Abstract
We explore in this paper the relation between activities, communication channels and media, and common ground building in global teams. We define re-representation as a sequence of representations of the same concept using different communication channels and media. We identified the re-representation technique to build common ground that is used by team members during multimodal and multimedia communicative events in cross-disciplinary, geographically distributed settings. Our hypotheses are as follows: (1) Significant sources of information behind decisions and request for actions are embedded within the fabric of communicative events in which participants use both informal and formal media to express their ideas. Capturing these information sources can facilitate common ground building and accelerate the execution of action requests. (2) Re-representations of concepts, i.e., sequences of representations using diverse media and communication channels, mediate and accelerate common ground building. (3) The use of intra- or interdisciplinary re-representations correlates with high team performance, i.e., effective team process and high product quality. We used AEC Global Teamwork course offered in 2008–2009 as the testbed for our study to validate our hypothesis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Stanford University processed the patent application for RECALL. Patent awarded Patent # 6724918.
References
Blikstein P, Wilenksy U (2007) Bifocal modeling: a framework for combining computer modeling, robots and real-world sensing. In: Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago. American Education Research Association, pp 9–13
Brereton M (2004) Distributed cognition in engineering design: negotiating between abstract and material representations. In: Goldschmidt G, Porter WL (eds) Design representation. Springer, London, pp 83–105
Chen M (2001) Design of a virtual auditorium. In: Proceedings of ACM multimedia, pp 489–498
Chen M (2003) A low-latency lip-synchronized videoconferencing system. In: Proceedings of ACM conference on human factors and computing systems, pp 465–471
Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley JSD (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association, pp 127–149
Clark HH, Schaefer EF (1987) Collaborating on contributions on conversations. Lang Cogn Process 2(1):19–41
Clark HH, Schaefer EF (1989) Contributing to discourse. Cogn Sci 13:259–294
Damski J, Gero JS (1994) Visual reasoning as visual re-interpretation through re-representation. In: AID’94 workshop on reasoning with shapes in design, Lausanne, pp 16–20
Dewey J (1928, 1958) Experience and nature. Dover, New York
Fruchter R (1999) Architecture, engineering, construction teamwork: a collaborative design and learning space. J Comput Civil Eng 13(4):261–270
Fruchter R (2001) Bricks & bits & interaction, special issue on “exploring new frontiers on artificial intelligence. In: Terano T, Nishida T, Namatame A, Ohsawa Y, Tsumoto S, Washio T (eds) Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), vol 2253. Springer, Berlin, pp 35–42
Fruchter R (2006) The fishbowl: degrees of engagement in global teamwork. In: Smith I (ed) LNAI. Springer, Berlin, pp 241–257
Fruchter R, Demian P (2002) CoMem: designing an interaction experience for reuse of rich contextual information from a corporate memory. AIEDAM Int J 16:127–147
Fruchter R, Emery K (1999) Teamwork: assessing cross-disciplinary learning. In: Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning conference. Stanford University, pp 166–173
Fruchter R, Yen S (2000) RECALL in action. In: Fruchter R, Roddis K, Pena-Mora F (eds) Proceedings of ASCE ICCCBE-VIII conference. Stanford, California, pp 1012–1020
Fruchter R, Swaminathan S, Boraiah M, Upadhyay C (2007) Reflection-in-interaction. AI&Soc J 22(2):211–226
Goldman S, Greeno JG (1998) Thinking practices: images of thinking and learning in education. In: Goldman S, Greeno JG (eds) Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 1–13
Goodwin C (1994) Professional vision. Am Anthropol 96(3):606–633
Greeno JG (1998) The situativity of learning, knowing, and research. Am Psychol 53:5–26
Griece HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics, vol 3. Speech acts. Seminar Press, New York, pp 225–242
Hutchins E (1995) How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cogn Sci Multidiscip J 19(3):265–288
Isaacs EA, Clark HH (1987) References in conversation between experts and novices. J Exp Psychol 116:26–37
Jacobson MJ, Wilenksy U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1):11–34
Johanson B, Fox A, Winograd T (2002) The interactive workspaces project. In: Proceedings of the joint conference on digital libraries, pp 237–245
Jordan B, Henderson A (1995) Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. J Learn Sci 4(1):39–103
Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Logan GD, Radcliffe DF (2204) Impromptu prototyping and artifacting: representing design ideas through things at hand, actions, and talk. In: Goldschmidt G, Porter WL (eds) Design representation. Springer, London, pp 127–151
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, New York
O’Hara-Devereaux M, Johansen R (1994) Global work: bridging distance, culture, and time. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco
Oxman R (1997) Design by re-representation: a model of visual reasoning in design. Des Stud 18(4):329–347
Rosenman MA, Gero JS (1996) Modelling multiple views of design objects in a collaborative CAD environment. Comput Aided Des 28(3):193–205
Schon DA (1983) How professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York
Tang JC (1991) Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(2):143–160
Tversky B (1999) What does drawing reveal about thinking? In: Proceedings of visual and spatial reasoning in design, pp 93–101
Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning as a social system. Systems Thinker June 1998. Available online at http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml
Wilenksy U (1999) Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education. In: An extensible modeling tool-kit for exploring micro- and macro-views of gases. Spring Verlag, ch. GasLab, pp 151–178
Yan J, Forbus KD, Gentner D (2003) A theory of re-representation in analogical matching. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, pp 85–90
Zhang J (1997) The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cogn Sci Multidiscip J 21(2):179–217
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Project Based Learning Laboratory at Stanford University. The authors would like to thank all the participating partner universities and corporations, AEC course alumni, and most importantly all the AEC students.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fruchter, R., Courtier, R. Building common ground in global teamwork through re-representation. AI & Soc 26, 233–245 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0303-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0303-5