Collaborative processes and collaborative acts

Coding scheme A coding scheme was designed so as to focus on both socio-relational and socio-cognitive processes. It was composed of 8 categories of collab-orative processes and their associated 29 collabcollab-orative acts: (1)Relationship man-agement, (2)Interaction management, (3)Information management, (4) Argumen-tation management, (5)Task management, (6)Tool management(7)Other, and (8) Outside activity. Three of the seven categories are from the Rainbow model (Baker et al., 2007). The Relationship management, Interaction Management, Information management and Argumentation management categories were divided into sub-categories based on other coding schemes (Bales, 1950a; Hughes et al., 2007; Meier et al., 2007; Noroozi et al., 2013b). The different collaborative processes and collabo-rative acts are displayed in (Table 6.1).

Coding procedure For each dyad, the whole verbal interaction content was first transcribed with the ELAN software (Sloetjes & Wittenburg, 2008). Pauses and turn-taking served as a basis for segmenting the verbal interaction into collaborative acts.

Two independent coders applied the coding scheme previously described. They were provided with verbal transcriptions combined with audio (voice) and video (face as well as actions during the construction of the DREW graph) recordings of dyad members. The verbal interactions of all dyads were analyzed by a first coder, whereas the second coder was in charge of coding interactions of 10 dyads. The inter-coder reliability for the 29 collaborative acts was calculated as the Cohen’s kappa coefficient and was equal to 0.47 (moderate agreement; Viera, Garrett, et al., 2005).

Collaborative

process Collaborative act Definition of the collaborative act

Relationship management

Display solidarity Compliment or encourage partner or group

Display hostility Depreciate or disregard partner or group

Relax atmosphere Improve atmosphere or alleviate tensions (humor, laughs, teasing)

Use social convention Greet, display courtesy, introduce each other

Interaction management

Check reception Initiate or check contact with partner Check

comprehension Check comprehension of what partner previously said

Display active

listening Communicate attentive listening of partner Display reflection Communicate moment of reflection to partner Coordinate

teamwork Manage role distribution Accept coordination Accept group coordination Refuse coordination Object to group coordination

Information management

Give Task

Information Give information that can help to solve the problem or remind the rules or task constraints

Give Explanation Clarify/elaborate one’s own thinking Elicit Task

Information Ask information that can help to solve the task or reminding the rules or task constraints

Give Self

Information Give an information about one’s own knowledge or thinking

Elicit Partner Information

Ask information about partner’s knowledge or thinking

Give recall Repeat former information Elicit recall Ask again former information

Argumentation management

Give proposition Propose idea to resolve the task Give positive opinion Support proposed idea

Give negative

opinion Contradict proposed idea Elicit proposition Elicit new idea from partner Elicit opinion Elicit partner’s opinion Agree Agree with proposed idea Incorporate Enriching proposed idea

Task management Manage task Manage task progress, what has been done and what still to be done

Tool management Manage tool Manage collaborative tool usage

Other Other Communication related to problem-solving task but not falling within any previous category

Outside activity Outside activity Communication unrelated with problem-solving task

TABLE6.1: Coding scheme developed to code speech utterances into collaborative acts

6.1.3 Results

Descriptive results The coding scheme was applied to 4580 collaborative units in the EAT condition and to 3750 units in the control condition (this means a total num-ber of 8330 events, a mean of 219 events per participants). There was a very low level of use (< 1 percent of the total number of acts) for processes such asDisplay hostility, Refuse coordination, Elicit recall, Display solidarity, Give explanation, Check comprehen-sion,Incorporate,Elicit proposition,Use social convention,Elicit partner information, and Outside activity, and a low level of use (between 1 and 5 percent) for processes such asGive negative opinion, Check reception, Elicit task information, Coordinate teamwork, Display active listening,Give recall,Elicit opinion,Give self information, andRelax atmo-sphere. Some others can be considered as fairly well used (between 5 and 10 percent):

Give task information,Manage tool,Manage task,Give proposition,Display reflection, and Accept coordination. Only two processes represented more than 10 percent of the total numbers of acts:Agree,Give positive opinion.

Inferential results A series of 2 (EAT) x 2 (Gender participant) ANOVAs were per-formed on the rate of use of each collaborative acts.

The EAT had a positive effect on theUse social convention,Give self-information andElicit-partner informationvariables. More precisely, the rate of use was higher in the EAT condition than in the control condition for: (1)Use social convention (EAT:M= 0.96, SD= 0.56; Control: M= 0.52,SD= 0.60; F(1, 34) = 4.75,p= .003,η_p²

= 0.12), (2)Give self-information(EAT:M= 4.71,SD= 2.54; Control: M= 2.89,SD

= 2.24;F(1, 34) = 6.92,p= .012, η_p² = 0.16), and (3)Elicit-partner information(EAT:

M= 0.81,SD= 0.12; Control: M= 0.36,SD= 0.57;F(1, 34) = 5.43,p= .002,η_p²= 0.13).

The EAT had a negative effect forCoordinate teamwork, with a higher rate in the Control condition (M = 2.89,SD= 1.28) than in the EAT condition (M = 2.04,SD= 1.59),F(1, 34) = 3.85,p= .057,η_p²= 0.10.

Gender had an effect on 4 processes. For three of the four processes, the rate of use was higher for women than for men: (1)Display solidarity(women: M= 0.70, SD

= 0.78; men: M= 0.20,SD= 0.35,F(1, 34) = 4.81,p= .035,η²_p= 0.12), (2)Give recall (women: M= 4.06,SD= 1.8; men: M= 1.99,SD= 1.76,F(1, 34) = 12.00,p= .001,η_p²

= 0.26), and (3)Tool management(women: M= 6.18,SD= 3.16; men: M= 3.47,SD

= 2.25,F(1, 34) = 5.21,p= .028,η²_p= 0.13). On the other hand, men had a higher rate (M= 9.23, SD= 4.28) than women (M= 6.18, SD= 3.16) forGive proposition, F(1, 34) = 8.64,p= .005,η_p²= 0.20.

In the EAT condition, men produced more Relax atmosphere acts compared to women, whereas it was the opposite in the control condition, F(1, 34) = 6.59, p = .014,η_p² = 0.16. Post-Hoc tests showed a significant difference between the EAT and Control conditions for men (M_EAT = 6.35 > M_Control = 0.92), but no significant dif-ference for women (M_EAT = 4.75≈ M_Control = 4.20). The EAT * Gender interaction

was also significant forGive negative opinion,F(1, 34) = 7.65,p= 0.009,η_p² = 0.18.

Post Hoc tests showed a difference between the EAT and Control conditions for men (M_EAT= 0.92 < M_Control = 3.43) but no difference for women (M_EAT= 1.52≈M_Control

= 1.55). Both significant interactions are displayed in Figure 6.1.

FIGURE6.1: Interaction between EAT and Gender for (1) Relax Atmosphere and (2) Give Negative Opinion