Supporting and Hindering Knowledge Communication in a Collaborative Picture-Sorting Task
Abstract
Effective knowledge communication presupposes common ground (Clark & Brennan, 1991) that needs to be established and maintained. This is particularly difficult in remote communication as well as in noninteractive settings, because the speaker cannot use gestures or mimic and has to tailor his utterances to the addressee without receiving feedback. In these situations, the speaker may achieve mutual understanding, for example, by adopting the addressee’s perspective. We present a study conducted to test the impact of instructions that support and hinder individual problem-solving and knowledge communication. We used a picture-sorting task requiring individual cognitive processes of feature search (Treisman & Gelade, 1980) in addition to referential communication. As our study focused on the design of utterances, all participants assumed the role of speaker. Participants were told that their descriptions would be recorded and then listened to later by a participant in the role of addressee. Eight sets of pictures were used, which varied on two dimensions: the individual cognitive demands of detecting the relevant features (varied as between-subject factor) and the communicative demands (varied as within-subject factor). A further between-subject factor was the type of instructions: The participants received either a collaboration script as supporting instructions, or time pressure was applied to induce stress, or else they were given no additional instructions (control group). We used the speakers’ verbal utterances to examine the quality of the speakers’ descriptions. For both dimensions of difficulty, we found the expected effects. In the conditions with a collaboration script, there were fewer irrelevant features mentioned and fewer features were described with delay. In the conditions with time pressure, there were fewer irrelevant features described, but the number of correctly described pictures was impaired through the fact that relevant features were also neglected. Under time pressure, speakers tended to provide ambiguous descriptions regarding the frame of reference.
References
(1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.
(2000). Förderung des kooperativen Lernens über Computernetze [
Fostering cooperative learning in computer networks ]. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.(1997). Time to detect the differences between two images presented side by side. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 273–282.
(1991). Grounding in communication. In , Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
(1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In , Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: University Press.
(1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.
(1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39.
(2002). Overscripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In , Three words of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
(2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.
(2006). Designing instructional support for individual and collaborative demands on net-based problem-solving in dyads. In , Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2006) (pp. 229–235). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2001). Solving the case together: The challenge of net-based interdisciplinary collaboration. In , Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 293–300). Maastricht, The Netherlands: McLuhan Institute.
(1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59(1), 91–117.
(1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computer-unterstützten kollaborativen Lernen [
Structured cooperation in computer-based cooperative learning ]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 1, 56–69.(1983). Decision making under stress. In , Handbook of stress (pp. 69–87). New York: The Free Press.
(2007). Supporting experts’ written knowledge communication through reflective prompts on the use of specialist concepts. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 215, 237–247.
(1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective-taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 165–208.
(1998). Language users as problem solvers: Just what ambiguity problem do they solve? In , Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1966). Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 343–346.
(2003). Visual information as conversational research in collaborative physical tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 13–49.
(1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2001). The effect of production variables in monologue and dialogue on comprehension by novel listeners. Language and Speech, 44, 325–350.
(2006). The problem of describing a problem: Supporting laypersons in presenting their queries to the internet-based helpdesk. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 648–669.
(1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In , Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In , Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2000). Picture changes during blinks: Looking without seeing and seeing without looking. Visual Cognition, 7, 191–211.
(1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534–552.
(2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–226.
(2007). Modeling collaborative and individual work sequences to improve information integration in hidden profile tasks. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 215, 218–227.
(1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368–373.
(1986). The effects of time pressure on judgment in multiple cue probability learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 83–92.
(2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in a desktop-videoconferencing setting. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.
(1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47(1), 1–24.
(2000). Comparison blindness. Visual Cognition, 7, 253–267.
(2000). The effects of scene inversion on change blindness. The Journal of General Psychology, 127(1), 27–43.
(2000). Does unattended information facilitate change detection? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 480–487.
(1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
(1982). Illusionary conjunctions in perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 107–141.
(2000). Detecting changes in novel, complex three-dimensional objects. Visual Cognition, 7, 297–322.
