【作者】 彭杜宏；

【导师】 刘电芝；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 高等教育学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 全球化和信息技术的飞速发展对传统的以个体为单位的学习和工作方式提出了前所未有的挑战。团队的潜力与团队学习的优势随之获得越来越广泛的共识。团队学习(team learning)是“团体成员整体搭配与实现共同目标的过程”。尽管团队学习很重要,我们对它的了解却非常贫乏,我们必须要能清楚地描述,当它发挥功能时的现象是怎样的?并且更明晰地区分,消极低效的“群体思考”和积极高效的“群体智力”之不同。为此,本研究以高效率团队学习为目标,从其根本过程——认知过程来展开探索,研究问题包括:团队学习中产生性互动(productive interactions)的表现及其互依本质是什么?如何对一个学习中的团队观察和分析成员间的相互作用?研究在社会文化学习理论及“支架”概念启发下,先从理论上探索高效团队学习认知互动的实质及其分析思路。实证研究在对142人个体测试和17人团队测试的预研究中展开。与此同时,进行了两项不同类型团队的情境化访谈,包括17位来自大学生优胜创业团队成员和33位大学生自愿组合临时问题解决团队成员。从11个团队合作问题解决结果中选出分别代表“完全解答”、“部分解答”、“完全错误”的3个典型个案,对其微观认知互动过程进行个案分析,从而提供事实的综合描述与深刻分析结果。进一步实证研究通过系统观察获取变量数据并进行统计检验。具体而言,按规定时间内解答程度与结果,将团队分为高效团队(“完全解答”)和低效团队(“部分解答”)。将6个有效团队的全程讨论转录成文本,进行内容分析与差异性检验。最后,采用被试间设计,尝试对团队学习互动过程进行实时干预。通过分析上述系统的研究及数据结果,得出以下结论:(1)认知互动是制约团队学习效果的核心过程。(2)团队学习的成败不在于互动时间、互动频率;团队学习的效率也不取决于团队内有无关键思路涌现。互动之所以有效是因为它使他人投入更高级的认知加工。(3)对于个体有难度的任务,其认知加工混含有正确和错误的成分。个体认知加工的正负向变化(清晰←→混乱、正确←→错误)与其所在团队的同伴所提供的认知支持密切相关。(4)高低效团队互动过程中涌现的关键提议频次、关键疑问类型、偏离提议频次无显著差异;高效团队的正相互理解情节显著高于低效团队、负相互支持情节显著低于低效团队、负相互监控情节显著低于低效团队。换言之:高效的团队在捕捉同伴认知中的正确成分、质疑或否定其错误成分;同时在正确的成分上相互添加、精制且持续加工的特征突出。低效团队并非团队缺乏关键提议或关键疑问(关键性洞见),而是对团队内涌现的重要认知贡献缺乏相互推进与持续的加工。(5)高效的团队学习认知互动的实质是互为支架。从相互理解(尤其有效精制)、相互支持(尤其关键疑问回应)、相互监控(尤其对偏离提议的质疑/否定)等维度可以实现对互为支架的观察与分析。抓取“关键性话语”,并以此标记的典型情节分析客观有效、清晰简便。更多还原

【Abstract】 The rapid development of globalization and information technology have brought about unprecedented challenges to traditional individual learning and working pattern. Thus the potential and the advantage of team learning are more and more widely acknowledged. Team learning is the process of the realization of the common goal by team members cooperated as a whole. Though team learning is very important, at present little has been known about its micro process. For example, we need to describe clearly what it looks like when it works well and tell the differences between passive ineffective team thinking and genuine effective team intelligence. So the research explored the mechanism of effective team learning as the goal, with the concrete researching issues from the cognitive processes underlying team learning process as following: What are the productive interactions in team learning and what is the reciprocal nature of the productive process? How to observe and analyze individual interactions during their team learning process?The present research set out first to explore the nature of the mechanism of the cognitive interaction of efficient team learning with the guidance of the social cultural theory and the concept of“Scaffolding”. Empirical researches began with the tests on 142 participants individually and 17 participants collectively. Meanwhile situational interviews were carried out with different teams, including 17 innovative winning team members and 33 students from temporary free-will problem-solving teams. 3 out of 11 teams were chosen, characterizing respectively“solving completely”,“solving partly”,“solving none”, for case studies on their micro-processes of interactive problem solving to provide integrative discription and profound outcomes. Then subsequent quantitative research adopted systematic observation to get variable data and to test statistically. Six valid teams were divided into high efficient teams (solving completely in certain time) and low efficient teams (solving partly in certain time). Transcripts of their discussions were compared using a content analysis method and a test for differences. The reliability and validity of encoding were tested with various methods. In the end, a real-time interference experiment was carried out with such factors as cognitive demand, reasoning ability and gender balanced. Whereas the task and procedure were roughly the same as the previous researches, certain interaction guidance was shown to the experimental teams in advance.By systematic analysis on the data outcomes, we have reached the following conclusions:1. Cognitive interaction processes play a key role in the efficiency of team learning.2. In team cooperative problem solving, success or failure lies not in the length of discussion time or the frequency of interaction. And the emergence of key thoughts is not the decisive element concerning team efficiency either. Interaction is effective because it devotes peers to higher cognitive processes.3. When dealing with complex tasks that are difficult for individuals, usually there may be both correct and incorrect cognitive process at the same time. Becoming positive or negetive (clear←→vague or right←→wrong)of individual’s cognitive process lies in cognitive aids during their team interaction.4. There are no significant differences on the frequency of key proposal, the types of crucial puzzles and the frequency of deviated prososal among high or low efficient teams. While there are significant differences on positive reciprocal understanding, negtive mutual aiding and negtive mutual monitoring. In other words, members in high efficient team recognize and capture the correct thoughts in others’cognitive process more frequently, and abandon their incorrect thoughts, refine and continue the process consequently. On the contrary, although there also lie in low efficient teams some key thoughts or puzzles (crucial insights), the mutual and continual promotion on important cognitive contributions is deficient.5. The nature of the cognitive interaction of high efficient team learning is reciprocal scaffolding. The reciprocal scaffolding can be observed and analyzed from three dimensions as reciprocal understanding, reciprocal scaffolding, and reciprocal supervising in different levels, which has been fulfilled by the concise and exercisable analysis of representative episodes marked by“key discourse”.更多还原