Michael Diehl, Tübingen)
• Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Desktop Videoconferencing: Effects of Content Schemes and Cooperation Scripts (Heinz Mandl, Munich) • Process Gains and Process Losses for Knowledge Integration in
Computer-mediated Groups (Ursula Piontkowski & Wolfgang Keil, Münster) • Synchronicity in Knowledge-based Cooperative Learning
(Gerhard Schwabe & Ulrich Furbach, Koblenz) • Communication of Knowledge in Virtual Teams
(Bernd Weidenmann & Manuela Paechter, Munich) • Regulation of Interaction in Face-to-face versus
Computer-mediated Communicating Teams
Team 3: Methods and Techniques for Structuring Collaborative Processes in Group Learning
• Co-Construction, Cooperation, and Learning in Replicated
Shared Workspace Environments: Visual Languages, Analysis, Modeling (H. Ulrich Hoppe, Duisburg)
• MAGELLAN: Cooperation-enhancing Mechanisms of
Navigation in Knowledge Spaces (Reinhard Keil-Slawik, Paderborn) • Supporting Cooperative Learning with Learning Protocols:
Structured Cooperation of Learning Groups in Distributed Net-based Learning Environments (Hans-Rüdiger Pfister, Lüneburg & Jörg M. Haake, Hagen) • Supporting Knowledge Co-Construction in Virtual Learning Communities:
Learning by Design, Discourse, and Reflection (Peter Reimann, Heidelberg)
Coordination Project:
• Coordination within the Special Priority Program “Net-based Knowledge Communication in Groups” (Friedrich W. Hesse, Tübingen)
Work Reports
The following section contains Work Reports from the SPP projects. Reports are presented in the order of Research Teams 1 through 3, and in alphabetical order within Teams. Reports were provided by members of corresponding projects who are responsible for content.
Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme, Westfälische Wilhelms-University of Münster
Team 1: Divergence and Convergence
in Net-based Communication
Overview
With its emphasis on the way knowledge and activities are distributed across net-based groups, the five projects from Team 1 have a rather strong focus on cognitive science aspects of net-based knowledge communication. The work in Team 1 is also influenced by research on educational psychology, computer science, and social psychology. Projects cover several scenarios of application, ranging from cooperation and communication in educational settings (Fischer, Spada) to cooperation within organizations (Hesse) to business communication between designers and customers (Strube) to expert-layperson communication in electronic hotlines (Bromme).
With respect to research topics Team 1 can be characterized by a common interest in the tension between divergence and convergence of knowledge. Divergence of know-ledge can be found between experts and laypersons, in interdisciplinary communication, or in the uneven distribution of knowledge within organizations. Divergence can also serve as an instructional tool, e.g. by assigning roles to learners, thus encouraging different perspectives on a given content. Seen from this angle, divergence of knowledge is both a cause and an obstacle for communication and cooperation. In most cases a certain amount of knowledge convergence is the goal of the processes under study, but it is clear that conceptual differences between the interlocutors will remain even if the processes of communication and cooperation are successful.
Team 1 addresses how the intricate relationship between divergence and conver-gence will be mediated by net-based scenarios. Research has shown that computer-mediated knowledge communication can lead to barriers and biases in communication. Each project develops and empirically investigates ideas how these problems can be overcome.
Joint Activities
Currently there are three joint lines of activities of Team 1. The first deals with team presentations on conferences, e.g. as part of the congress of DGPs, the German Society for Psychology, in September 2002.
The second activity involves cooperation of young scientists within the DFG-NSF Early Career Exchange Program which was initiated by SPP researchers. Members of all five projects within Team 1 are participating in the Exchange Program. Hence this initiative gives ample opportunities for young Team members to present results of their work to a foreign audience.
As a third part of joint activities and another step to foster international cooperation an international workshop “Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge commu-nication” was planned. It is funded by the DFG and organized by R. Bromme, F. Hesse and H. Spada on behalf of Team 1. It will take place in Münster, June 12-15, 2002. The workshop will be an opportunity to discuss outcomes of the first funding period as well as future plans with colleagues from abroad who are working in the same field. The workshop will deal with specific biases and errors that occur in net-based communication. Further, the workshop is about the conditions under which net-based communication is successful and which counteract media-specific communication problems. A focus of the contributions should also be the methodical instruments for analyzing net-based communication. As the results of all studies will depend on the context of the interaction two contexts will be differentiated in the workshop: a) sharing knowledge in mediated settings (e.g. in cooperative working groups); and b) collaborative computer-mediated learning. It is planned to take the contributions of the workshop as a starting point for compiling a book on barriers and biases in computer-mediated communication. The volume is planned to be published in a reviewed and internationally distributed series.
In addition to Team 1 members the following active (i.e. presenting) participants are invited to the workshop: Anne Anderson (Glasgow), Susan Brennan (New York), Pierre Dillenbourg (Geneva), Timothy Koschmann (Springfield), and Richard Moreland (Pittsburgh). Moreover, one project from Team 2 (Mandl) and from Team 3 (Pfister) will actively participate in this workshop.
Team Speaker
Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme WWU Münster
Psychologisches Institut III Fliednerstr. 21 D - 48149 Münster Tel.: (49)-251-8339-135 / (49)-251-8339-196 (Secretary), Fax: (49)-251-8339-105 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://wwwpsy.uni-muenster.de/inst3/AEbromme/
Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Münster
Recipient Design in Net-based Written Communication
among Experts and Novices: The Illusion of Evidence
Goals
The goal of our research project is twofold: On a theoretical level we are interested in the impact of participants’ differences in knowledge on mutual understanding in computer-mediated settings. We use Herbert Clark’s psycholinguistic theory (for an overview see Clark, 1996) in order to conceptualize the relation between knowledge (of experts and laypersons) and communication. Clark’s theory was developed for face-to-face communication in everyday contexts. Its transferability to computer-mediated communi-cation is an issue which has to be addressed by empirical research. On an applied level we ask for the conditions which enhance and which restrict mutual understanding in asynchronous text-based communication among experts and laypersons in the domain of health-related knowledge.
Background
Our research starts out from a psycholinguistic assumption (Clark, 1996): Usually speakers more or less adjust all utterances to their listeners’ communicational needs. This principle of recipient design is regarded as fundamental for successful communication. Both experi-mental and discourse analytic studies of everyday communication provide empirical evidence for speakers successfully adapting to their listeners’ needs. Successful audience design is based on the use of several heuristics: the community membership heuristic, the physical co-presence heuristic and the linguistic co-presence heuristic. These heuristics guide assumptions about what can be taken for granted as so called common ground and what has to be made explicit by the speaker because it is not known by the interlocutor. Nonetheless, it is also recognized that there are many situations where listener adaptation is likely to fail (Keysar, 1994). Especially experts often seem to have problems
integrated domain-specific knowledge makes it particularly difficult to anticipate the qualitatively completely different perspective of a layperson.
We assume that in this case the heuristics may be misleading. In face-to-face communication both sides can deal with this problem by means of verbal as well as non-verbal communication. In rather monological communication settings, such as asynchronous email-communication the possibility for the audience/recipients to give feedback and thereby actively co-control the communication process is rather limited.
Project Work
In our experiments a net-based asynchronous hotline scenario is modeled and we focus on experts in pharmacology as participants of our research. These experts have to explain health-related issues, i.e. concepts in the overlapping domain of pharmacology and medi-cine. Participants respond to fictitious laypersons’ requests via e-mail having only little information about the knowledge of the recipient(s) available.
The first experiments (N= 120 Pharmacists) focus on the impact of the community membership heuristic and of the physical co-presence heuristic. In order to test the use of the community membership heuristic we varied the fictitious sender of the e-mail request, i.e. requests of both laypersons and fictitious co-experts of a related domain of expertise (i.e. medicine) were introduced. With regard to the physical co-presence heuristic we examined if a graphical representation which is co-present, i.e. accessible to the expert as well as to the fictitious layperson/co-expert produces an illusion of evidence on the experts’ side: Do experts assume that a graphical representation is part of the ‘common ground’ even if its understanding requires profound domain expertise by the recipient? This would be an erroneous use of the physical co-presence heuristic. Or do the experts make allowance for the co-presence information by answering the requests in more detail? We use text-analysis in order to measure the degree of the experts’ recipient design, and surveys with samples of ‘real’ laypersons to identify the comprehensibility of experts’ explanations. In addition to the experiments a field study was conducted. Requests including different amounts of specialist terms were sent to real health-related hotlines. We analyzed how far experts’ answers were adapted to this manipulation.
Results
Data analysis is still in progress, but some results can already be stated: It was shown that experts make use of the community membership heuristic, i.e. explanations were tailored to the assumed different knowledge status of the recipients (laypersons vs. co-experts). Moreover, co-presence information affected experts’ written explanations, but the illusion of evidence-hypothesis was not unequivocally confirmed. On the one hand experts in the co-presence condition went into more details and used more technical terms than experts who knew that their lay audience does not have access to the graphical representation. On the other hand – and in line with our assumption – laypersons rated the texts produced in the co-presence condition as being less simple and clear than the texts written in the other condition. The results of the field study point toward an erroneous use of the linguistic co-presence heuristic by the experts.
Future Research
In a second series of experiments it is investigated how laypersons’ responses influence experts’ later explanations. Furthermore we will experimentally test the results of the aforementioned field experiments, i.e. the requests will include different information about the recipients’ understanding of the domain. This stronger focus on the linguistic co-presence heuristic will allow for the analysis of the impact of information about the recipient on experts’ written explanations.
Research Output:
Publications:
Bromme, R. & Jucks, R. (2001). Wissensdivergenz und Kommunikation. Lernen zwischen Experten und Laien im Netz. In F. W. Hesse & H. F. Friedrich (Hrsg.) Partizipation und Interaktion im virtuellen Seminar (S. 81-103).
Münster: Waxmann.
Bromme, R., Lesh, R. & Mandl, H. (in prep.) Synthesis, discussion and future directions on online discourses. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research & Practice.
Clark, D., Spitulnik, M., Jucks, R., Weinberger, A., & Wallace, R. (in prep.). Supporting learning in text-based environments. International Journal of
Jucks, R., Paechter, M. & Tatar, D. (in prep.). Analysing learning and cooperation in online discourses. International Journal of Educational Policy,
Research & Practice.
Two further articles are in preparation. One will focus on the role of external representations for mutual understanding. The other one will present a field study about recipient design in health-related hotlines.
Conference Contributions:
Bromme, R., Fischer, F., Mandl, H. u. a. (2001, September). Organisation des Symposiums ‘Netzbasierte Wissenskommunikation in Gruppen: Pädagogisch-psychologische Fragen und Ergebnisse. 8. Tagung der Fachgruppe Pädagogische Psychologie in der DGPs, Koblenz/Landau.
Bromme, R. & Jucks, R. (2001, September). Rezipientenorientierung bei der netzgestützten, schriftlichen Kommunikation zwischen Experten und Laien: Die Illusion der Evidenz Referat auf der 8. Tagung der Fachgruppe
Pädagogische Psychologie in der DGPs, Koblenz/Landau.
Jucks, R. (2001, August). Perspective taking in written communication: The effects of knowledge activation on recipient design. Paper presented at the 9th European Conference for Research in Learning and Instruction, Fribourg/Switzerland. Jucks, R. (2001, October). Poster presentation at the German/American Early Career
Researcher Exchange Phase I Workshop, Tübingen. Further Presentations:
Bromme, R. (2000, December). Expertenschätzungen von Laienwissen im Bereich der Informationstechnologie. Zur Psychologie der Fachkommunikation zwischen Experten und Laien. Vortrag im Kolloquium des Fachbereichs Psychologie der Universität Koblenz-Landau in Landau.
Bromme, R. (2001, March). Experten-Laien-Kommunikation als Gegenstand der Expertiseforschung. Vortrag im Interdisziplinären Kolloquium des Instituts für Bewegungswissenschaften. FB 07, Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft der WWU Münster.
Bromme, R. (2001, May). Rezipientenorientierung bei der netzgestützten
Kommunikation zwischen Experten und Laien. Gastvortrag am Fachbereich Psychologie der Universität Tübingen.
Jucks, R. (2001 and 2002, March). Einführung in die Experten-Laien-Kommunikation für Pharmazeuten/innen. Gastvortrag am Fachbereich Pharmazie der
WWU Münster.
Jucks, R. (2002, March). Kommunikation mit Patienten. Gastvortrag am Fachbereich Pharmazie der Universität Bonn.
Jucks, R. & Neye, H. (2001, January). Pilotseminar zur Experten-Laien-Kommuni-kation. Lehrveranstaltung am Fachbereich Pharmazie der WWU Münster.
Funding Period
November 2000 – October 2002
Other Project Members
Dr. Regina Jucks
Dipl.-Psych. Anne Runde Cand. psych. Ulrike Schmidt Cand. psych. Annika Schneider Cand. psych. Verena Vogel
Former Members: Apotheker Thorsten Wessel, Cand. Psych. Tanja Janßen
Project Address
Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme WWU Münster
Psychologisches Institut III Fliednerstr. 21 D - 48149 Münster Tel.: (49)-251-8339-135 / (49)-251-8339-196 (Secretary), Fax: (49)-251-8339-105 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://www.psy.uni-muenster.de/inst3/AEbromme/
Dr. Frank Fischer, University of Tübingen
Prof. Dr. Heinz Mandl, Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich
Co-construction of Knowledge in Web-based
Collaborative Learning: Facilitating Knowledge Convergence
with Scripts and Scaffolds
Goals
There is considerable evidence to support the notion that virtual learning groups rarely work well in isolation. Learners in groups tend to discuss superficially and are oriented towards quick consensus; at college level, they rarely refer to scientific theories to question or criticize the contributions of their peers. The members of a learning group may differ greatly with regards to participation and learning outcome, i.e. while some learners benefit from collaboration, others are left behind. So far, there have been few empirical findings on instructional approaches to overcome these problems. Therefore, the main goal of this project is to investigate the effects of different forms of socio-cognitive structuring on processes and outcomes of web-based collaborative learning. In the first two-year period, we investigated the effects of content-oriented scaffolds and interaction-oriented cooperation scripts.
Background
As a theoretical background we refer to a socio-cultural approach that emphasizes the central role of collaboration and tools in knowledge construction. In our framework, three major process dimensions of co-construction are considered: The epistemic activity, the social modes of co-construction and the argumentative quality of learners’ contributions. As outcomes of the collaboration we consider not only individual knowledge transfer, but also knowledge convergence amongst peers. Knowledge convergence describes the amount of shared knowledge in the learning outcome. In order to facilitate individual knowledge transfer and knowledge convergence in web-based collaborative learning we chose the approaches of scripted cooperation and scaffolding. Scripts
encourage learners to take on roles and perform particular interactions at specified times. Scripts aim to induce certain social modes of co-construction. Content-oriented scaffolds provide the learners with task-specific cues that point out which part of the problem should be addressed when and how. Scaffolds aim at helping students in performing the relevant epistemic activities. Both scripts and scaffolds are supposed to increase knowledge convergence on a high level.
Project Work
We developed a collaborative, case-based learning environment using WWW-based electronic bulletin board technologies. A pilot study and a main experiment were conducted to analyze the effects of interaction-oriented scripts and content-oriented scaffolds on the co-construction of knowledge in text-based online learning environments. In a pilot study with 18 participants, we investigated the adequate “granularity” of the script for our learning context. Based on the results of this pilot study, an experiment was designed with refined treatment conditions. The factor “script” and the factor “scaffolds” were systematically varied in a 2x2-design. 105 university students of pedagogy participated. The students were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. They were asked to solve three authentic problem cases with the help of Weiner’s attributional theory. Pre- and post-tests were used to measure individual knowledge transfer, knowledge convergence, and several control variables like learning motivation, prior experience with collaborative learning and computers. In addition, all interactions of the learners were recorded on the WWW-based electronic bulletin board. A coding system was developed to analyze the processes of knowledge co-construction with respect to epistemic activity, social mode of co-construction, and quality of argumentation.
Results
Results indicate that interaction-oriented scripts led learners to more equal participation, improved social modes of co-construction and fostered knowledge convergence on a high level. Learners posted more questions and critical comments while the amount of
verbal coordination was reduced. Content-oriented scaffolds, on the other hand, showed no positive effects on discourse and outcomes. Moreover, learners in the scaffold conditions had lower individual knowledge transfer and lower knowledge convergence. Neither treatment improved the argumentative quality in the process of knowledge co-construction compared to the control condition. In sum, the script fostered important processes and outcomes of collaborative learning while the scaffolds had rather detrimental effects.
Future Research
One major focus of our future work will address the problem of low degree of argumentative quality in students’ discourse. We will investigate the question regarding how to support students’ scientific argumentation in web-based collaborative learning environments. More specifically, we will conduct studies to answer questions regarding how we have to modify our model of scripted cooperation for web-based collaborative learning so that it proves helpful in guiding learners’ scientific argumentation.
Research Output
Publications and Published Conference Proceedings:
Fischer, F. (in press). Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion. Theoretische und
methodologische Aspekte [Collaborative knowledge construction – theoretical and methodological aspects] Psychologische Rundschau, 53 (3).
Janetzko, D. & Fischer, F. (2002). Analyzing sequential data in computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 585-586). Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002, Boulder, USA. (Paper submitted for publication).
Mandl, H. & Fischer, F. (2002). Computer networking for education.
In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Reinmann-Rothmeier, G. & Mandl, H. (in press). Analyse und Förderung kooperativen Lernens in netzbasierten Umgebungen [Analysis and facilitation of cooperative learning in net-based environments]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie.
Weinberger, A., Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering computer supported collaborative learning with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 573-574). Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for
Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002, Boulder, USA.
Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (subm.). Scripts and scaffolds in problem-based computer supported collaborative learning environments: Fostering participation and transfer. (Paper submitted for publication). Conference Contributions without Published Proceedings:
Fischer, F., Weinberger, A. & Mandl, H. (2002, April). Effects of scripted cooperation and scaffolding in text-based online learning environments. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, USA.
Weinberger, A., Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2001, September). Scaffolding und Kooperationsskripts beim kooperativen Lernen in Computernetzen: Die Förderung von Partizipation und Wissenstransfer [Scripts and scaffolds in computer supported collaborative learning: Fostering participation and transfer]. Paper presented at the Fachgruppentagung Pädagogische Psychologie 2001, Landau, Germany.
Weinberger, A., Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2001, August). Scripts and scaffolds in problem-based CSCL environments: Fostering participation and transfer. Paper presented at the Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) 2001 in Fribourg, Switzerland.
Theses:
Fischer, F. (2001). Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion. Analyse und Förderung in computerunterstützten Kooperationsszenarien [Collaborative knowledge construction – analysis and facilitation in computer-supported collaboration environments]. Unpublished professorial dissertation.
Munich: Ludwig Maximilian University.
Jahn, K. (2001). Förderung kooperativen Lernens in Netzwerken mit
Kooperationsskripten. [Supporting cooperative learning in computer networks with scripted cooperation]. Unpublished master thesis.
Funding Period
August 2000 – July 2002
Other Project Members
Armin Weinberger, M.A.
Project Address
Dr. Frank Fischer Psychological Institute
Department of Applied Cognitive Psychology and Media Psychology Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen
Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40 D – 72072 Tübingen Tel.: (49)-7071-979-327 Fax: (49)-7071-979-100 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/psychologie/abtkmps/fischer.htm or
Prof. Dr. Heinz Mandl
Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie und Empirische Pädagogik Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Leopoldstr. 13 D – 80802 München Tel.: (49)-89-21805146 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://lsmandl.emp.paed.uni-muenchen.de/staff/mandl_e.html
Prof. Dr. Friedrich W. Hesse, Dr. Ulrike Creß & Dr. Stephan Schwan, University of Tübingen
Knowledge Exchange with Shared Databases
Goals
Goal of the present project is to investigate four potential strategies to improve cooperation in shared databases: 1) variation of the type (input-related vs. use-related) and quantity of reward that users receive for contributing information to a shared database; 2) variation of the time costs associated with the contribution to the database; 3) prospective metaknowledge about the usefulness of the own information in terms of knowing whether other users have specific information at their disposal or not; and 4) retrospective metaknowledge about how much the other users have contributed to the shared database and about how useful the own contributions have been to the others.
Background
The use of a common database can be formally defined as representing a social dilemma: a situation that pits the collective interest (to contribute much and valuable information to the database) against the individual interest (to save the contribution costs and to profit from others’ contributions). A shared database constitutes a public good whose content is accessible to all users independently of whether these users make contributions to the database or not. This brings about well-known problems of public goods dilemmas such as free riding and social loafing. To solve these problems several strategies have been proposed and studied within the research on social dilemmas.
Project Work
To study the proposed four strategies experimentally a computer-based setting has been developed. The social dilemma derives from a “dual task” situation where entering information in the common database temporally impedes performing an individual task
for which participants earn some money. In a first part of the task participants (in groups of 6) must calculate the wage income of hypothetical sales workers from a list. For each calculated wage income they must decide whether to contribute it to the database, thereby making it available to the others for the second part of the task. In this second phase participants are presented with a shorter list of sales workers to calculate their gross income by adding the wage income to a commission. The needed wage income can be already available (because of having been calculated by themselves or by other group members during the first phase), or it must be calculated. With regard to the information that can be contributed to the database more valuable information (wage income of urgent cases) is distinguished from less valuable information (wage income of non-urgent cases). The 2-stage task was presented on three trials. At the end of the session participants had to fill in a questionnaire. Information-sharing behavior and information use of the other five group members were simulated.
In Experiment 1 we examined whether a use-related reward strategy positively influenced the contribution of more valuable information to the database and whether this influence changed with differing reward amount. Moreover, we studied whether the strategy of giving feedback on how often the own contributions were used by the other group members sufficed to promote the participants’ cooperation.
In Experiment 2 we examined the effect that two different reward strategies (input-vs. use-related) in combination with a variation of the contribution costs (high (input-vs. low time costs) would have on the quantity and quality of the contributions to the database.
In Experiment 3 we examine whether the awareness of having at one’s disposal relevant information for the others (prospective metaknowledge) positively influences the participant’s cooperative behavior, especially when using an input-related reward strategy. In Experiment 4 we examine whether participants adjust their cooperative behavior when they notice (through retrospective feedback on how many entries they and the others have contributed to the database) that they have contributed either more or less than the other group members.
Results
At the press deadline Experiment 1 and 2 are completed, the other two studies are being conducted in the present year. In Exp. 1 participants significantly contributed more high-value information (wage income of urgent cases) than low-high-value information (wage income of non-urgent cases) to the database, and this effect was more strongly evidenced by those participants in the conditions with use-related reward. The different reward amount had no effect on the participants’ contribution behavior. The finding on the participants’ selection of their contributions according to the quality of the information suggests that they do not exclusively base their contribution decisions on monetary incentives but they also consider the assumed value of the information to the others before deciding to enter that information into the database or not.
In Experiment 2, those participants with low time costs contributed significantly more information to the database and were faster in their decision to contribute than those with high time costs. Additionally, in those conditions with low time costs the contribution of more valuable information increased from trial to trial whereas the contribution of low-value information decreased; participants with high time costs did not show this adjustment. According to these findings low time costs for contributing information to the database seem to enhance participants’ cooperative behavior not only quantitatively (by contributing more) but also qualitatively (by increasingly contributing more valuable information). With regard to the reward strategy used no clear effect was found.
Future Research
For future experiments it is planned to broaden the study of factors influencing the cooperative behavior of database users by applying predictions from the social identity theory of deindividuation (SIDE) to the study of social dilemmas. In several experiments we aim at examining the effect of deindividuation manipulations (e.g. anonymity among the group members, identifiability of contributors, identifiability of group membership) in combination with other variables such as salience of group identity or asymmetric distribution of information resources among contributors on people’s cooperative use of
Research Output
Book Chapters:
Hesse, F.W., Creß, U., Barquero, B. & Schwan, S. (in press). Database features to promote knowledge sharing via databases - theory and implementation from a psychological view. To appear in U. Hoppe et al. (Eds.), New Technologies for Collaborative Learning, Kluwer.
Conference Contributions:
Creß, U., Barquero, B., Schwan, S., Buder, J. & Hesse, F.W. (2001). Wissensaustausch mittels geteilter Datenbanken - ein soziales Dilemma. Paper presented at the “2. Tagung der Fachgruppe Medienpsychologie” in Landau, September 2001. Hesse, F.W., Creß, U., Barquero, B. & Schwan, S. (2000). Database-inherent tools to
promote knowledge sharing via databases - theory and experimental design from a psychological view. Paper presented at the “International Workshop on
New Technologies for Collaborative Learning” in Japan, November 2000. Hesse, F.W., Creß, U., Barquero, B. & Buder, J. (in preparation). Social barriers in
sharing individual knowledge in a common database. Paper to be presented at the “Workshop on barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge
communication – and how they may be overcome” in Münster, Juni 2002.
Funding Period
January 2001 – December 2002
Other Project Members
Dr. Beatriz Barquero Dr. Jürgen Buder
Cand. Psych. Tatjana Taraszow Cand. Psych. Julia Wahl
Project Address
Dr. Ulrike Creß Psychological Institute
Department of Applied Cognitive Psychology and Media Psychology Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen Konrad-Adenauer-Strasse 40 D – 72072 Tübingen Tel: (49)-7071-979-346, Fax: (49)-7071-979-100 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/psychologie/abtkmps/cress.htm
Prof. Dr. Hans Spada & Prof. Dr. Franz Caspar, University of Freiburg
Two Methods to Promote the Competence for
Computer-mediated Interdisciplinary Collaboration:
Vicarious Learning from an Exemplary Collaboration
and Learning from Scripted Collaboration
Goals
The goal of this research is to develop methods to promote the competence for computer-mediated collaboration of partners with complementary expertise. In the experimental paradigm set up to test the effectiveness of these methods, participants are confronted with two tasks, one in the learning phase, one in the application phase. The experimental variation is implemented during the learning phase. The collaboration during the application phase as well as its outcome – the joint solution – are investigated as dependent variables.
Background
Vicarious learning from an exemplary collaboration. By combining different strands of research, vicarious learning from a worked-out example of well-structured computer-mediated collaboration was developed as a method to strengthen collaborative competence. (1) Vicarious learning has been proven to be of value in the context of dialogue and discourse.
(2) Behavior modeling training (Goldstein & Sorcher, 1974) – based on observational learning – has been shown to be an effective training method to acquire complex behavioral skills.
(3) Renkl (1997) and others have emphasized that individual learning from worked out examples can be a successful way to acquire cognitive skills. This type of learning is primarily based on the self-explanation of the solution steps (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann & Glaser, 1989).
Learning from scripted collaboration. Scripted collaboration is known to be an efficient method to support computer-mediated collaboration. However, our question was whether it has the potential to trigger learning about collaboration and thus promote collaborative competences outlasting the scripted work condition.
Project Work
During the first 18 months of the project: (a) A new type of task for computer-mediated interdisciplinary collaboration was developed and analyzed from a cognitive science point of view; (b) an experimental design for testing the effectiveness of methods to promote the competence for computer-mediated collaboration was set up and the learning materials for vicarious learning and learning from scripted collaboration were developed; and (c) a first experiment was conducted to compare the effects of vicarious learning from an exemplary collaboration with the learning effects of a scripted collaboration and a control condition.
The Collaborative Task. Dyads of advanced medical and psychology students are asked to jointly formulate a diagnosis and develop a therapy plan for psychiatric cases making use of their complementary expertise. The cognitive demands of this type of task as well as the relevant collaborative processes were analyzed to define criteria which allow to assess the quality of the collaborative work and its outcome.
Setting. The computer-mediated scenario consists of a videoconferencing environment including audio- and video-connection, personal text-editors, and a shared text-editor. The scenario supports synchronous verbal communication and joint activities (e.g. editing of the joint solution) as well as individual work.
Experimental Design. The participants are confronted with two tasks, one in the learning phase, one in the application phase. The sequence of activities is as follows: Introduction, technical instruction and exercises (30 min.), overview of material for case 1 (20 min.), experimental learning phase (120 min.), overview of material for case 2 (20 min.), application phase (120 min.), posttest (30 min.). During the learning phase, the experimental variation is implemented: Dyads in a vicarious learning condition observe a model collaboration – a worked-out example of the computer-mediated collaboration
on case 1. To facilitate elaboration and learning, the model collaboration is accompanied by instructional explanations. Dyads in a script learning condition are instructed to solve the first case following a script – structurally equivalent to the exemplary collaboration – prescribing specific work phases for their collaboration. During the application phase, the collaborative task is the same in all conditions. Finally an individual posttest is admi-nistered. The test includes questions about characteristics of an “ideal collaboration” and content-related questions about medical and psychological aspects of the second case. First Experiment. 27 dyads were set up and randomly assigned to one of three conditions: Vicarious learning, script learning, control. Dyads assigned to the control condition received no treatment during the experimental learning phase. It was hypothesized that participants in the experimental conditions should acquire collaborative competences during the learning phase. These competences were then expected to reveal in the collaborative process as well as the outcome of the application phase. A slight advantage was expected for vicarious learning.
Results of the First Experiment
To gain information about the collaborative process, log-files taken during the application phase were analyzed to identify patterns of individual and joint phases of work for each dyad. Especially the vicarious learning condition resulted in a well-balanced sequence of phases of joint work and individual work. Dyads in the script learning condition showed not enough individual work. On average, dyads in the control group showed too much joint activity, but also a great deal of variance with regard to this aspect. Regarding the quality of the joint solution dyads in the vicarious learning condition produced a signifi-cantly better elaborated diagnosis than in the script condition. For the therapy plan, the script condition produced the best results. This result may partly be explained by the observation that dyads in the vicarious learning condition collaborated with more enthu-siasm and thus frequently got in trouble with the time constraints for the task. The posttest results revealed that participants in both experimental conditions significantly outperformed their control counterparts on questions about characteristics of an “ideal collaboration”.
Future Research
In further analysis of the first experiment, the relation between features of the collaborative process and the quality of the joint solutions will be scrutinized. A second experiment with theoretically further differentiated conditions and improved material is planned as well as a field experiment to implement computer-mediated collaborative work in the curriculum of medical and psychology students.
Research Output
Journal Publications:
Two journal articles are in preparation, one in connection with the joint DFG/NSF Early Career Exchange Program, one to be submitted to the Journal of the Learning Sciences. A further paper is planned in the field of psychotherapy research.
Conference Contributions with Published Proceedings:
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 (p. 293-300). Maastricht, NL: McLuhan Institute.
Rummel, N., Spada, H., Hermann, F., Caspar, F. & Schornstein, K. (2002). Promoting the coordination of computer-mediated interdisciplinary collaboration. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002 Conference (p. 558-560). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conference Contributions without Published Proceedings:
Rummel, N. Hermann, F. & Spada, H. (2001). Förderung effektiver Kooperation beim netzbasierten Problemlösen und Lernen bei komplementärem Wissen.
Vortrag auf der 8. Tagung der Fachgruppe „Pädagogische Psychologie“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Landau.
Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2002). Combining worked-out examples and vicarious learning to promote the coordination of computer-mediated interdisciplinary collaboration. Paper to be presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2002. New Orleans, USA.
Two abstracts have been submitted for contributions at the DGPs Kongress,
Berlin 9/2002, and one for the Symposium of the Fachgruppe Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie of the DGPs, Konstanz, 5/2002
Funding Period
September 2000 – August 2002
Other Project Members
Nikol Rummel, M. S. (UW-Madison) Jana Groß Ophoff
Anne Meier Friederike Renner Katrin Schornstein
Dr. Fabian Hermann (Doctoral thesis thematically connected to the project supervised by Prof. Dr. Hans Spada)
Project Address
Prof. Dr. Hans Spada
Psychologisches Institut der Universität Freiburg Abteilung Allgemeine Psychologie
Niemensstraße 10 D – 79085 Freiburg Tel.: (49)-761-203-2487 Fax: (49)-761-203-2490 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://www.psychologie.uni-freiburg.de/signatures/spada/spada.sig.html
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Strube & Dr. Dietmar Janetzko, University of Freiburg
WebSharK: Web-based Sharing of Knowledge
in Teams of Heterogeneous Experts
Goals
The focus of this project is on the emergence and the role of shared knowledge in colla-borative problem solving. We have chosen a domain where it is normal for several experts with different backgrounds (heterogeneous experts) to cooperate and communicate via electronic media (mostly shared web pages and e-mail). This is the domain of web design, i.e. planning and constructing a web site for a customer. Web design, being an ‘open’ problem – where there is no right solution – seems to be an ideal domain for studying the role of shared knowledge. Our research objectives for the first two years are:
• to model the structure of web design, and analyze this complex task in terms of knowledge needs and knowledge sources;
• to analyze the communication of knowledge between the collaborators and construct a ‘knowledge workflow’ model.
The objectives do not include modelling the experts’ knowledge, but rather the ‘common ground’ of the participants, as well as the knowledge exchanged during the process in order to build up additional shared knowledge.
Background
(1) We refer to recent work on the division and sharing of knowledge in collaborative groups. The policy of knowledge sharing, and hence the amount of shared know-ledge, varies according to needs; from sharing almost everything (as in the naval combat teams studied at the Naval Research Center in Florida) to mostly divided knowledge (i.e. experts on their own) with only minimal communication of know-ledge. We refer especially to the model of Lewis and Sycara (1993) which focuses on the improvement of naïve models (of the other team members and their knowledge) through communication of knowledge.
(2) Regarding communication we have been influenced by the work of H. Clark on ‘common ground’.
(3) With respect to design tasks, we build on our former work in FABEL (a project for supporting architects, Voß et al., 1995). Our theory is influenced by the work of G. Fischer (U. of Colorado at Boulder), especially on the importance of critics.
Project Work
(1) Using knowledge engineering techniques (observation, interviews, sorting techniques, etc.), we established a model of the task of web design. Although this model may be revised during our present and future work, it provides a starting point. It seems probable that the two top levels of this model constitute the common ground, i.e. the shared knowledge all team members (due to their experience) have acquired before an individual project is begun.
(2) In order to analyze the process of knowledge communication, we have designed – but not yet performed – a study of one crucial step in the web design process. This is the planning of (part of) the web site, which is jointly done by three participants: the project manager, the screen designer, and the programmer/ technical expert. This study will be done with real experts as well as with pseudo-experts (non-pseudo-experts who have learned the relevant basic knowledge needed for the task during the learning phase of the experiment).
Results
Due to organizational difficulties, we started much later than planned and have only had half a year of project time to date. Among the current results are:
(1) A model of the task of web design
(2) The materials and design of the empirical study
(3) Experimental results demonstrating the effect of shared knowledge in a similar task, from a concurrent doctoral dissertation project by S. Thalemann (advisor: G. Strube)
Future Research
(1) After the model of communication of knowledge in web design has been detailed and empirically validated, we will address the question of generalization: Do we find the same structure across different teams? Can the same be found in other similar design tasks?
(2) Having analyzed the processes of collaborative design and the communication of knowledge in it, we will look at how to support design teams with a kind of ‘knowledge workflow management’.
Research Output
Invited presentation:
Strube, G. (2002, January 9). Knowledge and knowledge sharing. Cognitive Science Colloquium, University of Osnabrück, Germany.
Funding Period
October 2000 – September 2002, of which only 6 months were used up to now.
Other Project Members
Dipl.-Psych. Karen Kofler (Jan.-Apr., 2001) Barbara Wittstruck, M.A. (since Nov., 2001) Kerstin Garg (since Nov., 2001)
Project Address
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Strube
IIG, Abt. Kognitionswissenschaft Friedrichstr. 50 D – 79098 Freiburg Tel.: (49)-761-203-4933 Fax: (49)-761-203-4938 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://www.iig.uni-freiburg.de/cognition
Dr. Jürgen Buder, University of Tübingen
Team 2: Coordinative Processes in
Net-based Knowledge Communication
Overview
Team 2 consists of six projects from quite different domains, having contributions from social psychology, educational psychology, computer science, and psycholinguistics. The inter-disciplinary nature of Team 2 is also captured by a divergence of the phenomena under study. While three projects deal with collaborative learning in educational settings (Mandl, Schwabe/Furbach, Weidenmann/Paechter), the Diehl and Piontkowski/Keil projects address issues in group decision making, whereas the Wintermantel/Becker-Beck project covers collaborative planning and problem solving.
Research in Team 2 can be characterized by two commonalities. One commonality has to do with issues of cross-medial comparisons. In three projects different communi-cation media are compared explicitly (PIs: Schwabe, Weidenmann, Wintermantel); the other three projects at least partly and indirectly address medial comparisons by altering fundamental medial characteristics, e.g. volatility/permanence of exchange.
The second, even more important commonality among projects in Team 2 is the strong focus on processes of coordination during knowledge exchange. E.g., the projects by Diehl, Piontkowski, and Weidenmann analyze the well-known bias in favor of shared (vs. unshared) information that can be found in group discussions. The Mandl project investigates coordinative aspects of guiding questions or cooperation scripts as a means to structure discussions; the project by Schwabe addresses temporal aspects of media use and media choice to coordinate successful group learning; and the project by Wintermantel explicitly deals with coordination in the regulation and fine-tuning of group discussions.
Joint Activities
Team 2 initiated two joint presentations for the congress of the DGPs (German Society for Psychology), to be held in Berlin in September, 2002. Furthermore, a summer work-shop with external participants (e.g. Andrea Hollingshead, Urbana-Champaign) is planned, as well as a special issue in the “Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie” (Journal of Media Psychology).
Team Speaker
Prof. Dr. Michael Diehl, University of Tübingen
Computer-mediated Information Sampling in Small Groups
Goals
Within the scope of the special priority program “Net-based Knowledge Communication in Groups” we investigate decision making processes in small groups. Especially the optimization of the processes of exchanging and integrating the decision relevant information by means of computer mediated communication is the target of our work. In our opinion net-based knowledge communication can be an effective tool in order to overcome the shortcomings of decision making processes in face-to-face groups.
Background
Previous research in group decision-making has found that groups do not make better decisions than individuals. The information sampling model (Stasser & Titus, 1985) suggests that the reason for this phenomenon is suboptimal information pooling. Because of a smaller a priori probability for communicating unshared information in groups, the unshared information is under-represented in the group discussion. Numerous empirical experiments confirm these assumptions in face-to-face groups.
On the other hand Gigone & Hastie (1993) emphasize that the prediscussion distribution of group members’ decisional preference determines the group decision. They argue that shared information affects individual prediscussion preference of every member, whereas unshared information cannot (= common knowledge effect). Their experiments suggest an explicit or implicit averaging combination rule to combine the member judgements into a group decision.
The dual-process model (Winquist & Larson, 1998) represents an integration of the aforementioned approaches. It posits prediscussion preferences of individual group members and information exchange during the discussion as key mediating variables. To sum up, shared information exerts its influence on prediscussion preferences, whereas
Project Work
To date, three experiments using synchronous computer-mediated communication have been performed. In all three experiments we assigned a decisional task in the hidden profile paradigm (see Stasser & Titus, 1985), in which subjects were asked to decide which of several candidates was the best for a professional appointment. Reading time for individual information (only Experiment 3), individual preferences (before and after discussion) and group decisions as well as the course of the discussion and recognition performance in an postexperimental test were recorded and analyzed.
Experiment 1 investigated the presumably ameliorating effects of conflicting individual preferences before the discussion and of the permanent availability of initial information on the communication process. Based on research in the field of conformity and memory effects, we hypothesized two main effects for conflict/consensus and permanence/no permanence of information.
In Experiment 2 we created an experimental condition structuring the discussion process so that information pooling and group decision process were separated. This structuring was supposed to facilitate an unbiased and more open information exchange since the pressure to exchange only information that maintains group consensus is reduced. Due to the unbiased information exchange, we hypothesized that in the experimental condition groups should have no problem uncovering the hidden profile and choosing the “objectively” best candidate. In the control condition the process of information pooling and group decision making was confounded as in all of Stasser’s experiments.
Commitment and availability of information were manipulated in Experiment 3. Inhibiting individuals from developing preferences should prevent subjects from having a strong commitment and thus should facilitate a shift to the best candidate from pre- to postdiscussion decision.
Results
Results from Experiment 1 revealed a longer duration of the discussions for the conflicting groups but no higher rate of correct judgments. This difference had no effect on decision quality. Thus, conflict of initial preferences compared to consensus failed to improve group decision. Permanent availability of information as well had no supportive effect on the quality of group decision. The frequency of actual utilization of rereading the initial information revealed a significant effect for conflict/consensus, in that subjects with initial conflict of individual preferences made use of the available information more often than those with consensus. The most surprising result was that almost two thirds of the subjects maintained their initial preference even after discussion. It is therefore not surprising that the performance in the free recall tests after the experiment revealed a biased information recall in favor of the subjects’ initially preferred alternative.
Results from Experiment 2 revealed that we were successful in creating conditions in which the subjects pooled all relevant information. In the experimental condition subjects on average mentioned more than 90% of all relevant information. Even though almost all relevant information was available to the subjects, only 29% of the groups managed to uncover the hidden profile and select the “objectively” best candidate. These results demonstrate that subjects are reluctant to give up their prediscussion choice and give more weight to preference-consistent information and shared information than to preference-inconsistent information and unshared information.
Experiment 3 has been carried out, however, the data have not yet been analyzed.
Future Research
Even though we assume that information pooling is surely a necessary but not a sufficient premise for optimal decisions in groups, we plan to examine what effect the amount of repetition of items has on group decision processes. Due to memory effects we expect that a redundancy filter will strengthen the role of unshared information and so optimize decision making processes. In addition to information exchange processes we would like to investigate motivational and cognitive processes that influence information integration.
Research Output
Conference Contributions:
Möhle, B., Diehl, M., Zipfel, C. & Ziegler, R. (2002). Netzbasierte Wissenskommunikation in Gruppenentscheidungen. 44. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen (TeaP) March 2002.
Möhle, B., Diehl, M. & Zipfel, C. (2002). Computer-mediated information exchange in small groups. 13 th General Meeting of the European Association of
Experimental Social Psychology (EAESP) June 2002.
Möhle, B., Diehl, M. & Zipfel, C. (2002). (Title not yet determined) – Contribution to the symposium “ Koordinationsprozesse beim Wissenserwerb mit neuen Medien”. 43. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs)
September 2002.
Funding Period
December 2000 – September 2002
Other Project Members
Dipl.-Psych. Britta Möhle Cand. Psych. Christoph Zipfel Sybille Heitz (research assistant) Georg Schellhorn (research assistant) Georg Kane (research assistant)
Project Address
Prof. Dr. Michael Diehl
Sozial- und Persönlichkeitspsychologie Friedrichstr. 21 D – 72072 Tübingen Tel.: (49)-7071-29-72409 Fax: (49)-7071-29-5899 E-Mail: [email protected] WWW: http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/sii/abtspps/diehl.htm
