1. INTRODUCCIÓN
1.1. Descripción y epidemiología del cáncer de vesícula biliar
First, a pre-test involving 42 undergraduate management students was conducted to evaluate whether both trainings are distinct also verifying feasibility. Second, a larger negotiation experiment involving 178 students from two European universities was performed for empirical evaluation. Once learning styles were evaluated individually, an equal number of test persons of a specific learning style were allocated to each training, thus including matches and non-matches. Then an electronic negotiation experiment was conducted using a factorial design. Negotiation skills are operationalised measuring negotiation effectiveness as well as efficiency, while cognitive, affective and meta-affective learning outcomes are measured in a post-questionnaire.
The pre-tests manipulation checks showed that both trainings were constructed too similar, therefore they were modified as described above. The larger experiment showed a successful manipulation and significantly different EUTs. The assumption that a matching learning style and training method would lead to better learning outcomes, however, is only true for few variables. Therefore the relationship between learning styles and training methods will have to be evaluated in detail. Test persons attending the enactive training were more effective negotiators, especially benefitting from those among them with a matching practical learning style, which were particularly effective. Test persons attending the enactive training perceived higher affective learning outcomes, namely satisfaction with the negotiation [21]. These findings might be explained with the psychometric properties of individuals having a certain learning style. Practical learners are characterized as being flexible, open for change, but also insufficiently prepared and easily getting bored with consolidation tasks [20]. In terms of negotiations this could mean that they are easily proposing concessions in the beginning, but want to find a pragmatic agreement in the end without bargaining the details. An enactive training could lead to higher affective learning outcomes because its focus on practical, situated and collaborative tasks very
effects could be seen here. In general, negotiation dyads of the same learning style achieved more efficient agreements than dyads with different learning styles. This effect has to be examined in the future. Until now learning styles have mainly been analysed as individual measures without focusing on their interrelations in dyads or groups.
6 Outlook
This paper describes the development of individual end-user trainings for the negotiation support system Negoisst using individual characteristics to increase learning outcomes as well as effective and efficient usage of NSSs. To develop the trainings, literature on end-user trainings, learning styles as well as negotiation training is integrated. The LSQ [20] is used to assess learning styles and develop matching end-user trainings following either an enactive or vicarious learning technique. These trainings are evaluated in two negotiation experiments, and the results show that there is no consistent effect of matching learning styles and training methods. However, enactive trainees are more effective negotiators also achieving higher affective learning outcomes.
In the future not only individual characteristics of the learners, but also their level of competence can be used to dynamically adjust their individual support. Also other measures of individual characteristics have to be evaluated besides learning styles.
More domain specific measures such as the Subjective Value Orientation [22] might enable the construction of a broader picture of NSS end-user training. Our long-term goal is to automate individual end-user training for negotiations using blended learning or e-learning methods and dynamically select the individual form of training best for the trainee.
References
1. Gettinger, J., Dannenmann, A., Druckman, D., Filzmoser, M., Mitterhofer, R., Reiser, A., Schoop, M., Vetschera, R., Wijst, P., Köszegi, S.: Impact of and Interaction between Behavioral and Economic Decision Support in Electronic Negotiations. In: Hernández, J.E.
(ed.) Decision support systems-- Collaborative models and approaches in real environments.
Euro Working Group Workshops, EWG-DSS 2011, London, UK, June 23-24, 2011, and Paris, France, November 30 - December 1, 2011, Revised selected and extended papers, 121, pp. 151–165. Springer, Berlin, New York
2. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., Davis, G.B.: Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usage via a Structural Equation Model. Journal of management information systems: JMIS. 11, 87–114 (1995)
3. Vetschera, R., Kersten, G., Koeszegi, S.: User Assessment of Internet-Based Negotiation Support Systems: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 16, 123–148 (2006)
4. Wu, S., Kersten, G.E., Beaudry, A.: There is more to Negotiation than Reaching an Agreement: Substantive, Relational, and other Objectives of the Negotiators. In:
Almeida, A., Morais, D., Daher, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Group Decision and Negotiation Conference, 2, pp. 146–155 (2012)
5. Brown, A.L.: Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2, 141–178 (1992)
6. Collins, A.: Toward a Design Science of Education. In: Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T. (eds.) New Directions in Educational Technology, 96, pp. 15-22. Springer Berlin (1992)
7. Gupta, S., Bostrom, R.P., Huber, M.: End-user training methods. SIGMIS Database 41, 9 (2010)
8. Gupta, S., Bostrom, R.P.: End-user training methods. In: Shayo, C., Kaiser, K., Ryan, T.
(eds.) the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference, p. 172
9. Schoop, M., Jertila, A., List, T.: Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data & Knowledge Engineering 47, 371–
401 (2003)
10. Schoop, M.: Support of Complex Electronic Negotiations. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds.) Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, pp. 409–424. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (2010)
11. Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., Masia, B.B.: Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals Longman (1984)
12. Davis, S.A., Bostrom, R.P.: Training End Users: An Experimental Investigation of the Roles of the Computer Interface and Training Methods. MIS Quarterly 17, 61–85 (1993)
13. Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L., Sein, M.K.: The Importance of Learning Style in End-User Training. MIS Quarterly 14, 101–119 (1990)
14. Eliashberg, J., Gauvin, S., Lilien, G.L., Rangaswamy, A.: An experimental study of alternative preparation aids for international negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 1, 243–267 (1992)
15. Köszegi, S., Kersten, G.: On-line/Off-line: Joint Negotiation Teaching in Montreal and Vienna. Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 337–345 (2003)
16. Kolb, D.A.: Experiential learning. Experience as a source of learning and development Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J (1984)
17. Lewicki, R.: Teaching Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Colleges of Business: The State of the Practice. Negotiation Journal 13, 253–269 (1997)
18. Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L.L.: Learning to Negotiate: Novice and Experienced Negotiators. In: Thompson, L.L. (ed.) Negotiation theory and research, pp. 77–97.
Psychology Press, New York (2006)
19. Melzer, P., Schoop, M.: Individual End-User Training for Information Systems using Learning Styles. In: Brooks, L., Wainwright, D., David, W. (eds.) Using information systems to make the world a better place: from ideals to action. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the UK Academy of Information Systems (2014)
20. Honey, P., Mumford, A.: Using Your Learning Styles Psych Press (1992)
21. Curhan, J., Elfenbein, H., Xu, H.: What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 493–512 (2006)
22. Dreu, C.K.W. de, Boles, T.L.: Share and Share Alike or Winner Take All?: The Influence of Social Value Orientation upon Choice and Recall of Negotiation Heuristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, 253–276 (1998)