nach oben

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Erschienen in:

01.06.2014

Preventing undesirable effects of mutual trust and the development of skepticism in virtual groups by applying the knowledge and information awareness approach

verfasst von: Tanja Engelmann, Richard Kolodziej, Friedrich W. Hesse

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Empirical studies have proven the effectiveness of the knowledge and information awareness approach of Engelmann and colleagues for improving collaboration and collaborative problem-solving performance of spatially distributed group members. This approach informs group members about both their collaborators’ knowledge structures and their collaborators’ information. In the current study, we investigated whether this implicit approach reduces undesirable effects of mutual trust and mutual skepticism. Trust is an important influencing factor with regard to behavior and performance of groups. High mutual trust can have a negative impact on group effectiveness because it reduces mutual control and, as a result, the detection of the others’ mistakes. In an empirical study, 20 triads collaborating with the knowledge and information awareness approach were compared with 20 triads collaborating without this approach. The members of a triad were spatially distributed and participated in a computer-supported collaboration. The results demonstrated that the availability of the knowledge and information awareness approach overrides the negative impact of too much mutual trust and counteracts the development of mutual skepticism. This study contributes to further clarifying the impact of trust on effectiveness and efficiency of virtual groups depending upon different situational contexts.

Vorheriger Artikel Attending to others’ posts in asynchronous discussions: Learners’ online “listening” and its relationship to speaking

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

A factor analysis with Varimax rotation with the 13 trust items included in the questionnaire on control measurements was applied and resulted in these two interpretable factors (cf. Bortz and Schuster 2010): initial skepticism, Cronbach’s α = 0.59; initial trust, Cronbach’s α = 0.78. Since the internal consistency is only acceptable if Cronbach’s α is higher than 0.70 (e.g., Nunnally and Bernstein 1994), the factor “initial scepticism” was not included in further analyses.

The questionnaire after the collaboration phase contained 50 items (that were identical between the conditions), that is, three factor analyses were necessary to comply with the rules for conducting factor analyses (cf. Bortz and Schuster 2010). Factor Analysis 1, including 17 items on trust, resulted in two interpretable factors: Developed trust, Cronbach’s α = 0.73; developed skepticism, Cronbach’s α = 0.78. Factor Analysis 2, including 19 items on mutual control, coordination, communication, and subjective evaluation of the group outcomes, resulted in one interpretable factor: Developed suspiciousness, Cronbach’s α = 0.46. Factor Analysis 3, including 14 items on study evaluation, group map creation, and collaboration, resulted in one interpretable factor: Cognitive effort, Cronbach’s α = 0.50. Because of their low Cronbach’s α values, the factors “developed suspiciousness” and “cognitive effort” were not included in further analyses.

A factor analysis with Varimax rotation with the 15 control measure items resulted in six factors with eigenvalues higher than 1. According to Bortz and Schuster (2010), in a Varimax-rotated factor structure, only those factors can be interpreted that have at least four items with a loading > 0.60 or at least ten items with a loading > 0.40. This criterion was met only by the factor “computer experience”. However, an univariate ANOVA did not result in a significant difference between the two conditions (F < 1).

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Alpert, S. R. (2005). Comprehensive mapping of knowledge and information resources: The case of Webster. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization. Searching for synergies (pp. 220–237). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. LNCS 3426.CrossRef

Amelang, M., Gold, A., & Külbel, E. (1984). Über einige Erfahrung mit einer deutschsprachigen Skala zur Erfassung zwischenmenschlichen Vertrauens (Interpersonal Trust). Diagnostica, 30(3), 198–215.

Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618.CrossRef

Baker, M., Bernard, F.-X., & Dumez-Féroc, I. (2012). Integrating computer-supported collaborative learning into the classroom: The anatomy of a failure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 161–176.CrossRef

Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 623–643.CrossRef

Bodemer, D. (2011). Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1097–1086.

Bortz, J., & Schuster, C. (2010). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (7th ed.). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRef

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), 909.CrossRef

Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—an appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.CrossRef

Dehler-Zufferey, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Partner knowledge awareness in knowledge communication: Learning by adapting to the partner. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(1), 102–125.CrossRef

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467.CrossRef

Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 299–320.CrossRef

Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Fostering sharing of unshared knowledge by having access to the collaborators’ meta-knowledge structures. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2078–2087.CrossRef

Engelmann, T., & Kolodziej, R. (2012). Do virtual groups recognize situations in which it is advantageous to create digital concept maps? In A. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & J. Vanhear (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Concept Mapping (Vol. 1, pp. 172–179). Malta: University of Malta.

Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 949–960.CrossRef

Engelmann, T., Tergan, S.-O., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). Evoking KIA for enhancing computer-supported collaborative problem solving. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 1–20.

Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 9–24.CrossRef

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134.CrossRef

Hausmann, R. G. M., Chi, M. T. H., & Roy, M. (2004). Learning from collaborative problem-solving: An analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 547–552). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hsu, J.-L., Hwang, W.-Y., Huang, Y.-M., & Liu, J.-J. (2011). Online behavior in virtual space: An empirical study on helping. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 146–157.

Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 40–55.CrossRef

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49, 1037–1065.CrossRef

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is there anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250–267.CrossRef

Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187–213.CrossRef

Keller, T., Tergan, S.-O., & Coffey, J. (2006). Concept maps used as a “knowledge and information awareness” tool for supporting collaborative problem solving in distributed groups. In A. J. Cañas & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Theories, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept mapping (pp. 128–135). San José: Sección de Impresión del SIEDIN.

Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8.CrossRef

Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 403–420.CrossRef

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Reviews Psychology, 50, 569–598.CrossRef

Lambropoulos, N., Faulkner, X., & Culwin, F. (2012). Supporting social awareness in collaborative e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 295–306.CrossRef

Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393.CrossRef

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know – and sometimes misjudge – what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.CrossRef

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Nückles, M., & Stürz, A. (2006). The assessment tool: A method to support asynchronous communication between computer experts and laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 917–940.CrossRef

Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Paul, D. L., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (2004). A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183–227.

Peña, E. A., & Slate, E. H. (2006). Global validation of linear model assumptions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(473), 341–354.CrossRef

Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1–2), 102–112.CrossRef

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599.CrossRef

Schreiber, M., & Engelmann, T. (2010). KIA for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1701–1709.CrossRef

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlation: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRef

Smith, G. G., Sorensen, C., Gump, A., Heindel, A. J., Caris, M., & Martinez, C. D. (2011). Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 121–128.CrossRef

Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behaviour (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.

Titel: Preventing undesirable effects of mutual trust and the development of skepticism in virtual groups by applying the knowledge and information awareness approach
verfasst von: Tanja Engelmann
Richard Kolodziej
Friedrich W. Hesse
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2014
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9187-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

Disengaged students and dialogic learning: the role of CSCL affordances

Dialogic foundations of CSCL

PolyCAFe—automatic support for the polyphonic analysis of CSCL chats

Attending to others’ posts in asynchronous discussions: Learners’ online “listening” and its relationship to speaking

Premium Partner