skip to main content
research-article

Towards Successful Knowledge Integration in Online Collaboration: An Experiment on the Role of Meta-Knowledge

Published:07 November 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Successful knowledge integration, that is, systematic synthesis of unshared information, is key to suc-cess, but at the same time a challenging venture for teams with distributed knowledge collaborating online. For example, teams with heterogeneous knowledge often have only vague or even wrong ideas about who knows what. This situation is further complicated if the collaboration partners do not know each other and merely communicate online. Previous research has found meta-knowledge, that is, knowledge about one's own and the partner's knowledge areas, to be a promising but not yet sufficient-ly investigated approach to promote knowledge integration. With our experimental study we aimed to address this desideratum of research on the role of meta-knowledge in net-based collaborations. We "simulated" a chat-based collaboration between partners with heterogeneous knowledge by assigning specific information to students collaborating in dyads on a Hidden Profile task. To arrive at the correct joint solution for this task, collaborating partners had to pool their shared, but more importantly their unshared information. We compared two conditions: In the experimental condition meta-knowledge was promoted by providing the collaboration partners with self-presentations of each other's roles, which pointed to their unique fields of knowledge, while participants in the control condition did not receive this information. Results suggest a positive impact of the meta-knowledge manipulation on two key factors of collaboration: knowledge integration and construction of a transactive memory system (TMS).

References

  1. Stephenson J. Beck, Annika L. Meinecke,Yoichi Matsuyama and Chi-Chun Lee. 2017. Initiating and maintaining collabora-tions and facilitating understanding in interdisciplinary group research. Small Group Research, 48 (5), 532--543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Elisabeth Brauner. 2006. Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS). Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Wissenstransfers in Interaktionen. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 99--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Jürgen Buder. 2000. Wissensaustausch und Wissenserwerb in Computerkonferenzen: Der Einfluss des Metawissens. (doctoral dissertation at Eberhard Karls University Tübingen). Retrieved June 20, 2019 from: http://w210.ub.Unituebingen.de/dbt/volltexte/2002/445.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in Communication. In Lauren B. Resnick, Joseph M. Levine and Stephanie D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared Cognition (pp. 127--149). Washington: APA Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Rico Defila and Antonietta di Giulio. 1998. Interdisziplinaritaet und Disziplinaritaet. In Jan H. Olbertz (Ed.). Zwischen den Faechern - ueber den Dingen? Schriften der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 111--137). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jessica Dehler-Zufferey, Daniel Bodemer, Jürgen Buder and Friedrich W. Hesse. 2011. Partner knowledge awareness in knowledge communication: Learning by adapting to the partner, The Journal of Experimental Education, 79 (1), 102--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Anne Deiglmayr and Hans Spada. 2011. Training for fostering knowledge co-construction from collaborative inference-drawing. Learning and Instruction, 21 (3), 441--451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Sharon J. Derry, Lori Adams DuRussel and Angela M. O'Donnell. 1998. Individual and distributed cognitions in interdisciplinary teamwork: A developing case study and emerging theory. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 25--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Joseph L. Fleis. 1986. Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nitesh Goyal. 2017. Designing Tools for Collaborative Sensemaking During Complex Crime Analysis. (doctoral dissertation at Cornell University). Retrieved June 20, 2019 from: https://doi.org/10.7298/X4G15Z1W.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Nitesh Goyal and Susan R. Fussell. 2016. Effects of Sensemaking Translucence on Distributed Collaborative Analysis. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 288--302).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Andrew F. Hayes. 2018. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based perspective (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabian Hermann, Nikol Rummel and Hans Spada. 2001. Solving the case together: The challenge of net-based interdisciplinary collaboration. In Pierre Dillenbourg, Anneke Eurelings and Kai Hakkarainen (Eds.). Proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 293--300). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Andrea B. Hollingshead. 1996. Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making. The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23 (2), 193--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Rob Johnston. 2005. Analytic culture in the US intelligence community: An ethnographic study. Central Intelligence Agency Washington DC Center for Study of Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Julie T. Klein. 2005. Interdisciplinary teamwork: The dynamics of collaboration and integration. In Sharon J. Derry, Christian D. Schunn and Morton Ann Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 23--50). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kyle Lewis. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587--604.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Glenn E. Littlepage, Greg W. Schmidt, Eric W. Whisler and Alan G. Frost. 1995. An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (5), 877--889.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. John C. McCarthy, Victoria C. Miles and Andrew F. Monk. 1991. An experimental study of common ground in text-based communication. Proceedings of CHI19 Conference on Computer Human Interaction (pp. 209--215). New York: ACM Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Anne Meier. 2009. Analyse und Förderung der gemeinsamen Wissenskonstruktion auf der Grundlage verteilter, interdependenter Informationen (doctoral dissertation at Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Richard L. Moreland. 1999. Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In Leigh L. Thompson, John M. Levine and David M. Messick (Eds.). Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 3--31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Richard L. Moreland, Linda Argote and Ranjani Krishnan. 1998. Training people to work in groups. In R. Scott Tindale, John Edwards, Linda Heath, Emil J. Posavac, Fred B. Bryant, Eaaron Henderson-King, Yolanda Suarez-Balcazar and Judith Myers (Eds.), Social psychological applications to social issues: Applications of theory and research on groups (Vol. 4, pp. 37--60). New York: Plenum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Omid Noroozi, Armin Weinberger, Harm J. A. Biemans, Martin Mulder and Mohammad Chizari. 2013. Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers and Education, 61, 59--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Vesa Peltokorpi. 2008. Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology, 12 (4), 378--394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Deana Pennington. 2016. A conceptual model for knowledge integration in interdisciplinary teams: orchestrating individual learning and group processes. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6 (2), 300--312.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Allen F. Repko. 2007. Integrating interdisciplinarity. How the theories of common ground and cognitive interdisciplinarity are informing the debate on interdisciplinary integration. Issues in Integrative Studies, 25, 1 -- 31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Nikol Rummel and Hans Spada. 2005. Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14 (2), 201--241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Nikol Rummel, Hans Spada and Sabine Hauser. 2009. Learning to collaborate from being scripted or from observing a Model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 26 (4), 69--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Mirweis Sangin, Gaelle Molinari, Marc-Antoine Nüssli and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2011. Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (3), 1059--1067.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Mareike Schreiber and Tanja Engelmann. 2010. Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (6), 1701--1709.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Serena G. Sohrab, Mary J. Waller and Seth Kaplan. 2015. Exploring the Hidden Profile paradigm: A literature review and analysis. Small Group Research, 46, 489--535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Garold Stasser, Dennis D. Stewart and Gwen M. Wittenbaum. 1995. Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244 -- 265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Garold Stasser and William Titus. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467--1478.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Karthikeyan Umapathy. 2010. Requirements to support collaborative sensemaking. Paper presented at the Computer Support-ed Cooperative Work (CSCW) Workshop on Collaborative Information Seeking.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Wendy P. Van Ginkel and Daan Van Knippenberg. 2009. Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: When and why does it work? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 218--229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Daniel M. Wegner. 1995. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13, 313--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Gwen M. Wittenbaum, Anne P. Hubbel and Cynthia Zuckerman. 1999. Mutual Enhancement: Toward an Understanding of the Collective Preference for Shared Information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (5), 967--978.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

(auto-classified)
  1. Towards Successful Knowledge Integration in Online Collaboration: An Experiment on the Role of Meta-Knowledge

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!