基于问题解决的大学生团队学习认知互动分析
|
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。
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”.
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。
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”.
引文
[美]阿妮塔·伍德沃克著.陈红兵,张春莉译.教育心理学,江苏:江苏教育出版社, 2005年4月版: 400.
[美]彼得·圣吉著,郭进隆译.第五项修炼——学习型组织的艺术与实务.上海: 上海三联书店, 1998年7月第2版: 269, 271.
[美]德博拉·安科纳,托马斯A.科奇安,莫琳·斯库利,约翰·范马阿南,D.埃莉诺·韦斯特尼著.王迎军,汪建新,周博文译.组织行为学:面向未来的管理(原书第三版),北京:机械工业出版社,2006年1月版: 128.
[美]司马贺著,荆其诚,张厚粲译.人类的认知——思维的信息加工理论.北京:科学出版社1986年11月版: 116.
[美]威廉·威尔斯曼著,袁振国主译.教育研究方法导论.教育科学出版社1997年7月版: 22-23.
Johnson D. W., Johnson F. P.著.谢晓非等译校.集合起来——群体理论与团队技巧(第九版).北京:中国轻工业出版社, 2008年1月版: 507, 519, 144.
陈书凯编著. 200个聪明人的逻辑思维游戏.北京:中国纺织出版社2006年版.
丁桂凤,沈德立.小学生团队合作学习成绩之群体影响因素研究.心理科学, 2007,30(1):6-9.
丁桂凤.合作学习研究的基本走势.南京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2005(4): 110-114.
高向斌.合作学习的教学观与教学设计策略.中国民族教育, 2006(11): 34-35.
郭秀艳著.内隐学习.上海:华东师范大学出版社2003年11月版:410, 409.
黄光国著.社会科学的理路.北京:中国人民大学出版社2006年4月版: 8.
邝怡,施俊琦,蔡雅琦,王垒.大学生认知需求量表的修订.中国心理卫生杂志, 2005(1): 57-60.
李锋,王二平.团队作业特征研究现状与展望.心理科学进展. 2008, 16(5): 753~759.
李海云.团队人格特质组合对团队效能的影响——以团队过程为中介变量[D]. 武汉大学企业管理专业2005届硕士论文,指导老师:关培兰教授.
林绚晖,汴冉,朱睿,车宏生.团队人格组成、团队过程对团队有效性的作用. 心理学报, 2008, 40(4): 437-447.
刘雪峰,张志学.模拟情境中工作团队成员互动过程的初步研究及其测量.心理学报, 2005, 37(2): 253~259.
鲁迟.模拟团队沟通过程中话语特征研究[D].苏州大学教育学院学校心理学专业2008届硕士论文,指导老师:刘电芝教授.
罗宾斯等著.李原等译.组织行为学(第12版),中国人民大学出版社, 2008年4月版: 283.
毛良斌,郑全全.团队学习、团队有效性及其影响因素研究.人类工效学, 2008(1): 18-21.
毛良斌,郑全全.团队学习研究综述.人类工效学, 2007(4): 70-73.
莫雷,王瑞明,陈彩琦,温红博.心理学研究方法的系统分析与体系重构.心理科学, 2006,29(5):1026-1030.
彭雪蓉.合作学习小组互动的话语分析[D].南京师范大学外国语学院2006届硕士学位论文,指导老师:刘学惠副教授.
彭雪蓉.合作学习小组互动的话语分析[D].南京师范大学外国语学院2006届硕士学位论文,指导老师:刘学惠副教授.
沈德立,白学军.高效率学习的心理机制研究.心理科学. 2006(1):2-6.
汪航,鞠瑞利,吴庆麟.合作数学问题解决与心理模型建构关系研究.心理科学, 2007, 30(4): 857-860.
汪航.合作学习认知研究综述[J].心理科学. 2004, 27(2): 438-440.
王建安,张钢.集体问题解决中的知识、惯例和绩效.心理学报,2008,40(8):862-872.
王进.运动员退役过程的心理定性分析:成功与失败的个案研究.心理学报2008,40(3): 368~379.
王静,陈英和.合作学习小组的认知风格对其问题解决的影响.心理发展与教育, 2008(2): 102-107.
王卫.言语行为内容分析法介绍.心理科学. 1999(2): 57-59.
王秀丽.大学生团队学习的有效运行机制与培育研究[D].苏州大学教育学院高等教育心理学专业2008届博士论文,指导老师:刘电芝教授.
王叶毅,王重鸣.情境化访谈的特点与研究趋势.心理科学. 1998(21): 520-524.
吴康宁.教育研究应研究什么样的问题——兼谈“真问题”的判断标准.教育研究, 2002(11), 8-11.
吴仁英.合作学习中的生生互动研究[D].山东师范大学教育学原理专业2005届硕士学位论文,指导老师:王坦研究员.
吴小雷.基于ontology的内容分析法的研究[D].南京理工大学情报学专业2005届硕士学位论文.指导老师:王曰芬副教授.
武欣,吴志明.国外团队有效性影响因素研究现状及发展趋势.外国经济与管理,2005,27(1):47-50.
夏心军.论“合作学习”中的认知责任.当代教育论坛, 2004(3): 49-52.
邢以群,姚静.研究生团队学习模式的实践与探讨.学位与研究生教育, 2004(2), 23-26
阳泽.团体合作认知影响学生几何概念结构表征的实验研究[D].西南师范大学发展与教育心理学专业2002届硕士论文,指导老师:刘电芝教授.
杨光伟.合作讨论和元认知监控与排列组合问题的解决.数学教育学报,2005(3):34-36.
余娟.论心理学研究中的内容分析法.河西师范学院学报. 2006(1): 74-77.
余明.合作学习小组能力构成因素对互动过程与学习效果的影响研究[D].华东师范大学发展与教育心理学专业2005届硕士论文,指导老师:吴庆麟教授.
张德江.研究生学习要实现两个转变——在2006级研究生开学典礼上的讲话(摘录),张德江:长春工业大学校长.长春工业大学学报(高教研究版), 2006(4): 1-2.
张丽华.定性与定量研究在教育研究过程中的整合.教育科学, 2008(6): 33-36.
张志学, Hempel P S,韩玉兰等.高技术工作团队的交互记忆系统及其效果. 心理学报,2006,38(2):271-280.
周莹,王二平.团队过程的研究现状[J].人类工效学, 2007(3): 64-66.
Appendix .The Study of Group Process. http:// www. udel. edu/ communication/ COMM356/ pavitt/ appendix. htm
Argote L, Gruenfeld D, Naquin C. Group Learning in Organizations [M] //TurnerM E. Group atWorks: Advances inTheory andResearch. Hillsdale, NJ: Er-lbaum, 2001: 369-411.
Asterhan C. S. C., Schwarz B. B. The Effects of Monological and Dialogical Argumentation on Concept Learning in Evolutionary Theory. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007, 99,(3), 626–639.
Barron, B. Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Science, 2000, 9(4): 403-436.
Barron, B. When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2003, 12(3), 307–359.
Beard R L, Salas E, Prince C. Enhancing transfer of training: Using role-play to foster teamwork in the cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1995, 5(2):131-143.
Beers, P J, (Els) Boshuizen, H.P.A., Kirschner, P.A., Gijselaers, W.H. Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior. 2005, 21:623-643.
Biele G., Rieskamp J., Czienskowski U. Explaining cooperation in groups: Testing models of reciprocity and learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2008,106(2): 89-105.
Blatchford P, Ed Baines, Rubie-Davies C, Bassett P, Chowne A. The effect of New Approach to Group Work on Pupil-Pupil and Teacher-Pupil Interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2006, 98( 4), 750-765.
Brannick M T, Roach R M, Salas E. Understanding team performance: A multi-method study. Human Performance,1993,6:287-308.
Bunderson J. S., Sutcliffe K. M. Management Team Learning Orientation and Business Unit Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(3): 552-560.
Burns M. K., Peters R., Noell G. H. Using performance feedback to enhance implementation fidelity of the problem-solving team process. Journal of School Psychology. 2008 (46) : 537-550.
Carsten K. W. De Dreu. Cooperative Outcome Interdependence, Task Reflexivity,and Team Effectiveness: A Motivated Information Processing Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007, 92(3): 628–638.
Cohen, E. G. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 1994, 64(1), 1–35.
Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D. R. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 1997, 23: 239-290.
Cooke R A, Szumal J L. The impact of group interactional styles on problem-solving effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1994, 30(4), 415–437.
Corpening, JR, J. L. Examination of the interaction of team learning variables within a systems focus on organizational learning and the learning organization: a study of a nursing team at a large southeastern teaching hospital. A dissertation of Doctor of Education, in the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University, 2003.
Crossan M, Lane H, White R. An Organizational Learning Framework: from Intuition to Institution. Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(3): 522-537.
Dansereau, D. F. Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies, issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 103–119). New York: Academic Press, 1988.
Daradoumis T., Mart?nez-Mones A., Xhafa F. A layered framework for evaluating on-line collaborative learning interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2006, 64: 622–635.
De Grave, W.S., Dolmans, D.H.J.M. & Van Der Vleuten, C.P.M. Student perceptions about the occurrence of critical incidents in tutorial groups, Medical Teacher, 23, 2001, pp. 49–54.
DeCorte,E., Verschaffel,L.Children’s solution processes in elementary arithmetic problems: Analysis and improvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981, 6: 765-779.
Dekker D. M., Rutte C. G., Van den Berg P. T. Cultural differences in the perception of critical interaction behaviors in global virtual teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2008.
Ding N. Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 2009, 52(2): 509-519.
Edmondson A C. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44(2): 350-383.
Edmondson A. C. Group and Organizational Influences on Team learning. The degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the subject of Organizational Behavior, Havard University, 1996.
Fiore, S. M. Problem space and problem solving failure: cognitive mechanisms in the explanation of process loss in group problem solving. Doctoral dissertation, university of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh: PA, 2000.
Fisher, E. Distinctive Features of Pupil-Pupil Classroom Talk and Their Relationship to Learning: How Discursive Exploration Might be Encouraged[A]. In Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice[C]. Ed. Stierer,B. London: The Open University Press, 1994, 14 -28.
Flanagan, J. C. The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 1954, 51, 327–358.
Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. W. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition. New York: Wiley, 1985: 323-347.
Fourlas, G. A Comparative study of the functions of children’s oral language in teacher centred andpeer group centeredmethods of teaching in Greekprimary schools. (Unpublished MEd-thesis). Cardiffz University College of Cardiff,1988.
Funke, J. Solving complex problems: exploration and control of complex systems. In Sternberg, R.J. & Frensch,P.A.(Ed.), Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.1991,185-222.
Gansle, K. A.,& McMahon, C.M. Component integrity of teacher intervention management behavior using a student self-monitoring treatment: An experimental analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1997(7): 405?419.
Gillies, R. M. The Behaviors, Interactions, and Perceptions of Journal High SchoolStudents During Small-Group Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2003, 95(1): 137-147.
Goos M. Understanding Meta-cognitive Failure. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 2002, (21): 283-302.
Gorse, C. A. & Emmitt, S. Communication behaviour during management and design team meetings: a comparison of group interaction. Construction Management and Economics, 2007(25), 1195–1211.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 1994, 31, 104–137.
Greeno, J. G. Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Guiller J., Durndell A., Ross A. Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction. 2008, 18(2):187-200.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1997, 17(4), 395–429.
Helmreich R L, Foushee H C. Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in America. In: E L Wiener, B G Kanki, R L Helmreich(Eds.), Cockpit resource management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1993.3-41.
Hemk A. M & Wilke. et al. Group performance. London and New York, 1994, 54. HinszV B, TindaleR S, VollrathD A. The Emerging Conceptualization of Groups as Information Processors. Psychological Bulletin, 1997, 121(1): 43 -64.
Howe C., Tolmie A., Thurston A., Topping K., Christie D., Livingston, Jessiman K. E., Donaldson C. Group work in elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 2007, 17(5): 549-563.
Howe, C., Mercer, N. Children’s Social Development, Peer Interaction and Classroom Learning (Primary Review Research Survey 2/1b), Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education, 2007.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Roy, P., & Zaidman, B. Oral interaction in cooperative learning groups: Speaking, listening, and the nature of statements made by high-, medium-, and low-achieving students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1985, 119, 303–321.
Katzenbach,J.R. The myth of top management teams. Harvard Business Review, 1997, Nov-Dec:82-91.
King, A., & Rosenshine, B. Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 1993, 61, 127–148.
King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90(1), 134–152.
Kneser C., Ploetzner R. Collaboration on the basis of complementary domain knowledge: observed dialogue structures and their relation to learning success. Learning and Instruction 2001,11: 53–83.
Kumpulainen K. The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 1996, 6(3).
Laudan, L. Progress and its problems: toward a theory of scientific growth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1992.
Liu C.C., Tsai C.C. An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers&Education, 2008, 50: 627–639.
Lynne A. S. Proactive adaptation in ERP teams: Mechanisms of team learning. The Claremont Graduate University, 2002, Ph.D.
Marks M A, Zaccaro S J, Mathieu J E. Performance Implications of Leader Briefings and Team-Interaction Training for Team Adaptation to Novel Environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85(6): 971-986.
Marks M A, Mathieu J E & Zaccaro S. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 2001, 6:356-376.
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ancona D G. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in anorganization. Academy of Management Journal, 1990,33;334-365.
Mercer, N. The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 1996a , 6 (4), 359–375.
Mercer, N., Littleton, K. Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: a sociocultural approach. London: Routledge, 2007.
Morgan Jr, B B, Glickman A S, Woodward, E A, Blaiwes, A S, Salas E. Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy Environment, 1986. NTSC Technical Report TR-86-014. Naval Training Systems Center, Orlando, FL.
Nastasi B. K., Clements D. H., Battista M. T. Social-Cognitive Interactions, Motivation, and Cognitive Growth in Logo Programming and CAI Problem-Solving Environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82(1):150-158.
Newell, A., Simon,H.A. Human problem-solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PreticeHall, 1972.
Noell, G. H. Research examining the relationships among consultation process, treatment integrity, and outcomes. In W. P. Erchul, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (pp. 323?342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2008.
Noell, G. H., Duhon, G. J., Gatti, S. L., & Connell, J. E. Consultation, follow-up, and implementation of behavior management interventions in general education. School Psychology Review, 2002(31): 217?234.
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., et al. Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 2005(34): 87-106.
Palincsar, A.L. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 1998, 49:345-375.
Reilly, R R., & McGourty, J. Performance appraisal in team settings. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraised: state of the art in practice (pp. 245-277). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Sadowski CJ. An Examination of the short need for cognition scale. The Journal of Psychology, 1992, 127(4): 451-454.
Saleh M,Lazonder A W,Jong T D. Structuring collaboration in mixed-ability groups to promote verbal interaction, learning, and motivation of average-ability students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2007, 32:314–331.
Slavin, R.E. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1996, 21: 43–69.
Stacey R E. Mathematical Problem Solving in Groups: are Two Heads Better Than One? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 1992, (11): 261-275.
Stempfle J., Schaub P. B. Thinking in design teams---an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 2002, 23(5): 473-496.
Swller J., Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 1988(12): 257-285.
Teasley S. The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Development of Psychology, 1995, 31: 207-220.
Van Boxtel, C. Collaborative Concept Learning: Collaborative Learning Tasks, Student Interaction, and the Learning of Physics Concepts (Enschede, PrintPartners Ipskamp).
Visschers-pleijers A. J.S.F., Dolmans D. H.J.M., Wolfhagen I. H.A.P. et al. Exploration of a method to analyze group interactions in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 2004, 26(5): 471–478.
Visschers-Pliejers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., de Leng, B. A., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: a process study. Medical Education, 2006, 40(2), 129–137.
Volet S., Summers M., Thurman J. High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 2009, 1:1-13. 2009, 19(2), 128-143.
Vollmer, T. R., Roane, H. S., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus, B. A. Evaluating treatment challenges with differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1999(32): 9?23.
Wang S. L., Lin S. S.J. The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in HumanBehavior. 2007, 23(5): 2256-2268.
Watkins, K.E. & Marsick, V.J. Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 1993.
Watson W. E., BarNir A., Pavur R. Cultural diversity and learning teams: The impact on desired academic team processes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2005, 29: 449–467.
Watson W. E., Johnson L., Zgourides G. D. The influence of ethnic diversity on leadership, group process, and performance: an examination of learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2002, 26(1): 1-16.
Watson W. E., Michaelsen L. K. Group Interaction Behaviors that Affect Group Performance on an I ntellective Task. Group & Organization Management, 1988,13(4): 495-516.
Watson W., Cooper D., Torres M.A. J. L. N., Boyd N. G. Team processes, team conflict, team outcomes, and gender: An examination of U.S. and Mexican learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2008, 32(6): 524-537.
Webb, N. M. Student interaction and learning in small groups. A research summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuk (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147–172). New York: Plenum. 1985.
Webb, N. M. Task related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1991, 22, 366–389.
Webber S S., Chen G., Payne S C., et al. Enhancing team mental model measurement with performance appraisal practices. Organizational Research Methods, 2000, 3:307-322.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. A dialogical framework for researching peer talk. In: Wegerif, R. and Scrimshaw, P. Editors. Computers and talk in the primary classroom Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 1997: 49–65.
Wilson D. S., Timmel J. J., Miller R. R. Cognitive Cooperation--When the Going Gets Tough, Think as a Group. Human Nature, 2004, 15(3): 225-250.
Wilson J. M., Goodman P. S., Cronin M. A. Group Learning. Academy of management review, 2007, 32(4): 1041-1059.
Wood,D.,Bruner,J.S.,& Ross,G. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1976.
Yazici, H.J. A study of collaborative learning style and team learning performance. Education & Training, 2005, 47, 2/3: 216-229.
[美]彼得·圣吉著,郭进隆译.第五项修炼——学习型组织的艺术与实务.上海: 上海三联书店, 1998年7月第2版: 269, 271.
[美]德博拉·安科纳,托马斯A.科奇安,莫琳·斯库利,约翰·范马阿南,D.埃莉诺·韦斯特尼著.王迎军,汪建新,周博文译.组织行为学:面向未来的管理(原书第三版),北京:机械工业出版社,2006年1月版: 128.
[美]司马贺著,荆其诚,张厚粲译.人类的认知——思维的信息加工理论.北京:科学出版社1986年11月版: 116.
[美]威廉·威尔斯曼著,袁振国主译.教育研究方法导论.教育科学出版社1997年7月版: 22-23.
Johnson D. W., Johnson F. P.著.谢晓非等译校.集合起来——群体理论与团队技巧(第九版).北京:中国轻工业出版社, 2008年1月版: 507, 519, 144.
陈书凯编著. 200个聪明人的逻辑思维游戏.北京:中国纺织出版社2006年版.
丁桂凤,沈德立.小学生团队合作学习成绩之群体影响因素研究.心理科学, 2007,30(1):6-9.
丁桂凤.合作学习研究的基本走势.南京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2005(4): 110-114.
高向斌.合作学习的教学观与教学设计策略.中国民族教育, 2006(11): 34-35.
郭秀艳著.内隐学习.上海:华东师范大学出版社2003年11月版:410, 409.
黄光国著.社会科学的理路.北京:中国人民大学出版社2006年4月版: 8.
邝怡,施俊琦,蔡雅琦,王垒.大学生认知需求量表的修订.中国心理卫生杂志, 2005(1): 57-60.
李锋,王二平.团队作业特征研究现状与展望.心理科学进展. 2008, 16(5): 753~759.
李海云.团队人格特质组合对团队效能的影响——以团队过程为中介变量[D]. 武汉大学企业管理专业2005届硕士论文,指导老师:关培兰教授.
林绚晖,汴冉,朱睿,车宏生.团队人格组成、团队过程对团队有效性的作用. 心理学报, 2008, 40(4): 437-447.
刘雪峰,张志学.模拟情境中工作团队成员互动过程的初步研究及其测量.心理学报, 2005, 37(2): 253~259.
鲁迟.模拟团队沟通过程中话语特征研究[D].苏州大学教育学院学校心理学专业2008届硕士论文,指导老师:刘电芝教授.
罗宾斯等著.李原等译.组织行为学(第12版),中国人民大学出版社, 2008年4月版: 283.
毛良斌,郑全全.团队学习、团队有效性及其影响因素研究.人类工效学, 2008(1): 18-21.
毛良斌,郑全全.团队学习研究综述.人类工效学, 2007(4): 70-73.
莫雷,王瑞明,陈彩琦,温红博.心理学研究方法的系统分析与体系重构.心理科学, 2006,29(5):1026-1030.
彭雪蓉.合作学习小组互动的话语分析[D].南京师范大学外国语学院2006届硕士学位论文,指导老师:刘学惠副教授.
彭雪蓉.合作学习小组互动的话语分析[D].南京师范大学外国语学院2006届硕士学位论文,指导老师:刘学惠副教授.
沈德立,白学军.高效率学习的心理机制研究.心理科学. 2006(1):2-6.
汪航,鞠瑞利,吴庆麟.合作数学问题解决与心理模型建构关系研究.心理科学, 2007, 30(4): 857-860.
汪航.合作学习认知研究综述[J].心理科学. 2004, 27(2): 438-440.
王建安,张钢.集体问题解决中的知识、惯例和绩效.心理学报,2008,40(8):862-872.
王进.运动员退役过程的心理定性分析:成功与失败的个案研究.心理学报2008,40(3): 368~379.
王静,陈英和.合作学习小组的认知风格对其问题解决的影响.心理发展与教育, 2008(2): 102-107.
王卫.言语行为内容分析法介绍.心理科学. 1999(2): 57-59.
王秀丽.大学生团队学习的有效运行机制与培育研究[D].苏州大学教育学院高等教育心理学专业2008届博士论文,指导老师:刘电芝教授.
王叶毅,王重鸣.情境化访谈的特点与研究趋势.心理科学. 1998(21): 520-524.
吴康宁.教育研究应研究什么样的问题——兼谈“真问题”的判断标准.教育研究, 2002(11), 8-11.
吴仁英.合作学习中的生生互动研究[D].山东师范大学教育学原理专业2005届硕士学位论文,指导老师:王坦研究员.
吴小雷.基于ontology的内容分析法的研究[D].南京理工大学情报学专业2005届硕士学位论文.指导老师:王曰芬副教授.
武欣,吴志明.国外团队有效性影响因素研究现状及发展趋势.外国经济与管理,2005,27(1):47-50.
夏心军.论“合作学习”中的认知责任.当代教育论坛, 2004(3): 49-52.
邢以群,姚静.研究生团队学习模式的实践与探讨.学位与研究生教育, 2004(2), 23-26
阳泽.团体合作认知影响学生几何概念结构表征的实验研究[D].西南师范大学发展与教育心理学专业2002届硕士论文,指导老师:刘电芝教授.
杨光伟.合作讨论和元认知监控与排列组合问题的解决.数学教育学报,2005(3):34-36.
余娟.论心理学研究中的内容分析法.河西师范学院学报. 2006(1): 74-77.
余明.合作学习小组能力构成因素对互动过程与学习效果的影响研究[D].华东师范大学发展与教育心理学专业2005届硕士论文,指导老师:吴庆麟教授.
张德江.研究生学习要实现两个转变——在2006级研究生开学典礼上的讲话(摘录),张德江:长春工业大学校长.长春工业大学学报(高教研究版), 2006(4): 1-2.
张丽华.定性与定量研究在教育研究过程中的整合.教育科学, 2008(6): 33-36.
张志学, Hempel P S,韩玉兰等.高技术工作团队的交互记忆系统及其效果. 心理学报,2006,38(2):271-280.
周莹,王二平.团队过程的研究现状[J].人类工效学, 2007(3): 64-66.
Appendix .The Study of Group Process. http:// www. udel. edu/ communication/ COMM356/ pavitt/ appendix. htm
Argote L, Gruenfeld D, Naquin C. Group Learning in Organizations [M] //TurnerM E. Group atWorks: Advances inTheory andResearch. Hillsdale, NJ: Er-lbaum, 2001: 369-411.
Asterhan C. S. C., Schwarz B. B. The Effects of Monological and Dialogical Argumentation on Concept Learning in Evolutionary Theory. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007, 99,(3), 626–639.
Barron, B. Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Science, 2000, 9(4): 403-436.
Barron, B. When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2003, 12(3), 307–359.
Beard R L, Salas E, Prince C. Enhancing transfer of training: Using role-play to foster teamwork in the cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1995, 5(2):131-143.
Beers, P J, (Els) Boshuizen, H.P.A., Kirschner, P.A., Gijselaers, W.H. Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior. 2005, 21:623-643.
Biele G., Rieskamp J., Czienskowski U. Explaining cooperation in groups: Testing models of reciprocity and learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2008,106(2): 89-105.
Blatchford P, Ed Baines, Rubie-Davies C, Bassett P, Chowne A. The effect of New Approach to Group Work on Pupil-Pupil and Teacher-Pupil Interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2006, 98( 4), 750-765.
Brannick M T, Roach R M, Salas E. Understanding team performance: A multi-method study. Human Performance,1993,6:287-308.
Bunderson J. S., Sutcliffe K. M. Management Team Learning Orientation and Business Unit Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(3): 552-560.
Burns M. K., Peters R., Noell G. H. Using performance feedback to enhance implementation fidelity of the problem-solving team process. Journal of School Psychology. 2008 (46) : 537-550.
Carsten K. W. De Dreu. Cooperative Outcome Interdependence, Task Reflexivity,and Team Effectiveness: A Motivated Information Processing Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007, 92(3): 628–638.
Cohen, E. G. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 1994, 64(1), 1–35.
Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D. R. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 1997, 23: 239-290.
Cooke R A, Szumal J L. The impact of group interactional styles on problem-solving effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1994, 30(4), 415–437.
Corpening, JR, J. L. Examination of the interaction of team learning variables within a systems focus on organizational learning and the learning organization: a study of a nursing team at a large southeastern teaching hospital. A dissertation of Doctor of Education, in the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University, 2003.
Crossan M, Lane H, White R. An Organizational Learning Framework: from Intuition to Institution. Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(3): 522-537.
Dansereau, D. F. Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies, issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 103–119). New York: Academic Press, 1988.
Daradoumis T., Mart?nez-Mones A., Xhafa F. A layered framework for evaluating on-line collaborative learning interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2006, 64: 622–635.
De Grave, W.S., Dolmans, D.H.J.M. & Van Der Vleuten, C.P.M. Student perceptions about the occurrence of critical incidents in tutorial groups, Medical Teacher, 23, 2001, pp. 49–54.
DeCorte,E., Verschaffel,L.Children’s solution processes in elementary arithmetic problems: Analysis and improvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981, 6: 765-779.
Dekker D. M., Rutte C. G., Van den Berg P. T. Cultural differences in the perception of critical interaction behaviors in global virtual teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2008.
Ding N. Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 2009, 52(2): 509-519.
Edmondson A C. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44(2): 350-383.
Edmondson A. C. Group and Organizational Influences on Team learning. The degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the subject of Organizational Behavior, Havard University, 1996.
Fiore, S. M. Problem space and problem solving failure: cognitive mechanisms in the explanation of process loss in group problem solving. Doctoral dissertation, university of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh: PA, 2000.
Fisher, E. Distinctive Features of Pupil-Pupil Classroom Talk and Their Relationship to Learning: How Discursive Exploration Might be Encouraged[A]. In Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice[C]. Ed. Stierer,B. London: The Open University Press, 1994, 14 -28.
Flanagan, J. C. The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 1954, 51, 327–358.
Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. W. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition. New York: Wiley, 1985: 323-347.
Fourlas, G. A Comparative study of the functions of children’s oral language in teacher centred andpeer group centeredmethods of teaching in Greekprimary schools. (Unpublished MEd-thesis). Cardiffz University College of Cardiff,1988.
Funke, J. Solving complex problems: exploration and control of complex systems. In Sternberg, R.J. & Frensch,P.A.(Ed.), Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.1991,185-222.
Gansle, K. A.,& McMahon, C.M. Component integrity of teacher intervention management behavior using a student self-monitoring treatment: An experimental analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1997(7): 405?419.
Gillies, R. M. The Behaviors, Interactions, and Perceptions of Journal High SchoolStudents During Small-Group Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2003, 95(1): 137-147.
Goos M. Understanding Meta-cognitive Failure. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 2002, (21): 283-302.
Gorse, C. A. & Emmitt, S. Communication behaviour during management and design team meetings: a comparison of group interaction. Construction Management and Economics, 2007(25), 1195–1211.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 1994, 31, 104–137.
Greeno, J. G. Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Guiller J., Durndell A., Ross A. Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction. 2008, 18(2):187-200.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1997, 17(4), 395–429.
Helmreich R L, Foushee H C. Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in America. In: E L Wiener, B G Kanki, R L Helmreich(Eds.), Cockpit resource management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1993.3-41.
Hemk A. M & Wilke. et al. Group performance. London and New York, 1994, 54. HinszV B, TindaleR S, VollrathD A. The Emerging Conceptualization of Groups as Information Processors. Psychological Bulletin, 1997, 121(1): 43 -64.
Howe C., Tolmie A., Thurston A., Topping K., Christie D., Livingston, Jessiman K. E., Donaldson C. Group work in elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 2007, 17(5): 549-563.
Howe, C., Mercer, N. Children’s Social Development, Peer Interaction and Classroom Learning (Primary Review Research Survey 2/1b), Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education, 2007.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Roy, P., & Zaidman, B. Oral interaction in cooperative learning groups: Speaking, listening, and the nature of statements made by high-, medium-, and low-achieving students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1985, 119, 303–321.
Katzenbach,J.R. The myth of top management teams. Harvard Business Review, 1997, Nov-Dec:82-91.
King, A., & Rosenshine, B. Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 1993, 61, 127–148.
King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90(1), 134–152.
Kneser C., Ploetzner R. Collaboration on the basis of complementary domain knowledge: observed dialogue structures and their relation to learning success. Learning and Instruction 2001,11: 53–83.
Kumpulainen K. The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 1996, 6(3).
Laudan, L. Progress and its problems: toward a theory of scientific growth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1992.
Liu C.C., Tsai C.C. An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers&Education, 2008, 50: 627–639.
Lynne A. S. Proactive adaptation in ERP teams: Mechanisms of team learning. The Claremont Graduate University, 2002, Ph.D.
Marks M A, Zaccaro S J, Mathieu J E. Performance Implications of Leader Briefings and Team-Interaction Training for Team Adaptation to Novel Environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85(6): 971-986.
Marks M A, Mathieu J E & Zaccaro S. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 2001, 6:356-376.
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ancona D G. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in anorganization. Academy of Management Journal, 1990,33;334-365.
Mercer, N. The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 1996a , 6 (4), 359–375.
Mercer, N., Littleton, K. Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: a sociocultural approach. London: Routledge, 2007.
Morgan Jr, B B, Glickman A S, Woodward, E A, Blaiwes, A S, Salas E. Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy Environment, 1986. NTSC Technical Report TR-86-014. Naval Training Systems Center, Orlando, FL.
Nastasi B. K., Clements D. H., Battista M. T. Social-Cognitive Interactions, Motivation, and Cognitive Growth in Logo Programming and CAI Problem-Solving Environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82(1):150-158.
Newell, A., Simon,H.A. Human problem-solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PreticeHall, 1972.
Noell, G. H. Research examining the relationships among consultation process, treatment integrity, and outcomes. In W. P. Erchul, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (pp. 323?342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2008.
Noell, G. H., Duhon, G. J., Gatti, S. L., & Connell, J. E. Consultation, follow-up, and implementation of behavior management interventions in general education. School Psychology Review, 2002(31): 217?234.
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., et al. Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 2005(34): 87-106.
Palincsar, A.L. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 1998, 49:345-375.
Reilly, R R., & McGourty, J. Performance appraisal in team settings. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraised: state of the art in practice (pp. 245-277). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Sadowski CJ. An Examination of the short need for cognition scale. The Journal of Psychology, 1992, 127(4): 451-454.
Saleh M,Lazonder A W,Jong T D. Structuring collaboration in mixed-ability groups to promote verbal interaction, learning, and motivation of average-ability students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2007, 32:314–331.
Slavin, R.E. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1996, 21: 43–69.
Stacey R E. Mathematical Problem Solving in Groups: are Two Heads Better Than One? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 1992, (11): 261-275.
Stempfle J., Schaub P. B. Thinking in design teams---an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 2002, 23(5): 473-496.
Swller J., Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 1988(12): 257-285.
Teasley S. The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Development of Psychology, 1995, 31: 207-220.
Van Boxtel, C. Collaborative Concept Learning: Collaborative Learning Tasks, Student Interaction, and the Learning of Physics Concepts (Enschede, PrintPartners Ipskamp).
Visschers-pleijers A. J.S.F., Dolmans D. H.J.M., Wolfhagen I. H.A.P. et al. Exploration of a method to analyze group interactions in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 2004, 26(5): 471–478.
Visschers-Pliejers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., de Leng, B. A., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: a process study. Medical Education, 2006, 40(2), 129–137.
Volet S., Summers M., Thurman J. High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 2009, 1:1-13. 2009, 19(2), 128-143.
Vollmer, T. R., Roane, H. S., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus, B. A. Evaluating treatment challenges with differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1999(32): 9?23.
Wang S. L., Lin S. S.J. The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in HumanBehavior. 2007, 23(5): 2256-2268.
Watkins, K.E. & Marsick, V.J. Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 1993.
Watson W. E., BarNir A., Pavur R. Cultural diversity and learning teams: The impact on desired academic team processes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2005, 29: 449–467.
Watson W. E., Johnson L., Zgourides G. D. The influence of ethnic diversity on leadership, group process, and performance: an examination of learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2002, 26(1): 1-16.
Watson W. E., Michaelsen L. K. Group Interaction Behaviors that Affect Group Performance on an I ntellective Task. Group & Organization Management, 1988,13(4): 495-516.
Watson W., Cooper D., Torres M.A. J. L. N., Boyd N. G. Team processes, team conflict, team outcomes, and gender: An examination of U.S. and Mexican learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2008, 32(6): 524-537.
Webb, N. M. Student interaction and learning in small groups. A research summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuk (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147–172). New York: Plenum. 1985.
Webb, N. M. Task related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1991, 22, 366–389.
Webber S S., Chen G., Payne S C., et al. Enhancing team mental model measurement with performance appraisal practices. Organizational Research Methods, 2000, 3:307-322.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. A dialogical framework for researching peer talk. In: Wegerif, R. and Scrimshaw, P. Editors. Computers and talk in the primary classroom Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 1997: 49–65.
Wilson D. S., Timmel J. J., Miller R. R. Cognitive Cooperation--When the Going Gets Tough, Think as a Group. Human Nature, 2004, 15(3): 225-250.
Wilson J. M., Goodman P. S., Cronin M. A. Group Learning. Academy of management review, 2007, 32(4): 1041-1059.
Wood,D.,Bruner,J.S.,& Ross,G. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1976.
Yazici, H.J. A study of collaborative learning style and team learning performance. Education & Training, 2005, 47, 2/3: 216-229.