D'Arcy Oaks

D'Arcy's dissertation examined online collaboration and mutual understanding.  Aspects of mutual understanding—joint action, coordination, and common ground—were examined in an online pedagogical problem-solving setting, with mutual understanding, task satisfaction, and satisfaction with group processes serving as outcome variables.

Abstract

The study employed a 2 (chat, threaded discussion) x 2 (communication coordination intervention, no communication coordination training) x 2 (common ground intervention, no common ground intervention) between-persons design.  Communication coordination and common ground, two parts of Clark’s conception of mutual understanding (1996), were examined in an educational collaborative setting.  Two common computer-mediated communication tools, chat and electronic bulletin boards, were employed.  The three constructs (common ground, communication coordination, communication mode) were examined in relationship to each other and their relationship to task satisfaction, group processes satisfaction, and mutual understanding.  Communication coordination was manipulated with a short training session. Common ground was manipulated through a short “get-to-know-you” session.  Multilevel analysis of the 2 (chat, threaded discussion) x 2 (common ground intervention, no common ground intervention) indicated a main effect for mode on task satisfaction, with threaded discussion groups ranking significantly higher than chat groups.  The familiarity intervention had a main effect on satisfaction with group processes.  An interaction between familiarity and communication mode was found for satisfaction with group processes. While participants in the chat groups reported greater satisfaction from the familiarity intervention, participants in the threaded-discussion groups reported lesser satisfaction following the familiarity intervention. Together these findings suggest that chat is a more conducive medium for friendly, social discussions and prior familiarity improve the satisfaction with human interactions. However, compared to threaded-discussion, chat was not as effective for task satisfaction. Threaded-discussion, on the other hand seems to work well for completing the task, though, its deficiencies in provided affordances for social interactions were apparent from the ratings.