University of Groningen Changing face-to-face ... · Changing Communication: Designing Tools for...

University of Groningen

Changing face-to-face communicationDiggelen, Wouter van

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2011

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Diggelen, W. V. (2011). Changing face-to-face communication: collaborative tools to support small-groupdiscussions in the classroom. Groningen: University of Groningen, SOM research school.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 02-05-2020

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/changing-facetoface-communication(801e0c9a-1f26-4f8a-a44c-174c3dcf764d).html



6 Changing Communication: Designing

Tools for Collaborative Learning

The group problem-solving process, which I was observing, was constantly interrupted, back-tracked and side tracked, with signs

of growing emotional tensions in and between persons […] A good deal of behavior seemed to be deficit driven, neither

particularly emotional, nor directly instrumental, but in the nature of patch-up work that seemed to be necessary to maintain the

communication process.

Robert Bales1

In this chapter, we discuss the design of two collaborative tools that aim to change the communication patterns of a group of students who participate in a problem-solving discussion. The challenge for the tool design is to create the right conditions for a constructive dialogue during which the students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter. The design process that is discussed in this chapter starts with an analysis of the existing collaborative learning situation and ends with a description of two collaborative tools that aim to improve that situation. First, we identify the communication patterns that have a negative influence on the performance of the groups whereby performance is associated with the four criteria for a constructive dialogue (see chapter 4). We describe two ineffective communication patterns – interpersonal dominance and product blocking – that prevent group members from freely share and discuss their ideas. The ineffective patterns will be traced back to potentially manipulable aspects of the learning environment that are particular potent in promoting learning effectiveness (Hackman, 1987). In our case, we relate the

1 Robert Freed Bales (2002). Social Interaction Systems: Theory and measurement, page 161-162.

83

Chapter 6

patterns to the underlying structures of the medium for communication. Such a medium has certain structural features that enable the group to arrange their verbal exchanges into a meaningful whole.

The aim of the design is to develop a collaborative tool that counteracts the ineffective communication patterns associated with a verbal discussion. It is hypothesized that improvements do occur because a collaborative tool mediates and regulates the communication differently.

6.1 Ineffective Communication PatternsIn the 1950s the social psychologist Robert Bales (Bales, 2002) studied students who worked together in small groups to solve problems. He noticed that these groups often did not fulfill the rational, goal-directed strategies that are associated with individual problem solving. The group processes that he observed differed from the theoretical accounts that describe problem solving primarily as an analytical activity. Groups sometimes seemed disorientated and did not follow the logic of a rational discussion. Their sequence of talk was incoherent and was not oriented towards the achievement of an acceptable solution. It drew Bales attention away from individual mental processes towards the interaction processes. In line with this shift in focus, our analysis of small-group discussions aims to identify the ineffective communication patterns that hamper group learning. The analysis focuses on the communication patterns that inhibit the free exchange of knowledge. We identify two types of ineffective communication patterns that affect the performance of groups. These patterns are: 1) interpersonal dominance, and 2) product blocking.

Interpersonal dominance

The teachers that participated in our studies mentioned unequal participation as a major drawback of small-group discussions. They reported that a discussion is sometimes controlled by one or more rhetorically “skilled” students who constantly manage to take the turn or to overrule their fellow group members. It means that some students talk a lot while other students hardly get the opportunity to share their ideas with the group. This does not only work out badly for the individual students but it also hampers the learning potentials of the group. The group does not fully capitalize on the knowledge available.

84

Changing Communication: DesigningTools for Collaborative Learning

Dominance and control are regularities in the behavior of persons who score high on the “dominance-submissiveness trait” (Cattell, 1965). They guide much of the seemingly irrational behavior when people discuss their difference of opinion (Stein & Albro, 2001). Bales (2002) considers dominance as one of the basic problems of groups as social-interaction systems. Interpersonal dominance implies the ability and the tendency to use “raw power”, i.e. a tendency to control how others behave apart from any formal “legitimacy” (Bales, 2002). Interpersonal dominance manifests itself by behaviors like repeatedly taking the turn, interruptions and simultaneous speech. These individual behaviors reflect an individual´s disposition to monopolize a discussion.

The disruptive behaviors that are associated with interpersonal dominance can be situated on the individual level as behavior regularities. However, their appearance during a group discussion depends on how the group coordinates their interactions. The group can draw on certain structures and mechanisms that enable them to organize their individual actions into collective behavior.

The disruptive behaviors during a verbal discussion are intentional violations of the turn-taking principle. They typically occur because someone wants to take over the speaking turn (Bull, 2002). A dominant group member interferes the ongoing talk so that fellow group members are not able to finish their turn or to take the turn. Repeatedly taking the turn rests on the basic technique that “first starter gets the turn” (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974). Simultaneous speech refers just to two or more people talking at the same time, whereas interruptions have the intent or the effect of disrupting another person’s speech (Bull, 2002). A discussion becomes scattered when students do not manage these disruptive behaviors properly (Schegloff, 2000). Interpersonal dominance leads to an ‘asymmetrical pattern of communication’ (Zimmerman & West, 1975) whereby some students have fewer opportunities to share their knowledge with the group. Asymmetrical or unequal participation is in conflict with one of the criteria for a constructive dialogue that states that all group members should freely participate. It prevents groups from fully access the knowledge that is available so that they are not able to capitalize on the insights that fellow members have generated (Barron, 2003).

Product Blocking

Brainstorming research provides us with valuable insights in how the sequential organization of the communication affects the cognitive processes on the level of the

85

Chapter 6

group. Various studies compared brainstorming in interacting groups with brainstorming in nominal groups. Nominal groups consist of the same number of individuals as the interacting groups but their members brainstorm alone, i.e. there are no interactions between the group members. Comparing real or interacting groups with nominal groups allowed researchers to analyze the effects of the interaction processes on group performance. Early research indicated that nominal groups outperformed real groups (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). This “productivity loss” (Steiner, 1972) in real groups is large, and increases with group size; the effect is found for quantitative as well as qualitative measures of productivity (Nijstad, 2000). Three interpretations have been offered to account for the lower productively of real groups (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987): 1) product blocking, 2) evaluation apprehension, and 3) free riding.

Product blocking occurs when individuals need to wait to verbalize an idea because of some procedural limitation (Isakesen, 1998). Production blocking has to do with the turn-taking rule that only one group member speaks at the same time. Group members, who are prohibited to verbalize their ideas on the moment they occur, forget or suppress them so that the process of idea generation stagnates or is disrupted because of blocking (Nijstad, 2000). Evaluation apprehension refers to a fear for negative evaluation from fellow group members. It prevents group members from presenting their more original ideas. Free riding states that any factor that reduces the ability of the group to monitor individual productivity is also likely to reduce a subject’s motivation to participate during a collaborative activity.

Most of the productivity losses in real brainstorming groups were due to blocking (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Nijstad, 2000). Nijstad (2000) concluded that idea generation could be made more effective when product blocking is eliminated or kept to a minimum. The use of a collaborative tool that is based on parallel access – as is the case with an electronic brainstorm tool – could counteract the effects of blocking. In electronic brainstorm groups there is no product blocking because group members can put forward a contribution simultaneously, whereas group members still have access to each others´ ideas. Under these conditions, moderate positive effects of idea sharing can be found (Nijstad, 2000).

86


6.2 The Envisioned Direction of ChangeThe functional perspective – that has been introduced in chapter 3 – puts the communication processes at the heart of effective group performance. The functional perspective states that the communication processes have utility and may vary. Some communication patterns can be associated with effective performance, while other patterns can be ineffective and hamper learning. The functional perspective asserts that the communication processes can be controlled and regulated by internal group factors or external circumstances so that the desired group behaviors are more likely to occur (Webb & Palincsar, 1996; Hollingshead et al., 2005). This view provides the ground for the support that aims to inhibit the negative effects of the ineffective communication patterns. In this thesis, we follow the functional perspective and discuss the design of two collaborative tools that intervene in the existing group discussion. These tools offer an alternative medium for communication, a medium where group members are not able to display the disruptive behaviors of interpersonal dominance and product blocking.

Figure 6.1 presents the process of tool design that is discussed in the following paragraphs. The design process starts with the two communication problems –

87

Figure 6.1: The process of tool design.

Chapter 6

interpersonal dominance and product blocking – that have been described in the previous paragraph. These problems are further specified in terms of observable communication patterns and their underlying structures. The communication patterns describe the recurrent sequence of related communicative actions, while the underlying structures and mechanisms describe the way that the group organizes these actions into a pattern of communication. Webb and Palincsar (1998) identified a great variety of structures that influence the group processes like the reward structure, group composition and role specialization. In this thesis, we concentrate on the structures that are characteristic for a specific medium. The essence of the tools is to offer the groups an alternative medium for communication – besides human speech – that changes the communication and improves learning.

From Action towards Inter-action

The human activity system that is the focus of the tool design is the group who meets face-to-face to discuss a problem with the aim to increase their understanding of the knowledge domain associated with that problem. These discussions are a specific type of “focused interaction” (Goffman, 1963) that occurs when students collaborate to build a shared representation of the problem space. The interaction can be considered as multiparty talk that consists of loosely connected episodes of talk. Participants either develop or use specific structures to regulate their talk into a coherent whole (Schwartzman, 1989). These structures constitute the significance of the communicative actions of those who participate in a discussion (Cushman & Whiting, 1972). They can be inherent to a medium as the most sensible way to organize the communication or they emerge when the group starts to communicate. An example of the former is turn taking to organize the sequence of verbal exchanges, while an example of the latter may be a strong task focus that leads to considerable task-related communication.

Mediation and the Organization of Communication

The tool design that is discussed in this chapter exploits the structures that are inherent to a medium as an opportunity to change group communication. They do so by changing the informational, temporal, and interactional processes by which groups do their work (Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995).

First, we concentrate on the existing communication and describe the

88


coordination mechanisms by which group members organize their verbal exchanges. This is because we assume that the two communication problems – interpersonal dominance and product blocking – are characteristic for human speech as medium for communication.

A group who communicates orally has to organize their interactions according to the “mechanism of turn-taking” (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974). Turn taking rests on the principle that only one group member talks at the same time. In the previous paragraph, we traced the two communication problems – interpersonal dominance and product blocking – back to the mechanism of turn taking. Frequent violations of the turn taking principle make a verbal discussion scattered and incoherent. Furthermore, turn taking may hamper the sharing of ideas because only one group member can put his or her thoughts into words at the same time. It is expected that the communication problems will not occur when the group organizes its communicative exchanges according to a different kind of floor-control mechanism. The collaborative tools should offer such an alternative mechanism in the form of parallel access.

With parallel access, all the group members can access a shared workspace simultaneously. They do not have to wait for their turn but immediately share their ideas with the group. Furthermore, other group members cannot interfere because a group member puts forward a contribution in a private window by typing. It is hypothesized that parallel access counteracts the communication problems that are exemplary for verbal exchanges. It ensures an equal participation of the group members during the discussion.

Guidelines for a Constructive Dialogue

The transition from turn taking to parallel access is a basic property of the collaborative tools. However, this guideline is not sufficient; it describes the tools in rudimentary terms. Parallel access as a design guideline triggered further research that aimed to come up with a collaborative tool that is specifically adapted to the specific context of use, in our case, a group who carries out a constructive dialogue. In chapter 4, we defined four criteria that are associated with a constructive dialogue. These criteria served as reference for the tool design, they are:

1. An orientation towards the achievement of the learning task.

2. Equal participation and the free exchange of ideas.

89

Chapter 6

3. A coherence discussion where successive communicative actions are connected in a meaningful way.

4. Communication pattern that are directed at knowledge elaborations.

6.3 Design GuidelinesThe remaining paragraphs of this chapter discuss the design of two collaborative tools. We present eight guidelines that capture the properties of the collaborative tools. The design guidelines contain clear expectations how the collaborative tools mediate and regulate the communication and create better opportunities for learning. The design guidelines that are discussed in this paragraph are:

1. The collaborative tools match with the characteristics of effective task performance.

2. Associate a medium with a specific communicative function.

3. Ensure joint attention by using only one collaborative tool at the time.

4. Parallel access as floor-control mechanism.

5. Functional spaces to coordinate the computer-mediated exchanges.

6. Relate functional spaces to relevant macro structures that are associated with task performance.

7. A global model of coherence instead of a local model coherence to organize the communicative exchanges.

8. A notation system that stimulates knowledge elaborations.

Effective Task Performance

Small-group discussions require a lot of effort from the students. Students have to address several aspects of their performance as a group: they have to maintain durable social relations and acceptable levels of participation, manage the relations with outsiders such as the teacher, solve a complex problem, and they have to establish the proper conditions for learning. In general, one can make a distinction between two dimensions of group performance: groups have to carry out a task and they must act as a group (Hare, 1960; Fisher, 1980; McGrath, 1984; van Rees, 1999). Groups have to put effort in the performance of the task and they have to invest energy in maintaining themselves as a group. The group members must simultaneously attend to and develop a shared problem space and a relational space consisting of interactional challenges and

90


opportunities (Barron, 2003).

The first function – carrying out the group task – requires a lot of cognitive efforts, especially in the case of complex, ill-structured problems. These types of problems refer to situations where it is not clear at the beginning what the problem exactly entails and which actions may lead to the solution of the problem. Problem solving can be characterized as a nonlinear transformation process: the process has no clearly defined beginning and the output could be achieved along multiple paths simultaneously (Taylor and Felten, 1993). These problems are open to different interpretations while solving them requires the application of multiple viewpoints and mutual knowledge (Schwartz, 1995). Groups who have to solve ill-structured problems are faced with the challenge to address the different viewpoint and to develop a shared understanding.

A second complicated factor with regard to the performance of groups has to do with maintaining a sense of “groupness”, i.e. with the development and maintenance of the group as a system (McGrath, 1991). When students collaborate, they have to maintain durable relationships and acceptable levels of collaboration. This entails the development of a climate that socializes the uniqueness of the individual into the social system of the group (Fisher, 1980).

The two functions described above are fundamental for every social system. They are associated with two distinct types of communicative functions, i.e. task-related and social-emotional communication (Bales, 1950). Task-related communication is used to explicate the task processes in groups. It enables group members to share and use knowledge and information that are directly related to task performance (Propp, 1999). Social-emotional communication affects student’s perception of the other group members and the relationships they form (Propp, 1999). The minimal number of categories of social-emotional interactions includes control and affection (Hare, 1960).

The question remains which communicative function – task-related or social-emotional – should be supported by the collaborative tools? It is assumed that groups benefit from effective task performance because their task-related communication is generally related with learning. Task-related communication leads to cognitive activities often referred to as knowledge elaboration, which, in turn, facilitates the acquisition of that knowledge (Draskovic, Holdrinet, Bulte, Bolhuis and Leeuwe, 2004).

91

Chapter 6

General design guideline 1 (Box 6.1) states that the collaborative tool should provide the students with the proper environment that enables them to carry out their task effectively. The digital medium has to facilitate the communication that is associated with effective task performance. This will be the incentive for students to use the collaborative tools. The tools provide the students with a medium that better enables them to discuss their learning task.

Design guideline 1 lies at the basis of a number of subsequent design guidelines that concern the detailed design of the collaborative tool and the associated instructions.

Two Media for Face-to-face communication

Group communication in the envisioned collaborative learning situation will be distributed between two modes of communication: a verbal part and a digital, computer-mediated part. Groups can communicate verbally or by means of the computer. General design guideline 2 (Box 6.2) states that each medium has to display

92

Box 6.1: Design guideline 1.

Computer support for effective task performanceUsers are encouraged to perform their task-related communication within the shared workspace of the collaborative tool. Task-related interactions are associated with knowledge elaboration and learning. It is expected that students will be using the collaborative tools when they are configured in such a way that it closely matches the characteristics of effective task performance.


Associate a medium with a specific communicative functionThe collaborative tool has to display communication that has to do with the task. It will be more difficult for the group to focus on the task when both communicative functions – task-related and social-emotional – occur in the shared digital workspace of the collaborative tool.


one communicative function so that the communication in that medium will be meaningful. The distinction between task-related and social-emotional communication will be used as the criterion to split the communication between the two media. It is assumed that a clear distinction will be beneficial for the coordination of the activities. When a specific communicative function will be displayed in one medium – verbal or computer-mediated - attention of the group will be more focused.

Face-to-face versus Online

Design guidelines 1 and 2 set the collaborative tool apart from online learning environments. Online learning environments support collaboration between students who are dispersed in time or space. In general, these environments aim to mediate a broad range of interactions. An enrichment of the information flow improves learning: for example, students are presented with multiple tools simultaneously to address the various communicative functions (see e.g. van Amelsvoort, 2006), or the students use awareness tools that provide the group with detailed information about their members or their performance (see e.g. Janssen, 2008). Online learning environments seem to reflect an attitude of “more support is better’” i.e. a rich information flow between the learners is a good guarantee for collaboration and learning. The computer support that is discussed in this thesis is more in line with the kind of support that has been developed in the field of Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW). Various collaborative tools within that field have been developed to support professionals who meet face-to-face. These tools mainly focus on task performance; they provide support for specific task-related activities such as brainstorming or decision-making.

A Common Task Focus

Collaboration is a process by which individuals negotiate and share meanings relevant to the problem solving task at hand (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995). As mentioned before, it is a kind of “focused interaction” that requires a common orientation. Such an attentional engagement is a prerequisite for coordinated interactions (Barron, 2003). Attentional engagement is crucial for the success of communication during collaborative learning (Sfard & Kieran, 2001). If the learners do not focus on the same activity, it will be less likely that they built upon the knowledge that is shared by others. General design guideline 3 states that joined attention can best be ensured when all the learners work together in one collaborative tool (Box 6.3).

93

Chapter 6

Group communication already splits between an oral and a computer-mediated part. The computer-mediated part occurs in one environment so that coordination of the communicative exchanges will not become too complex. We assume that it is undesirable to divide group activities between multiple collaborative tools otherwise students may not be aware of what other students share with the group.

Implementation

Design guideline 3 implies that the task-related interactions of all the users take place within the same tool. This guideline is not so much a technical requirement. It will be implemented as an instruction that makes the final software system – that contains a number of collaborative tools – suitable to support a small-group discussion.

Parallel Access as Floor Control Mechanism

The two ineffective communication patterns – interpersonal dominance and product blocking – are associated with turn taking as floor-control mechanism. This mechanism is typical for the organizational of verbal sequences of talk.

Interpersonal dominance manifests itself as frequent violations of turn taking and in difficulties in gaining the floor (Barron, 2003). Product blocking occurs when group members forget or suppress their ideas because they are prohibited to verbalize their ideas when another group member is speaking. In these cases, the turn-taking mechanism prevents group members from “getting the floor”.

Floor control refers to a pattern of control and authorities relative to participants’ interaction in the shared workspace, i.e. the “floor” (Heeren, 1996). A change in the floor control mechanism affects the behaviors that the group members will display. It is assumed that parallel access as floor-control mechanism counteracts unequal

94


Ensuring joint attentionAll computer-mediated communication should be concentrated within one collaborative tool. Attention of the group will be more focused when all the digital communication will be concentrated in the shared workspace of one tool.


participation that is caused by interpersonal dominance (Box 6.4). Parallel access has a direct impact on productivity because a wider bandwidth allows for parallel entries, coupled with instantaneous dissemination of ideas to group members (Gallupe, Bastianutti & Cooper, 1991).

Implementation

In the case of “free for all” or “parallel access”, the coordination of interactions is a shared responsibility of all the users. All the students can put forward their contributions at the same time without any disturbance. They use a text-based, digital medium to share their ideas with the group. Users type their ideas in a private window that is not accessible by other users. Only after they submit their text it becomes visible in the shared workspace.

It is hypothesized that parallel access stimulates the free exchange of ideas because participants can put forward their ideas without being interrupted. They can directly share their ideas without having to wait for their turn.

Task- or Problem Decomposition and Functional Spaces

Design guideline 4 suggests the use of parallel access as floor control mechanism. With parallel access, all participants contribute to the discussion without any direct constraints from their peers. They can simultaneously access the shared digital workspace to put forward their ideas in writing.

Parallel access brings along its own dynamics with regard to the coordination and organization of the communicative exchanges. The study that is discussed in chapter 7 indicates that parallel access encompasses the danger of disorganization; it is just as if

95


Parallel access for the free expression of ideasParallel access enables users to share their ideas directly and fully with the group. A user who wants to contribute does not have to wait until another group member finished speaking like in the case of a verbal discussion. A user who puts forward an idea cannot be interrupted by fellow group members. It is expected that this may lead to equal participation.

Chapter 6

several people talk at the same time. Communication problems that are associated with parallel access are: 1) extensiveness of contributions in the shared workspace, and 2) a lack of a common group focus with regard to the topic of discussion. The two issues are related in the sense that they strengthen each other. There is the danger that the shared workspace becomes crowded. The number of contributions increases quickly, which makes it difficult for group members to monitor what is going on. Group members are not able to keep track of the various topics that are put forward by their fellow group members. Without timely joint attention, basic processes as sharing perspectives, increased monitoring and providing explanations will be compromised (Barron, 2003).

A number of studies investigated how persons coordinate their actions when they access a shared workspace simultaneously (Tang, 1991; Dwyer & Suthers, 2006). Tang (1991) emphasized the spatial properties of the medium. He observed that the spatial orientation of the shared workspace could serve as a resource that allows persons to establish a meaningful context for their contribution.

Dwyer and Suthers (2006) studied how groups of two people construct a representation collaboratively. Participants in their study typed messages in a two-dimensional shared workspace that was positioned horizontal between them. They provided all groups with large sheets of paper, some groups also received yellow notes, to brainstorm ideas, discuss them and come to some kind of final agreement. The participants could access the workspace simultaneously to read and write independently from each other. Dwyer and Suthers (2006) observed that the participants in the study created functional spaces in the shared workspace like a personal area, a shared work area or an area to list conclusions. Some of these areas emerged in every group; they seemed to fulfill a common goal that could be associated with the nature of the task.

The studies of Tang (1991) and of Dwyer and Suthers (2006) indicated that the participants used the spatial properties of the shared workspace to coordinate their actions into a coherent whole. It is assumed that a shared workspace that offers a structure that divides the two-dimensional workspace counteracts the coordination problems associated with parallel access. Such a structure divides the shared workspace into functional spaces that have a specific meaning. They are meant to organize the contributions in a coherent manner. This brings us to next design guideline that is presented in Box 6.5.

96


Implementation

Design guideline 5 proposes a solution for the coordination problem that is associated with parallel access as floor-control mechanisms. The shared workspace will be structured into functional spaces by the use of categories in the case of the Threaded-discussion tool or areas in the case of the Graphical tool.

The Threaded-discussion tool – the first envisioned tool – is a tool that enables users to communicate with each other by means of textual messages. The tool provides the users with a stratified structure where each layer reflects different levels of elaboration. Categories resemble the first level of elaboration. A category is linked to a specific shared workspace. When a user selects a category, the associated workspace becomes visible. The discussion that occurs in that workspace refers to that specific category.

With the Graphical tool – the second envisioned tool – users make spatial representations of concepts and their interrelationships. An area is a demarcated space within the two-dimensional workspace of the graphical tool. It contains contributions that are related.

Categories and areas can be considered as representation aids that help users to organize their digital discussion according to some meaningful structure. They help users to apply coherence and meaning to the ongoing discussion. This brings us to a next question: What kind of macro structures can be used to define functional spaces?

Functional Spaces and a Relevant Macro Structure

Students benefit from representation aids that make them aware of relevant aspects of the problem space. It is assumed that a macro structure that displays an essential aspect of the problem helps learners to construct a shared representation of the problem space.

97


Functional spaces for more coherenceContributions of the group members that are displayed in the shared workspace of the collaborative tools become more coherent if they are organized according to predefined structure that divides the shared workspace into functional spaces that have distinct meanings.

Chapter 6

One of the macro structures is “task or problem decomposition” that breaks down a problem or a task to its component pieces. Task decomposition reduces the cognitive load resulting from the demands of group interaction (Coskun, Paulus, Brown and Sherwood, 2000). It is assumed that task or problem decomposition proceeds along structures – i.e. categories or functional areas – that are relevant for solving the problem (Box 6.6).

Implementation

Design guideline 6 is part of the instructional strategy. Decomposing a problem into meaningful categories depends on the kind of learning task that students have to carry out. Decomposition helps students to construct a shared problem space that contains all the relevant aspects of the problem. The categories – that visible for all group members – display essential characteristics of the problem space.

Coherence

Coherence refers to the fact that a sequence of utterances is usually connected to each other in orderly and meaningful ways (Craig & Tracy, 1983). Patterns of coherence relate sentences or propositions as wholes (van Dijk, 1985). Coherence displays itself in different manners. The patterns that generate coherence may include rules about turn taking and the kinds of utterances that may follow each other or structural formats for introducing and developing topics or telling stories (Craig & Tracey, 1983). In general, coherence can be described in terms of local and global models.

98


Associate functional spaces with a relevant macro structureDecomposing the problem into meaningful subproblems provides the learners with task-relevant macro structure that helps them to better analyze and discuss the problem at hand. Categories or meaningful areas that subdivide the shared workspace are used to prime learners cognitively. It structures the problem into smaller pieces that are better comprehensible.


Local Coherence

Local models of coherence derive meaning from a sequence of contributions that directly succeed each other. Figure 6.2 represents the principle of local coherence: a statement receives its meaning in relation to a statement that directly precedes in time while different topics of discussion are temporally ordered into a coherent whole. This pattern is typical for verbal communication. The coherence of a verbal discussion is based on the assumption that each act is an appropriate response to a previous act (Littlejohn, 2002).

Coherence during a verbal discussion is realized by principles of turn taking and adjacency pairs or “nextness”. Time is a determining feature of local coherence; the adjacency of utterances in time is used to interpret meaningful sequences in a discussion. Turn taking and adjacency pair are units for sequence construction that transform individual contributions into a coherent and meaningful whole. Turn taking serves as a means to coordinate the sequence of turns whereby one person needs to talk after the other. Adjacency pair serves as a principle to extract meaning from a sequence of communicate acts during a discussion that is based on turn taking. The basic form of adjacency pair is characterized by certain features. It is composed of two turns by

99

Figure 6.2: Local coherence.

Chapter 6

different speakers that are adjacently placed, that is, one after the other. The two turns are relatively ordered into a first and second pair set. The first pair set contains utterance types that initiate some exchange while the second pair type is responsive to the action of a prior turn. Adjacency pairs compose pair types such as question-answer (Schegloff, 2007).

Global Coherence

Global models of coherence assume that a discourse is a dynamic process of back-and-forth practical reasoning. These models judge the coherence of a discourse on the basis of the overall reasoning (Littlejohn, 2002). A discourse may be coherent with respect to a particular theme, topic or event. Global models of coherence are less visible in verbal discussions where adjacency pair is a leading principle for sequence construction (Schegloff, 2007). This in contrast to, for example, written texts like a scientific article where a generic structure of meaning seems to be more vividly displayed (Goldberg, 1983). Such an overarching structure of meaning guides the readers and writers during their comprehension of the text. They model the cognitive mechanisms that readers and writers apply when they process the text (Knott & Sanders, 1998).

Implementation

Text-based, computer-mediated communication that is based on turn taking as in the case of chat tools shows a high degree of disrupted adjacency, overlapping exchanges and topic delay. These tools are claimed to be interactionally incoherent (Herring, 1999). It is hypothesized that a global model for coherence gives students more “cognitive freedom” in the sense that they can follow their own line of thinking more

100


Global coherenceA mediated discussion should be based on a global model of coherence. The use of “connections” enable students to respond to a previous contribution that does not directly precede in time. Users can relate contributions based on a macro structure of meaning instead of a purely temporal structure. It is expected that the students experience more “cognitive freedom” when they discuss a problem based on a global model of coherence.


easily during the group discussion (Box 6.7). Their thinking is not primary guided by the current topic of discussion, as is the case during a verbal discussion. Instead, students follow general structure of reasoning that enables them to address different topics continuously.

Figure 6.3 displays the principle of global coherence as it is implemented in the two collaborative tools. Global coherence is stimulated by a macro structure like categories in the case of the Threaded-discussion tool that divides a discussion into a number of topics. During the whole discussion, participants can contribute to these topics. They are not hampered by a temporal sequence of communicative exchanges that is characteristic for local coherence.

The collaborative tools provide the students with an alternative way to organize their discussion in a coherent manner (Box 6.7). Students organize their discussion based on a macro structure of meaning that better reflects their individual thinking. This results in more cognitive freedom within the context of the group discussion. The group discussion moves away from a temporal sequence of related messages towards a form of collaborative reasoning based on a general structure of meaning.

101

Figure 6.3: Global coherence.

Chapter 6

The permanence of contributions in the shared workspace is a necessary condition for global coherence. The contributions in the workspace remain visible so that users can relate their message to a relevant contribution that does not directly precedes in time. To summarize, global coherence is achieved by:

– representational aids like categories and meaningful areas that reflects a macro structure of meaning that guides the discussion,

– permanence of messages in the shared workspace, and

– the possibility to link a new contribution to a contribution in the shared workspace to display relatedness.

Encouraging Elaboration: The Use of a Notation System

Collaborative learning requires active participation of all learners and extensive task-related interactions. The task-related communication has to be oriented at the elaboration of the knowledge that is shared by the group. It does not only include the exchange of ideas but the students also build upon the shared knowledge by offering explanation or justifications, making inferences or drawing conclusions. These kinds of interactions make a group discussion into a constructive dialogue.

It is assumed that a notation system encourages learners to display communicative actions that can be associated with a constructive dialogue (Box 6.8). A notation system labels a contribution: a user chooses between a limited set of meanings or functions to label a message. This can be done before a messages is placed in the shared workplace or afterwards. Baker and Lund (1997), for example, provided students with a structured interface with a restricted set of communicative acts to guide their communication. Their analysis indicated that a structured interface promoted interactions that enabled learners to collaborate effectively.

102


Notation system to stimulate elaborationIt is expected that a notation system guides the communication between students. A notation system displays a limited range of meanings or functions – that are called labels – that are presented to the user as choices. These labels serve as a semantic guidance that keeps a discussion focused.


Implementation

A notation system consists of a set of labels that represents certain meanings or functions. These labels mark a communicative act. This will stimulate users to put forward contributions that are associated with that label, i.e. the labels that are displayed by the notation system guide the discussion. For example, the label “Question” encourages users to ask questions.

The labels that will be used depend on the specific pedagogical objectives, the learning task and the learning activities that the teacher wants to stimulate. For example, a notation system may encourage the occurrence argumentation by provide the learners with a set of labels that represent a formal argumentation scheme.

We make a distinction between two kinds of notation systems: 1) structured communication where students label a contribution beforehand, and 2) unhampered communication where students label a contribution afterwards with the support of post-hoc notation system.

With the first option, users choose a label before they start to type a text message. This option explicitly restricts the communication because the users can only choose between a limited set of labels. With the second option, users label a contribution after it has been placed in the shared workspace. This option should stimulate reflection on what has been put forward digitally.

6.4 Functional DesignAt the start of the LEAD project, we envisioned two collaborative tools: a Graphical tool and a Threaded-discussion tool. These tools were only rudimentary described.

The Graphical tool allows users to make abstract representations of the problem. These representations describe concepts and their interrelationships. Examples of such representations are argumentative diagrams that show the structure of arguments and conclusion or causal maps that show influence and causality (Huff, 1990). The Threaded-discussion tool is a collaborative tool that supports meaningful conversations among students (Jonassen, 2000). With this tool, users share, discuss and organize their ideas into a shared representation that addresses various aspects of the problem.

In this paragraph, we describe how the design guidelines that were presented in the

103

Chapter 6

previous paragraph were translated into a number of services. These services describe a set of tangible actions that the user can perform with the collaborative tool. They lay down the external behavior of a tool from the user's point of view (Davis, 1990). The services are functional descriptions that served as input for the software development process. This process resulted in a software system – which has been named CoFFEE – that was developed by the technical partner2 of LEAD's project team.

The functional design has been described in a number of documents that the software designers used as reference. It did not only include a description of the services but also several images or mock-ups of the user-interface. We also used data from existing studies to develop scenarios that describe how students use the envisioned tools (see Appendix A).

The Graphical Tool

The Graphical tool has – in contrast to the Threaded-discussion tool – several predecessors. Graphical tools to support learning include single user tools (e.g Inspiration3) and multiple users tools (e.g. Digalo4 and DREW5). These tools have been taken into account whereby we analyzed how certain user-interface issues were resolved by these tools.

The Graphical tool is based on a concept-mapping interface. A concept-mapping interface represents concepts and the relationships between concepts in a two-dimensional space. It displays nodes (concepts or ideas) and links (a relationship between two concepts). A node is visualized as a shape (text box) that contains textual information, while a link is visualized as a line between two shapes (Figure 6.4).

The Graphical tool has a number of structural features that help users to represent ideas into a coherent and meaningful way. These structures can be considered as representation aids that are relevant for effective task performance. It is expected that the representational aids stimulate the occurrence of communication patterns that are

2 ISISLab, the research lab of the Dipartimento di Informatica e Applicazioni “R.M. Capocelli” of the University of Salerno

3 http://www.inspiration.com/

4 http://www.argunaut.org/

5 http://drew.emse.fr/

104


beneficial for problem solving and learning. For example, the labels of the notation system can be used to distinguish between different types of contributions (see Figure6.4). In that case, users select a label to mark a contribution. The representational aids that are characteristics for the Graphical tool are:

– The representation of ideas as textual objects in a two-dimensional graphical workspace that can be accessed simultaneously by the users.

– Functional spaces to allocate a specific meaning to areas in the shared workspace.

– A notation system that elicits specific communicative actions in the shared workspace of the tool.

– The possibility to connect related concepts so that the sequence of contributions can be organized in a logical order that reflects the reasoning of the group.

Appendix B provides an example of how we further elaborated on these representation aids. It describes the initial functional design of the Graphical tool.

105

Figure 6.4: A first mock-up of the graphical tool.

Chapter 6

The Threaded-discussion Tool

The Threaded-discussion tool supports a discussion where students have to elaborate on various topics related to the problem. Students share, discuss and organize their ideas in a systematic manner.

The Threaded-discussion tool has a stratified structure that represents different levels of abstraction. The different layers serve as representation aids that help users to organize their discussion. Categories, for example, arrange the discussion based on most essential points.

Figure 6.5 gives a first impression of the user interface of the Threaded-discussion tool. Users type their contribution in the “add contribution window” and by pressing the “submit” button the contribution is placed in the shared workspace. Users respond to a contribution in the workspace by selecting that contribution and then press the “comment’ button”.

The Threaded-discussion tool has a number of structures that help users to organize their discussion into a coherent and meaningful whole. These structures resemble the structures that are implemented in the Graphical tool. The tool represents and relates contributions on the basis of three criteria:

106

Figure 6.5: A first mock-up of the threaded-discussion tool.


1. Categories to display various topics of the discussion.

2. A notation system that elicits specific communicative actions in the shared workspace of the tool.

3. Connections that enables a user to link a new contribution with a contribution in the shared workspace to indicate relatedness.

A separate window displays the categories. This Category window is always visible unless there is only one category. The users select a certain category in the Category window, which opens a shared workspace – associated with that category – within which the users place a contribution. Categories are defined beforehand by the teacher and they are the same for all the students that compose the group.

Users connect a new statement to a contribution in the shared workplace. A connection is made by placing the new contribution underneath the ‘parent’ contribution (left structure of Figure 6.6). A comment could also become a parent contribution (right structure of Figure 6.6).

The Threaded-discussion tool has a notation system similar to that of the Graphical tool. The notation system consists of a set of labels that represent certain communicative actions.

Why Two Collaborative Tools?

The two collaborative tools support particular group activities during a discussion. The Graphical tool allows students to make abstract representations that specify their ideas into a distinct number of classes like argument in favor, argument against and conclusions. It restricts the communication of the group to a limited number of

107

Figure 6.6: Connections as a means to organize related contributions.

Chapter 6

communicative acts. The spatial limitations of the two-dimensional workspace further confine the number of contributions that can be placed in the workspace. Sometimes, the task makes it impossible to construct an abstract representation that contains a limited number of messages. The Graphical tool seems to be less useful to represent the richness of a discussion that addresses various topics. Then the students need more freedom of expression. The Threaded-discussion tool provides the students with that freedom. The tool has a shared workspace that more closely resembles the way students share ideas during a verbal discussion. In addition, the Threaded-discussion tool has some representational aids that help students to organize their digital discussion into a coherent and meaningful whole.

Relationships between the two collaborative tools

The two collaborative tools show a large degree of correspondence. The Graphical tool has structural features similar to the Threaded-discussion tool. They are implemented differently because the two tools support different kinds of collaborative activities. The shared workspace of the Threaded-discussion tool is based on a stratified structure of: 1) categories, 2) threads that consist of main ideas and underlying elaborations, and 3) labels that classify a single contribution. Correspondingly, the shared workspace of the Graphic tool has three representational aids: 1) meaningful areas, 2) links, and 3) labels.

To summarize, both collaborative tools offer the users the ability:

– to divide the shared workspace in functional spaces, i.e. categories for the threaded-discussion tool and meaningful areas for the graphical tool,

– to link ideas that are related,

– to arrange a discussion according to a macro structure, i.e. categories and threads for the Threaded-discussion tool and meaningful areas and links for the Graphical tool, and

– to label contributions according to a notation system.

6.5 CoFFEE: The Software SystemThe two collaborative tools that have been discussed in this chapter are part of a networked-learning environment named CoFFEE that aims to support group

108


discussions in the classroom. The CoFFEE system makes a distinction between four kinds of tools: 1) collaborative tools, 2) shared tools, 3) personal tools, and 4) communication tools (see Appendix C). In this paragraph, we present the two collaborative tools of CoFFEE.

The Final Graphical Tool

The final Graphical tool (Figure 6.7) has several structural features that help the students to represent and organize their ideas. The representational aids that are characteristics for the basic graphical tool are:

– the possibility to divide shared workspace into meaningful areas that have a specific meaning,

109

Figure 6.7: User interface of the Graphical tool.

Chapter 6

– the possibility to link related concepts so that the external representation can be

organized in a logical order that reflects learners’ reasoning, and

– a notation system to elicit specific communicative actions.

Meaningful areas

Design guidelines 5 and 6 state that students who discuss a complex problem may benefit from a decomposition of that problem into component pieces. Dividing the shared workspace into meaningful areas provide the students with a task-relevant macro structure that helps them to address the complexity of the problem. The teacher divides the shared workspace beforehand into a number of columns or quadrants. Each column or quadrant can be named. There is a navigation window where users select the designated area so that they can move quickly to that specific part of the shared workspace.

Link

A concept-mapping interface enables users to link related contributions. Users relate a contribution by drawing a line between two contributions. They can also classify the link by selecting a label. The teacher has to define the labels beforehand. Examples of labels are causal relationship for causal maps, support or opposition for argumentative maps or association in the case of a concept map.

Notation System

A notation system consists of a set of labels or contribution cards that represents certain communicative acts. There are two strategies to attach a label to a contribution; these strategies are the same for both tool. Users attach a label before they put forward a contribution or they label a contribution after it has been placed in the shared workspace.

The Final Threaded-discussion Tool

The final Threaded-discussion tool has a shared workspace where users put forward written contributions (Figure 6.8). The tool provides the users with a number of representational aids to organize their discussion. The representational aids include:

1. categories,

110


2. the function to connect a new contribution to an existing one, and

3. a notation system that enables users to label a contribution.

Categories

Design guidelines 5 and 6 form the rationale for the use of categories. Categories decompose the topic of discussion into a number of essential points that make the students aware of the different aspects of the problem or task. A user who selects a certain category in the Category window sees the shared workspace associated with that category. A contribution that is placed in that workspace refers to that category, and hence to a specific topic.

The Category window is always visible for the users. Categories must be defined beforehand by the teacher. This is done at the beginning of the session after the teacher has started Threaded-discussion tool.

111

Figure 6.8: User-interface of the Threaded-discussion tool.

Chapter 6

Connections

Students connect a new contribution to any contribution that is already placed in the shared workspace. The existing contribution does not have to precede directly in time. This rule sets the discussion that occurs in the Threaded-discussion tool apart from its verbal counterpart. Users organize their discussion according to a global model of coherence that enables them to carry out a discussion based on back-and-forth practical reasoning. The resulting discussion can be visualized as a tree where each branch or thread represents a sequence of related contributions.

Connections in the Threaded-discussion tool differ from the linking mechanism in the Graphical tool. In the Threaded-discussion tool, users must connect a new contribution to an existing one while in the Graphical tool the use of links is optional.

Notation System

A notation system consists of a set of labels that attach a certain meaning to a communicative act. These labels have to be defined in advance by the teacher. The notation system can be applied in two different ways:

1. as a semantic guidance when the students put forward a contribution, or

2. as a means for reflection when a contribution is labeled after is has been placed in the shared workspace.

In the case of semantic guidance, a label is selected before the user types in a text. The text is submitted in the shared workspace with the label attached to it. Figure 6.9 displays a notation system that consists of three labels: problem, cause or sign. The users have to decide in advance what kind of label they want to attach to a new contribution. Next, they type in a text, submit the text to the shared workspace where it is displayed with the label attached to it.

With the second option (Figure 6.10), the users classify a contribution after it has been placed in the shared workspace. A user selects a contribution and right clicks with the mouse button to attach a label to a contribution.

112


6.6 SummaryIn this chapter, we discussed the design of two collaborative tools to support a constructive dialogue between a group of students who communicate face-to-face. We faced the challenge to define the proper conditions for such a dialogue that combines verbal with computer-mediated communication. To do this, we identified two ineffective communication patterns – interpersonal dominance and product blocking –

113

Figure 6.10: Label a contribution afterwards.

Figure 6.9: Label a contribution in advance.

Chapter 6

that can be associated with a verbal discussion. These communication patterns hamper the free exchange of ideas. From there we moved towards the design of two collaborative tools that counteract these problems. The heart of the tool design consists of a set of eight design guidelines that contain some clear expectations or hypotheses of how the collaborative tools change the group communication for the better.

Table 6.1 gives an overview of the eight design guidelines that comprise the conceptual part of the tool design. In chapter 4, we stated that the design activities have a twofold focus: we have to develop guidelines for the design of the collaborative

114

Designguidelin

e

Description Object of the design

Studies into the design guidelines

1 The collaborative tools closely matches the characteristics of effective task performance.

Tools and instructions

Chapter 8 & Chapter 9

2 Associate a medium with a specific communicative function.

Tools and Instructions

Chapter 9

3 Ensure joint attention by concentrating the computer-mediated part of the communication in one collaborative tool.

Instruction Chapter 7, Chapter 8 & Chapter 9

4 Use parallel access as floor-control mechanism for the free expression of ideas.

Tools Chapter 7 & Chapter 9

5 Divide the shared workspace into functional spaces to stimulate coherence of the computer-mediated part of the communication.


6 Associate functional spaces with a relevant macro structure that supports the construction of a shared problem space.

Tools and instructions

Chapter 7 & Chapter 9

7 Establish global coherence by using connections that enables users to respond to contributions that do not directly precede in time.


8 Use a notation system to stimulate elaboration. Tools Chapter 8 & Chapter 9

Table 6.1: Design guidelines.


tools but we also have to formulate instructions that help students to use the tools in an appropriate manner. The third column of Table 6.1 “Object of the Design” displays the scope of the design guidelines: a guideline applies to the tool design, the instructional design or to both.

In the following three chapters, we evaluate the hypotheses that lay at the basis of the design. Table 6.1 reports which guidelines will be discussed in the three chapters. The findings that are presented in these chapters reflect a progress in understanding with regard to the use of the collaborative tools. This understanding cannot be set apart from the design decisions that have been discussed in this chapter. In fact, some design guidelines were only formulated after other guidelines had been evaluated in practice. This repeated sequence of design, evaluation and adaptation of the design reflects the iterative character of the research.

6.7 ResearchIn this chapter, we presented the eight design guidelines as a whole, which gives the impression that they were developed simultaneously. This was however not the case; it took several successive cycles of research which ended in eight guidelines. Initially, four design guidelines were formulated that set the direction of change. These guidelines reflect two basic properties of the envisioned collaborative tools:

1. The collaborative tools mark a transition from “turn taking” towards “parallel access” as floor-control mechanism to stimulate the free expression of ideas.

2. The collaborative tools emphasize a focus on effective task performance as a means to stimulate group learning.

We expected that the two basic properties reduce or neutralize a number of the communicative barriers associated with a verbal face-to-face discussion. The first property, parallel access, counteracts the ineffective communication patterns that have to do with interpersonal dominance and product blocking. The second property, a focus on task performance, provides the group with a collaborative tool to support their task performance, and by doing so, creates the proper conditions for learning.

115

Chapter 6

Validation

The guidelines that relate to the two basic properties of the tools were separately addressed in different studies. These studies – that are discussed in chapter 7 and 8 – validated one of the basic properties of the tool. Validation is the process of demonstrating that the design meets the user's true requirements (Hall, Hall & Zeleznikow, 2003). Validation refers to research that examines if a collaborative tool has been developed right. For example, such kind of research analyses if parallel access really enables the students to freely share their ideas. Initial research into the design guideline “parallel access” revealed some hurdles with regard to the communication that was mediated by the tool. The groups faced a new problem that mainly had to do with the coordination of the communicative exchanges in the digital workspace. This issue will be addressed in the next chapter.

Educational Impact

The eight design guidelines served as the basis for the development of two collaborative tools that are part of the CoFFEE software system. These tools – the Threaded- discussion tool and the Graphical tool – were evaluated in a study that is presented in chapter 9. That study had a different perspective than the studies in chapter 7 and 8. It did not evaluate a single design guideline. Rather, the study focused on the educational impact of a collaborative tool as a whole. Educational impact concerns the effect of the tool on the processes of communication, collaboration and learning. This effect depends on the instructional strategy that makes the computer support suitable for a specific context of use. The study that is discussed in chapter 9 also pays attention to the development of an instructional strategy that leads to an optimal use of the collaborative tools.

116

University of Groningen Changing face-to-face ... · Changing Communication: Designing Tools for...

Documents

Transcript of University of Groningen Changing face-to-face ... · Changing Communication: Designing Tools for...