Measuring Heedful Interrelating in Collaborative Educational Settings

References

• Amado, G., & Ambrose, A. (Eds.). (2001). The transitional approach to change. London, England: Karnac Books.
   Google Scholar
• BarkleyE. F., CrossK. P., & MajorC. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• BarronB. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BarronB. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-6845-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bijlsma-FrankemaK., de JongB., & van de BuntG. (2008). Heed, a missing link between trust, monitoring and performance in knowledge intensive teams. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 19–40. doi:10.1080/09585190701763800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bijlsma-FrankemaK., RosendaalB. W., & van de BuntG. (2005). Does trust breed heed? Differential effects of trust on heed and performance in a network and a divisional form of organizing. In K. M.Bijlsma-Frankema & R. J. A. K.Woolthus (Eds.), Trust under pressure: Empirical investigations of trust and trust building in uncertain circumstances (pp. 206–233). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• ChiuM. M., & KhooL. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 506–523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChiuM. M., & KuoS. W. (2009). Social metacognition in groups: Benefits, difficulties, learning, and teaching. In C. B.Larson (Ed.), Metacognition: New research developments (pp. 117–136). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
   Google Scholar
• CoorenF. (2004). The communicative achievement of collective minding: Analysis of board meeting excerpts. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(4), 517–551. doi:10.1177/0893318903262242.
   Google Scholar
• CzajaR., & BlairJ. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Fine Forge Press.
   Google Scholar
• DanielS., & JordanM. E. (under review). The effects of heedful interrelating on cooperative teams.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellisR. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application (Vol. 26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• DillenbourgP., & BetrancourtM. (2006). Collaboration load. In J.Elen & R. E.Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 142–165). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• DoughertyD., & TakacsH. (2004). Team-play: Heedful interrelating as the boundary for innovation. International Journal of Strategic Management, 37, 569–590.
   Google Scholar
• DruskatV. U., & PescosolidoA. T. (2002). The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning and heedful interrelating. Human Relations, 55(3), 283–314. doi:10.1177/0018726702553001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GarsonG. D. (2013). Factor analysis. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• GeorgeJ. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GroteG., KolbeM., Zala-MezoE., Bienefeld-SeallN., & KunzleB. (2010). Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics, 53(2), 211–228. doi:10.1080/00140130903248819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HackerD. J., & BolL. (2004). Metacognitive theory: Considering the social-cognitive influences. In D. M.McInerney & S.Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (Vol. 1, pp. 275–297). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• HoganK., NastasiB. K., & PressleyM. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 378–432. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HuL., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria vs. new alternative. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IiskalaT., VaurasM., & LehtinenE. (2004). Socially-shared metacognition in peer learning?Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1, 147–178.
   Google Scholar
• JaarsmaA. D. C., de GraveW. S., MuijtjensA. M. M., ScherpbierA. J. J. A., & van BeukelenP. (2008). Perceptions of learning as a function of seminar group factors. Medical Education, 42(12), 1178–1184. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03170.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JamesL. R., DemareeR. R. G., & WolfG. (1984). Estimating within-groups interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JanssenJ., ErkensG., KanselaarG., & JaspersJ. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning?Computers & Education, 49, 1037–1065. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JensenM., JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (2002). Impact of positive interdependence during electronic quizzes on discourse and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 161–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (2005). Learning groups. In S. A.Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 441–461). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365–379. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JohnsonD., JohnsonR., & SmithK. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JordanM. E., & DanielS. (2010). Heedful interrelating in the academic discourse of collaborative groups. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(2), 4–19.
   Google Scholar
• KlineT. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• KressG. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• LanhamH. J., McDanielR. R.Jr, CrabtreeB. F., MillerW. L., StangeK. C., TalliaA. F., & NuttingP. A. (2009). How improving practice relationships among clinicians and non-clinicians can improve quality in primary care. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 35, 455–466.
   Google Scholar
• LernerG. H. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13, 213–245.
   Google Scholar
• LewisK. (2000). Transactive memory and performance of management consulting teams: Examining construct and predictive validity of a new scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• LewisK. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587–604. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• MercierE., GoldmanS., & BookerA. (2008). Focusing on process: Evidence and ideas to promote learning through the collaborative design process. In C.DiGiano, S.Goldman, & M.Chorost (Eds.), Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 36–61). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MichinovN., & MichinovE. (2009). Investigating the relationship between transactive memory and performance in collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 43–54. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MuthenR. M., & MuthenB. O. (1998–2007). Mplus user's manual for version 5. Los Angeles: Mullen & Mullen.
   Google Scholar
• NetemeyerR. G., BeardenW. O., & SharmaS. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• O'DonnellA. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. A.Alexander & P. H.Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 51–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• PintrichP. R., SmithD., GarciaT., & McKeachieW. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Anne Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
   Google Scholar
• PintrichP. R., SmithD. A. F., GarciaT., & McKeachieW. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RobertsK. H., & BeaR. G. (2001). When systems fail. Organizational Dynamics, 29(3), 179–191. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00025-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchrawG., & DennisonR. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchunkD. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 463–467. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchunkD. H., & ZimmermanB. J. (2007). Influencing children's self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. doi:10.1080/10573560600837578.
   Google Scholar
• ScottC. W., & TretheweyA. (2008). Organizational discourse and the appraisal of occupational hazards: Interpretive repertoires, heedful interrelating, and identity at work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 298–317. doi:10.1080/00909880802172137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SlavinR. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StyhreA., OllilaS., RothJ., WilliamsonD., & BergL. (2008). Heedful interrelating, knowledge sharing, and new drug development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 127–140. doi:10.1108/13673270810875912.
   Google Scholar
• Van BoxtelC. (2000). Collaborative concept learning: Collaborative learning tasks, student interaction, and the learning of physics concepts. Enschede, Netherlands: Print Partners Ipskamp.
   Google Scholar
• Van den BosscheP., GijselaersW. H., SegersM., & KirschnerP. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning, beliefs, and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37, 490–521. doi:10.1177/1046496406292938.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VaughnB. K., & DanielS. R. (2012). Conceptualizing validity. In G.Tenenbaum, R. C.Eklund, & A.Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sports and exercise psychology (pp. 33–40). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
   Google Scholar
• Visschers-PleijersA. J. S. F., DolmansD. H. J. M., WolfhagenI. H. A. P., & van der VleutenC. P. M. (2005). Development and validation of a questionnaire to identify learning-oriented group interactions in PBL. Medical Teacher, 27, 375–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WeickK. E., & RobertsK. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381. doi:10.2307/2393372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WeickK. E., SutcliffeK. M., & ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YooY., & KanawattanachaiP. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9, 187–208.
   Google Scholar