Assessment and support of the idea co-construction process that influences collaboration

Gweon, G (2012) Assessment and support of the idea co-construction process that influences collaboration. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, USA.

Abstract

Research in team science suggests strategies for addressing difficulties that groups face when working together. This dissertation examines how student teams work in project based learning (PBL) environments, with the goal of creating strategies and technology to improve collaboration. The challenge of working in such a group is that the members frequently come from different backgrounds and thus have different ideas on how to accomplish a project. In these groups, teamwork and production of successful solutions depends on whether members consider each other's dissimilar perspectives. However, the lack of a shared history means that members may have difficulty in taking the time to share and build knowledge collectively. The ultimate goal of my research is to design strategies and technology to improve the inner workings of PBL groups so that they will learn from each other and produce successful outcomes in collaborative settings. The field of computer supported collaborative learning has made much progress on designing, implementing, and evaluating environments that support project based learning. However, most existing research concerns students rather than instructors. Therefore, in my initial research, I explore the needs of the instructors in conducting student assessments (studies one, two). These studies identify five different group processes that are of importance from the instructors' perspective. My subsequent research focuses on one of them, namely the process of knowledge co-construction, which is a process that instructors have significant difficulty in assessing. In order to support the assessment of the knowledge co-construction process, my research has progressed along two axes: (a) identifying conditions that support the knowledge co-construction process and its relationship to learning and knowledge transfer (studies three, four, and five), and (b) automatically monitoring the knowledge co-construction process using natural language processing and machine learning (studies six ∼ nine). Studies five and eight look at a specific type of knowledge co-construction process called the idea co-construction process (ICC). ICC is the process of taking up, transforming, or otherwise building on an idea expressed earlier in a conversation. I argue that ICC is essential for groups to function well in terms of knowledge sharing and perspective taking.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Thesis advisor: Rose, C P
Uncontrolled Keywords: collaboration; learning; machine learning; monitoring; teamwork
Index terms: instructor, design strategy, face, strategy, science, knowledge sharing, collaboration, construction process, knowledge transfer, history, machine learning, teamwork, monitoring, collaborative learning, project-based learning, dissertation
Subjects: knowledge management, psychology, practitioner, specialized education, research dissemination and communication, building construction, architectural and construction history, artificial intelligence, design methods, learning methods, control systems, management
Topics: Education, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Site Management, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here