Abstract
Research has shown that when group problem solving is computer mediated, communications become more task oriented with clearer role expectations, while face-to-face communications are more cohesive and personal. None of this research has examined those patterns of interactions in terms of the problem solving activities engaged. In this study, we compared the perceptions of participants, the nature of the comments made, and the patterns of communication in face-to-face and computer-mediated groups in terms of problem-solving activities while solving well-structured and ill-structured problems. The quantity of messages in the computer conference was smaller but more task related than in the face-to-face conversations because participants reflected more on ideas and perspectives in reaching their decisions. A cluster analysis of communication patterns showed that computer-mediated group decisions more closely resembled the general problem-solving process of problem definition, orientation, and solution development as group interaction progressed, while the face-to-face group interactions tended to follow a linear sequence of interactions. Participants who solved problems through computer conferencing were more satisfied with the process and believed that there was a greater quality in the problem-solving process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cathcart, R.S., & Samovar, L.A. (1992).Small group communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer supported groups.MIS Quarterly, 20(20), 443–470.
Condon, S.L., & Cech, C.G. (1996). Discourse management strategies in face-to-face and computer-mediated decision making interaction.Electronic Journal of Communication/LA Revue Electronique de Communication,6(3).
Condon, S.L., & Cech, C.G. (in press). Discourse management in three modalities. In S. Herring (Ed.),Computer-mediated conversation.
Dunkle, M.E., Schraw, G., & Bendixen, L.D. (1995, April).Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Gruenfeld, D.H., & Hollingshead, A.B. (1993). Sociocognition in work groups: The evolution of group integrative complexity and its relation to task performance.Small Group Research, 24(3), 383–405.
Hackman, J.R., & Morris, C.G. (1983). Group tasks, group interaction process and group performance effectiveness. In H.H. Blumberg, A.P. Hare, V. Kent, & M.P. Davies (Eds.),Small groups and social interaction, New York: John Wiley.
Harasim, L.M. (1989). Online education: A new domain. In R. Mason, & A. Kaye (Eds.),Mindweave (pp. 50–62). New York: Pergamon Press
Harasim, L.M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.),Online education: Perspectives on a new environment pp. 39–64. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Hill, G.W. (1982). Group versus individual performance.Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517–539.
Hirokawa, R.Y. (1992). Communication and group decision-making efficacy. In R.S. Cathcart & L.A. Samovar (Eds.),Small Group Communication (pp. 165–177). Dubuque, LA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Hirokawa, R.Y., & Pace, R. (1983). A descriptive investigation of the possible communication-based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making.Communication Monographs, 50, 363–379.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media.Human Communication Research, 23(2), 193–219.
Hong, N.S., Jonassen, D.H., & McGee, S. (in press). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes.Educational Technology Research and Development 45(1), 65–95.
Johnassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Jonassen, D.H. (in press). Integrating problem solving into instructional design. In R.A. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues ion instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D.H., & Carr, C. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations in learning. In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.),Computers as cognitive tools: The next generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaye, T., Mason, R., & Harasim, L. (1991).Computer conferencing in the academic environment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 320 540)
Mason, R., & Kaye, T. (1990). Toward a new paradigm for distance education. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.),Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger Publishers.
McGuire, T., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917–930.
Nagasundaram, M., & Dennis, A.R. (1993). When a group is not a group: The cognitive foundation of group idea generation.Small Group Research, 24(4), 463–489.
Newman, D.R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning.Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 48(6), 484–495.
Olaniran, B.A., Savage, G.T., & Sorenson, R.L. (1996). Experimental and experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion.Communication education, 45, 244–259.
Olaniran, B.A., Friedrich, G.W., & Van Grundy, A.B. (1992, May).Computer mediated communication in small group decisional stages. Paper presented at the 42nd meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
O’Neill, D.K., & Gomez, L.M. (1994). The Collaboratory notebook: A distributed knowledge building environment for project learning.Proceedings of ED MEDIA, 94. Vancouver B.C., Canada.
Poole, M.S. (1992). Group communication and the structuring process. In R.S. Cathcart & L.A. Samovar (Eds.),Small group communication (pp. 147–157). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Poole, M.S., & Holmes, M.E. (1995). Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making.Human Communication Research, 22(1), 90–127.
Poole, M.S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of group decision paths.Human Communication Research, 15(3), 323–356.
Quinn, C.N., Mehan, H., Levin, J.A., & Black, S.D. (1983). Real education in non-real time: The use of electronic message systems for instruction.Instructional Science, 11, 313–327.
Scott, D.M., Fowler, K.L., & Gibson, J.J. (1993).Teaching collaborative problem solving using computer-mediated communications. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 869)
Shaw, M.E. (1976).Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simon, D.P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In D. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 426–434.
Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated communication: A relational perspective.Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.
Warkentin, M.E., Seyeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a Web-based conference system.Decision Sciences, 28, 975–996.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jonassen, D.H., Kwon, H. Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. ETR&D 49, 35–51 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504505
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504505