Mariel Miller & Allyson Hadwin, University of Victoria Presented at the 2013 conference for the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) Increasing emphasis on collaboration in academic and work contexts means learners are required to develop skills for regulating teamwork. The purpose of this study was to examine scripting and visualization tools for supporting regulation of shared task perceptions during a complex collaborative task. Prior to the task, groups engaged in individual and group planning using either (a) a scripting tool structuring regulation including task analysis, or (b) a scripting tool augmented with visualization of each member’s task perceptions. Findings indicated that, in both groups, shared task perceptions were generally accurate in relation to the instructor’s expectations. However, groups (a) struggled to construct consensus among diverse individual perceptions, (b) demonstrated little active and purposeful construction of shared task perceptions, and (c) encountered planning related challenges during collaboration. Groups showed small improvements across assignments, however, many difficulties re-occurred.

1. www.postersession.com
!
Negotiating Task Perceptions During
Computer-Supported Collaborative Problem Solving
Mariel Miller & Allyson Hadwin
University of Victoria
• Collaboration is a critical 21st century skill in today’s knowledge
economy. Unfortunately, groups commonly encounter challenges
with strategic planning, such as different understandings of the
task, derailing their efforts
• While CSCL tools for enhancing collaboration have become
common place in classrooms, their potential for supporting shared
regulation & planning has been largely overlooked.
Introduction
Shared task perceptions are critical for collaboration
Shared task perceptions in SSRL provide teams with foundational metacognitive
knowledge for collaboration. Regrettably, left to their own devices, groups often
misperceive tasks and fail to actively engage in this process.
• Construction of shared task perceptions is
a demanding transactive social process
in which groups leverage diversity in each
others’ perceptions to construct a unified
understanding of what the task requires
(explicit task perceptions) and why (implicit
task perceptions).
• Furthermore, shared task perceptions also
need to be accurate with the instructors’
expectations
The purpose of this cross-case comparison was to examine scripting
and visualization tools for supporting groups’ construction of shared
task perceptions in two complex collaborative assignments.
Specifically, we compared one group in each condition to explore:
1. Whether groups constructed shared task perceptions aligned with
each other as well as the instructor
2. How groups engaged in negotiation of shared task perceptions
3. Challenges groups encountered during collaboration
4. Changes in shared task perceptions and challenges across tasks
Purpose
Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P.A. Kirschner, (Ed.)
Three Worlds of CSCL. Can We Support CSCL, pp. 61–91. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S. & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. Zimmerman &
D. Schunk (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 65-84). New York: Routledge.
Järvelä, S. & Hadwin, A. F., (2013). New Frontiers: Regulating Learning in CSCL Regulation is a Neglected Area in CSCL. Educational
Psychologist.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers and
Education, 51, 279-296.
Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. F. (submitted, 2013) Investigating undergraduate students’ perceptions of academic tasks: Do perceptions of
implicit and explicit task information predict task performance?
Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2012, April). Social aspects of regulation: Measuring socially-shared regulation in collaborative contexts. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, CA.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Soller, A., Martínez-Monés, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art
technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261-290.
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., & Fischer, F. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional
Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 33, 1–30.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K. & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment.
Learning & Instruction, 17, 416-426.
Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., & Perry, N. E. (2012). Metacognition and computer supported learning. In C. Chan & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.).
The international handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.),
Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 371.
References
• CSCL tools may provide effective support for regulation.
o Previous research suggests groups often neglect implicit task
criteria and focus on shallow explicit task criteria (Miller & Hadwin,
2012). However both groups discussed multiple layers of the task
and shared task perceptions were generally accurate.
• Groups may have been unaware of the role of task
perceptions in effective collaboration or lacked skills
needed for shared task analysis.
o After the shared planning session in both assignments, group
members continued to hold different ideas about the task.
o Discussion was shallow and groups demonstrated little effort in
discussing diverse interpretations.
o May have posed issues while working together since both groups
reported encountering numerous challenges related to poor
planning.
o Neither group demonstrated substantial improvements in shared
planning across tasks despite acknowledging multiple planning
challenges.
• Groups may need more support in order to effectively use
CSCL tools for regulation.
o Visualization group did not recognize the purpose of the tool or
use it in Assignment 1. More explanation about how to interpret/
use the tool may have been needed.
o Visualization tool format (displaying the frequency of individuals’
task perceptions) may have prompted groups to find
commonalities rather than fully leverage each others’ task
perceptions.
o Scripting group had many unacknowledged ideas in chat.
Suggests scripting alone may not have adequately helped group
members build awareness of the breadth of interpretations that
existed within the group
Conclusions
• Extends knowledge of how groups construct shared task
perceptions & how CSCL tools can be leveraged to support
this process
• Extends measurement beyond the traditional focus on
individual reports, outcomes, and processes by exploring
social regulation across the individual and group level using
multiple data sources
• Informs ways instructors can leverage commonly available
tools, such as Moodle, to support socially shared regulation &
planning.
Implications
• Future research is needed to:
• Corroborate findings using other measures, such as
interviews, since measurement of shared task perceptions
depended on individuals’ and groups’ externalization of
task perceptions during task analysis & discussion
• Examine a larger sample of scripting and visualization
condition groups to compare effectiveness of each tool
and inform future design.
Considerations & Future
Research
Scripting Group
Visualization Group
Gender
2 M
2 F
2 M
2 F
Prior Knowledge
Mdn = 71.14
Mdn = 66.67
Assignment Grade
56.70
60.00
This study was conducted in a first year undergraduate course,
“Strategies for University Success” (ED-D 101). The purpose of the
course was to develop theoretical and practical understandings about
SRL. Coursework included two collaborative assignments in which
students worked in groups of four assigned at the outset of the course.
Groups worked online in Moodle via chat to analyze a problem case
scenario and identify the root of the problem or suggest solutions.
Data included individual & group planning tool responses, chat discussions, log files of tool use, and self-reported planning challenges in solo reflections. To address the
research questions, group profiles were created to compare scripting and visualization groups across both assignments in terms of the following:
Analysis & Findings
Purposeful case sampling was used to select two groups (Patton,
1990). The first group received a macro scripting tool guiding
regulation of collaboration and a microscripting tool guiding individual
and shared task analysis (Scripting Condition). The second group
received the same macro & microscript augmented with visualization
of each member’s individual task perceptions (Visualization Condition)
Participants
Note. M = Male, F= Female
Shared Task
Perceptions
Similarities and differences in ideas about the task in responses to solo and group planning tools were identified. Discussion of each idea was then identified in chat
discourse. Ideas about the task were coded as shared when groups (a) adopted individuals’ task perceptions, or (b) generated novel task perceptions during
discussion not previously considered by any individual. Ideas were coded as divergent when groups failed to acknowledge or discuss individuals’ ideas about the
task.
Accuracy of Shared
Task Perceptions
Groups’ shared task perceptions of explicit and implicit task features were compared to those of the course instructor. Accuracy ranged from 0 to 10 with 0
indicating none of the groups’ shared task perceptions matched those of the instructor and 10 indicating perfect accuracy.
Mode of Negotiation
The degree to which groups engaged in dynamic and transactive negotiation of task perceptions was measured by coding discussion of each idea in chat as (a)
Quick-consensus (group accepted suggested idea at face value, e.g. ‘okay’); (b) Integrated-oriented consensus (group accepted ideas by rephrasing or adding to
the idea without changing its meaning); (c) Conflict-oriented consensus (suggested idea was modified before being accepted); or (d) not acknowledged’ (group
members ignored or failed to respond to a suggested idea) (c.f. Weinberger et al., 2007).
Planning Challenges
Planning challenges encountered during collaboration were examined using frequency analysis of group members’ responses to self-report items on the solo
reflection activity
Tool Use
Moodle log files and chat records were used to examine whether group members used the visualization tool.
Theoretical Framework
Successful collaboration requires learners not only to self-regulate
their cognition, behaviour, and motivation in a collaborative task
(SRL), but also socially share regulation (SSRL) as a group.
Task
Perceptions
Goals &
Planning
Strategic
Enactment
Large Scale
Adaptation
SRL
Shared Task
Perceptions
Shared
Goals &
Planning
Shared
Strategic
Enactment
Shared
Large Scale
Adaptation
SSRL
Each team member
regulates his/her
strategic
engagement
Collective
regulation of group
processes and
successful
coordination of
strategies
Failure to
Negotiate
Shared Task
Perceptions
Misaligned
standards and
plans for the
task
Limited
opportunities
for
monitoring,
evaluating &
adapting
Difficulties
during
collaboration /
Weaker Group
Performance
CSCL Tools for Regulation
Two types of CSCL technologies offer potential for regulation
(Bodemer & Dehler, 2011; Dillenbourg, 2002; Jermann & Dillengbourg, 2003; Soller, et al., 2005; Weinberger et al., 2005)
Structuring Tools
Macro & micro
scripting collaboration
by specifying &
sequencing activities /
discussion
Visualization Tools
Support group awareness
through graphic
visualizations of group
processes and activities.
(Hadwin, Järvelä, Miller, 2011; Jarvela & Hadwin, 2013; Miller et al. 2012; Miller & Hadwin, submitted; Winne et al., 2012; Winne & Hadwin, 1998)
Master
Concepts
Solo &
Shared
Planning
In-Class
Collab
Problem
Solving
Assignment
Solo
Reflection on
Collaboration
Group Planning Tool for Collaborative
Challenge
Last week you created a solo planner. Now create a group plan to help
you work together during the challenge. Discuss all questions below
with your group in chat
• Term test of the four topics covered in the assignment.
• Each group member selected one topic and constructed a “cheat
sheet” to cue memory of critical information that could be used in
the assignment.
• Scripted individuals to choose the
five correct answers for explicit
(What is my group being asked to
do ) and implicit (Why is my group
being asked to do this) assignment
features
• Parallel microscript completed as a
group at the beginning of the
assignment class.
Groups completed the synchronous collaborative assignment
via group chat in Moodle during one 90-minute class.
Visualization Condition: Summary of solo planning responses
Scripted individuals to reflect on collaboration strengths and
weaknesses including the challenges faced during collaboration.
Challenge items adapted from Miller & Hadwin, 2012, & Järvenoja &
Järvelä, 2009)
Both groups reported encountering challenges related to
poor planning during collaboration. Type and number of
challenges were similar across assignments"
Research Context & Procedure
Research funded by a SSHRC Standard Research Grant 435-2012-0529
(A. Hadwin) and SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship (M. Miller)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Scripting Group (Assignment
1)
Visualization Group
(Assignment 1)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Scripting Group
(Assignment 2)
Visualization Group
(Assignment 2)
Quick Consensus
Integration Oriented
Conflict Oriented
Unacknowledged
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Scripting Group
(Assignment 1)
Visualization Group
(Assignment 1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Scripting
Group
(Assignment 2)
Visualization
Group
(Assignment 2)
Different
understandings of
what we need to
do
Different goals/
standards for our
work
Different ideas
about how to start
Different ideas
about how to work
together
Different ideas
about how to
organize our time
All Planning
Challenges
Planning Challenges
Assignment 1 Assignment 2
Negotiation of Shared Task Perceptions
Quick consensus was the most common way both groups decided on task perceptions across both assignments.
Groups engaged in slightly more in depth discussion in Assignment 2. Neither group leveraged the CSCL tools to
engage in highly transactive discussion of their task perceptions."
Assignment 1 Assignment 2
Groups’ Shared Task Perceptions
Assignment 1 Assignment 2
Scripting group
spontaneously adopted
visualization tool in
Assignment 2
Visualization Group - Not all
members accessed the tool
in Assignment 1
Log Files of Tool Use
Microscripting Individual & Group Task Analysis
Both groups’ shared task perceptions were generally accurate (both explicit and implicit task perceptions were aligned with the instructor). However, after the planning
session, members continued to hold different ideas about the task (divergent ideas denoted in light blue). In some cases, shared task perceptions were less accurate than
individuals’. Both groups improved across tasks, but improvements were small.