Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
3. Case of study
Working together to accomplish a task does not necessarily mean that the outcome is due to
collaboration. It could be, for example, the result of splitting the task and then putting the
parts together, or the task could be accomplished by some participants giving orders while
others just follow them. In consequence, if Collaborative Learning is expected some factors
have to be observed like the maintained focus on the task, the creation of shared ground,
division of labor, and the Plan-Implement-Evaluate cycle.
A collaborative learning session usually begins with an initial introductory social phase,
especially if the members of the group do not know each other; students tend to socialize
before initiating collaboration in the strict sense (Heldal, 2007). This social conduct can be
repeated in the session to maintain a balance between the social and the task aspects of the
meeting. Nevertheless, even the fact that this social behavior is necessary for the proper
function of a work group, it is also important that it is kept in due proportions, and
focus on
the task
has to be maintained.
In order to achieve collaboratively a task, participants have to share information or common
ground, that is, mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions; and this
shared
ground
has to be updated moment-by-moment (Clark & Brennan, 1991). This mechanism is
the individual attempt to be understood, at least to an extent that the task can be
accomplished.
Division of labor
may appear during the whole session or in parts of it; the kind of task will
determine its convenience.
In addition, whereas a maintained balance between dialogue and action is desirable, it is
also expected an appropriate approach to problem solving, based on the
Plan-Implement-
Evaluate
cycle (Jermann, 2004).
The study was conducted with the purpose of understanding the participation of the
members of a group, in both dialogue and implementation; and the group process phases:
Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation, by identifying patterns derived from selected
NVC cues extracted from the group behavior during a session while they carry out a task in
a CVE.
3.1 Observing NVC cues
In trying to understand the use of some NVC cues, an experimental application was
developed. The VICTOR (VIrtual Collaborative Task- Oriented) application allows three
users net-connected to work in a collaborative task, in which the three users' avatars are
placed around a table, their workspace.
The NVC cues available in the environment were narrowed to those observed in a study
conducted in a real life situation where three people seated around a shared workspace
were asked to place a set of drawn furniture on an apartment sketch -see (Peña & de
Antonio, 2009) for further details.
These NVC cues are talking turns, objects manipulation, gazes to the workspace and to
peers, and pointing to objects, next described for collaborative interaction:
