Cultures of collaboration in engineering design education: a contrastive case study in France and Japan

References

• Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer supported argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J., & van der Puil, C. (2011). Socio-cognitive tension in collaborative working relations. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 222–242). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511527685
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (2013). Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bales, R. F. (1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 15, 257–263.10.2307/2086790
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnlund, D. C. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and the United States: Communicative styles of two cultures. Tokyo: The Simul Press.
   Google Scholar
• Béal, C. (2010). Les Interactions Quotidiennes en Français et en Anglais : de l’approche comparative à l’analyse des situations interculturelles [Everyday interactions in French and in English: From a comparative approach to the analysis of intercultural situations]. Berne: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, C. B. (1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 75–92.10.1016/0147-1767(86)90035-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bietti, L., Baker, M. J., & Détienne, F. (2015). Joint remembering in collaborative design: A multimodal approach in the case of a video design studio. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design, 5, 1–22. doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1103752
   Google Scholar
• Bucciarelli, L. L. (1988). An ethnographic perspective on engineering design. Design Studies, 9, 159–168.10.1016/0142-694X(88)90045-2
   Google Scholar
• Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhardt, J.-M., Détienne, F., Hebert, A.-M., Perron, L., Safin, S., & Leclercq, P. (2009). An approach to assess the quality of collaboration in technology-mediated design situations. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics ECCE 2009 (pp. 355–362), September 30–October 2, Otaniemi, Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Détienne, F. (2006). Collaborative design: Managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives. Interacting with Computers, 18(1), 1–20.10.1016/j.intcom.2005.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Détienne, F., Baker, M., & Burkhardt, J.-M. (2012). Quality of collaboration in design meetings: Methodological reflexions. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design ( Special issue: Perspectives on quality of collaboration in design), 8, 247–261.10.1080/15710882.2012.729063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Détienne, F., Burkhardt, J.-M., Hébert, A.-M., & Perron, L. (2008). Assessing the quality of collaboration in design: Bridging cognitive ergonomics and CSCL approaches. In T. Gross, J. Gulliksen, P. Kotzé, L. Oestreicher, P. Palanque, R. O. Prates, & M. Winckler (Eds.), INTERACT 2009, Part II, LNCS 5727 (pp. 157–160), August 24–28, 2009. Uppsala, Sweden: IFIP International Federation for Information Processing.
   Google Scholar
• Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaboration learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Dirckinck-Homfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindström, B. (Eds.). (2009). Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., & Toiviainen, H. (2011). Co-configurational design of learning instrumentalities: An activity-theoretical perspective. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 33–52). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 583–598.10.1111/apps.2004.53.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 67–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26, doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations, software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, R. A., Armstrong, N., Ellis, Y. M., & Shelton, J. F. (1997). Exploring the French language. London: Hodder/Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (2009). About: Designing – Analysing design meetings. Leiden: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63–86.10.1007/s11412-006-9005-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59.10.1080/10508400701793182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, E. (2015). When culture doesn’t translate. Harvard Business Review (October 2015 issue), 66–72. Downloaded from the Internet, May 2016. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/10/when-culture-doesnt-translate
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et son public [Psychoanalysis, its image and its public]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
   Google Scholar
• Muller Mirza, N., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, D. T., & Fussell, S. (2012). How did you feel during our conversation? Retrospective analysis of intercultural and same-culture Instant Messaging conversations. In Proceedings of the CSCW 2012 Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (pp. 117–126), Seattle, WA, USA, February 11–15. New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd revised ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in Science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.10.1126/science.1183944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paigne, R. M. (Ed.). (1993). Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Safin, S., Verschuere, A., Burkhardt, J.-M., Détienne, F., & Hébert, A.-M. (2010). Quality of collaboration in a distant collaborative architectural educational setting. In Workshop “Analysing the quality of collaboration in task-oriented computer-mediated interactions”, COOP 2010, Online version: International Reports on Socio-Informatics (IRSI), 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.iisi.de/international-reports-on-socio-informatics-irsi/#c396
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 19–29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schuman, S. (Ed.). (2006). Creating a culture of collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Sekiguchi, Y. (2002). Mathematical proof, argumentation, and classroom communication: From a cultural perspective. Tsukuba Journal of Educational Study in Mathematics, 21, 11–20.
   Google Scholar
• Spada, H., Meier, A., Rummel, N., & Hauser, S. (2005). A new method to assess the quality of collaborative process in CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 622–631). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Takano, Y., & Osaka, E. (1999). An unsupported common view: Comparing Japan and the U.S. on individualism/collectivism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 311–341.10.1111/ajsp.1999.2.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• UK Design Council. (2005). A study of the design process [Online report]. Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_Design_Council%20%282%29.pdf
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar