Abstract
Covid 19 Pandemic forced professors and students to deal with new ways of learning, often enhanced by technological solutions. Other than a mere response to the emergency, this pushes to new digital solution turned out to be a big opportunity to discover new learning methods. In this paper we present Kaleidoscope, an innovative educational method based on a multi-dimensional observation of a negotiation simulation. Thanks to the technological solutions, Kaleidoscope gather data on participants’ experience from different sources with the aim of unveiling cognitive, emotional, and relational dynamics that occurs during a negotiation process. The learning purpose is to increase the learners’ awareness on these dimensions by using a live debrief dashboard that shows the relationship between the different variables detected. Today Kaleidoscope has yet to go live in a real classroom, it has only been partially tested in a laboratory context. In this paper we present the learning objectives of this project, the theoretical framework with the dimension considered. Finally, we acknowledge the current limitations of this innovative method and the future steps.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Gallagher, S., Palmer, J.: The Pandemic Pushed Universities Online. The Change Was Long Overdue (2020). https://hbr.org/2020/09/the-pandemic-pushed-universities-online-the-change-was-long-overdue
Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P.: What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 32(2), 131–152 (2005)
Ekman, P.: Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions. In: Cole, J. (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, pp. 207–282. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln (1972)
Dupré, D., Krumhuber, E.G., Küster, D., McKeown, G.: A performance comparison of eight commercially available automatic classifiers for facial affect recognition. PLOS One 15(4), e0231968 (2020)
Kolb, D.A.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1984)
Olekalns, M., Druckman, D.: With feeling: how emotions shape negotiation. Negot. J. 30, 455–478 (2014)
Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215 (1977)
Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37, 122–147 (1982)
Brett, J.F., Pinkley, R.L., Jackofsky, E.F.: Alternatives to having a BATNA in dyadic negotiation: the influence of goals, self-efficacy, and alternatives on negotiated outcomes. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 7, 121–138 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022778
Craver, C.: Negotiation styles: the impact of bargaining transactions. Dispute Resolut. J. 58(1), 48–56 (2003)
Schlegel, K., Vicaria, I.M., Isaacowitz, D.M., Hall, J.A.: Effectiveness of a short audiovisual emotion recognition training program in adults. Motiv. Emot. 41(5), 646–660 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9631-9
Curhan, J.R., Elfenbein, H.A., Xu, H.: What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. J. Personal Soc. Psychol 91(3), 493–512 (2006)
Walton, R.E., McKersie, R.B.: A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. McGraw-Hill, New York (1965)
Kern, M., Brett, J., Weingart, L.: Getting the floor: motive-consistent strategy and individual outcomes in multi-party negotiations. Group Decis. Negot. 14(1), 21–41 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-3874-7
Thomas, K.W., Kilmann, R.H.: Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict behavior: the “MODE” instrument. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 37, 309–325 (1977)
Miles, E.W., Maurer, T.J.: Advancing validity of self-efficacy in negotiation through focusing at the domain level. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85(1), 23–41 (2012)
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., Eden, D.: Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organ. Res. Methods 41, 62–83 (2001)
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A.: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1063–1070 (1988)
Russell, J.A.: A circumplex model of affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1161–1178 (1980)
Mehta, A., Mehta, N.: Knowledge integration and team effectiveness: a team goal orientation approach. Decis. Sci. 49(3), 445–486 (2018)
Hackman, J.R.: Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t). Jossey Bass, San Francisco (1990)
Lin, C.Y., Huang, C.K.: Understanding the antecedents of knowledge sharing behaviour and its relationship to team effectiveness and individual learning. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 36(2), 89–104 (2020)
Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H.G.: Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ. Sci. 12, 435–449 (2001)
Pruitt, D.G.: Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press Inc, New York (1981)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Caporarello, L., Magoni, S. (2023). Kaleidoscope: A Multi-perspective Technology-Enhanced Observation Method to Support the Development of Negotiation Skills. In: Temperini, M., et al. Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, 12th International Conference. MIS4TEL 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 580. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20617-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20617-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20616-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20617-7
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)