You are here:

Elicitation Support Requirements of Multi-Expertise Teams
Article

, Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen, Netherlands ; , Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands ; , Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen, Netherlands

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 16, Number 2, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Tools to support knowledge elicitation are more and more used in situations where employees or students collaborate using the computer. Studies indicate that there exist differences between experts and novices regarding their methods of work and reasoning. However, the commonly preferred approach tends to deal with team members as a single system with "common ", shared preferences. The question is to what extent this approach is optimal. From literature potential difficulties with uniform knowledge elicitation support for workplace or workplace-alike settings of teamwork can be derived. We carried out two studies to investigate whether support tools for knowledge elicitation should explicitly take into account the expertness of team members. In order to gather qualitative data concerning critical factors of effective knowledge elicitation support of professional teamwork a Delphi study with known experts has been conducted. The experts accentuate the significance of a context-fit of supportive action over content or functionality. In their opinion prompting must be tailored to the task at hand, team characteristics, team culture and context. In a second study we gathered qualitative insights into user-elicitation preferences, especially in relation to a user’ s proficiency in the field. Subjects of this study were graduate students studying for a profession as social worker. Respondents’ elicitation preferences didn’ t correlate significantly with the expertness dimension. Further interpretation and comparison of the results from both studies seem to indicate that it is not so much the proficiency of the team members as well as the attunement with the surrounding context that is critical for the effect of elicitation support.

Citation

Bitter-Rijpkema, M., Martens, R. & Jochems, W. (2005). Elicitation Support Requirements of Multi-Expertise Teams. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 133-154. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 7, 2021 from .

© 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alpay, L., Giboin, A., & Dieng, R. (1998). Accidentology: An example of problem solving by multiple agents with multiple representations. In M. W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. De Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 152-174). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
  2. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175-193.
  3. Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Common ground, complex problems and decision support. Paper presented at the 30th Onderwijs Research Dagen (ORD), Kerkrade, The Netherlands.
  4. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Toronto, Canada.
  5. Boisot, M. (1998). Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the information economy, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  6. Bromme, R., & Nückles, M. (1998). Perspective-taking between medical doctors and nurses: A study on multiple representations of different experts with common tasks. In M.W. Van
  7. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90-111.
  8. Buckingham Shum, S., & Hammond, N. (1994). Rapid knowledge construction: A case study in corporate contingency planning using collaborative hypermedia. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(4), 603-652.
  9. Carr, C. S. (2002) Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In P. A. Kirschner, S. .J. Buckingham Shum, & C..S.Carr (Eds.) Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer-Verlag. Bitter-Rijpkema, Martens, and Jochems
  10. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Choo, F. (1989). Expert-novice differences in judgment/decisionmaking research. Journal of accounting Literature, 8, 106-136.
  11. Conklin, J., Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sierhuis, M. (2001). Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gIBIS. Retrieved November 13, 2003, from http://cognexus.org/Conklin-HT01.pdf
  12. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. How organizations manage what they know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  13. Drucker, P. (1992). The new society of organisations. Harvard Business Review, 70, 95-104. Feltovich, P., Spiro, R., & Coulson, R. (1997). Issues of expert flexibility in contexts characterized by complexity and change. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in context. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/MIT Press.
  14. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2001, March). Facilitating the construction of shared knowledge with graphical representation tools in face-to-face and computer-mediated scenarios. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of Euro-CSCL 2001, (pp. 230236), Maastricht, Netherlands.
  15. Jeong, H., & Chi, M.T.H. (2000). Does collaborative learning lead to the construction of common knowledge? Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  16. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn, & Bacon.
  17. Kenis, D.G.A. (1995). Improving group decisions. Designing and testing techniques for group decision support systems applying Delphi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht: Lummen. Kessels, J.W.M.
  18. Kogut, B., & Zander, V. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
  19. Leinonen, T. , Virtanen, O. , Hakkarainen, K., & Kligyte, G. (2002). Collaborative discovering of key ideas in knowledge building. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 529-530). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  20. Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40, 112-132.
  21. Linstone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method. Techniques and applications. London:Addison and Wesley. Retrieved February 29, 2004, from http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphbook/index.html Mulder, I., Swaak, J, & Kessels, J. (2002). Assessing group learning and shared understanding in technology-mediated interaction. Journal of Education Technology & Society, 5(1), 35-47. Special issue.
  22. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69 , 96-104.
  23. Ostwald, J. (1995). Supporting collaborative design with representations for mutual understanding. In I. Katz, R. Mack, & L. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI'95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Volume 2, 69-70. New York: ACM Press.
  24. Polanyi, M. (1967). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  25. Plötzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Preier, M., & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others.
  26. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (1998). Distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn in a Learning by Design™ environment. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences '98, (pp. 35-41).
  27. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 249-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Selvin, A.M. (1999). Supporting collaborative analysis and design with hypertext functionality. Journal of Digital information, 1, 1-14.
  29. Selvin, A. M., & Buckingham Shum, S.J. (2000, July). Rapid knowledge construction: A case study in corporate contingency planning using collaborative hypermedia. Proceedings of
  30. KMaC 2000: Knowledge Management Beyond the Hype. Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
  31. Sumner, T. , Domingue, J., & Zdrahal, Z. (1998). Enriching representations of work to support organizational learning (Tech Rep No KMI-TR-60). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Knowledge Media Institute.
  32. Suthers, D. D. (1999). Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations on collaborative learning discourse. In C. M. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999, (pp. 611-620). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Toulmin, S. E., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York, London: Macmillan & Collier Macmillan.
  34. Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H., & Renn, O. (1991). A novel approach at reducing uncertainty: The Group Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39, 253-263.
  35. Zack, M. H. (1998). What knowledge problems can information technology help to solve?
  36. Proceedings of the 1998 Conference of the Association for Information Systems, (pp. 644646). Baltimore, MD.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read