Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12 (3), 307–359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bryman, A. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research? In Bergman, M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Contractor, N., & Su, C. (2011). Understanding groups from a network perspective. In Hollingshead, A. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 284–310). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). Methodological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs. In Bergman, M. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 66–83). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Crone, L., & Teddlie, C. (1995). Further examination of teacher behavior in differentially effective schools: Selection and socialization processes. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 30(1), 1–9.Google Scholar

Erzberger, C., & Kelle, U. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social behavioral research (pp. 457–490). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. A. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgements about the relationship. In McLaughlin, M. L. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 395–415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Goodman, L. A. (1971). The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables: Stepwise procedures and direct estimation methods for building models for multiple classifications. Technometrics, 13, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haberman, S. J. (1972). Algorithm AS 51: Log-linear fit for contingency tables. Applied Statistics, 21, 218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Hendrix, C. C., Fournier, D. G., & Briggs, K. (2001). Impact of co-therapy teams on client outcomes and therapist training in marriage and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyndman, R. J., Einbeck, J., & Wand, M. (2009). The hdrcde package (highest density regions and conditional density estimation). R package version, 3.1.Google Scholar

Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), pp. 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kashy, D. A., & Hagiwara, N. (2012). Analyzing group data. In Hollingshead, A. & Poole, S., (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 311–328). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., & Manser, T. (2013). Co-ACT – A framework for observing coordination behavior in acute care teams, BMJ Quality & Safety, 22, 596–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: What is it? Automation in Construction 9, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lienert, G. A. (1971). Die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse. I. Ein neuer Weg zu Typen und Syndromen. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 19, 99–115.Google Scholar

Lomb, N. R. (1976). Least-squares frequency analysis of unequally spaced data. Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mateescu, M., Klinkhammer, D., Reiterer, H., & Zahn, C. (2015). Influence of Interactive Multi-User Tabletop Technology on Shared Mental Models and Performance: An Experimental Study. Talk at the 17. European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Symposium “Dynamics of team cognition and team adaptation I – Focus on team cognition.”Google Scholar

Mateescu, M., Zahn, C., Klinkhammer, D., Rack, O., & Reiterer, H. (2016). Potenziale kollaborativer Medien: Eine empirische Untersuchung am Beispiel interaktiven Tischen. [Potential collaborative media: An empirical study using the example of interactive tables.] Forschungsbeitrag zum 50. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie [Presentation at the 50th Congress of the German Society for Psychology], Leipzig Deutschland (18–22. 9. 2016).Google Scholar

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Olson, B. (1994). Sex and the soaps: A comparative content analysis of health issues. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 840–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olzak, L. A., & Wickens, T. D. (1983). The interpretation of detection data through direct multivariate frequency analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 574–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pearson, K. (1916). On a brief proof of the fundamental formula for testing the goodness of fit of frequency distributions and of the probable error of “p”. Philosophical Magazine, 31, 369–378.Google Scholar

Peng, R., & Hengartner, H. (2002). Quantitative analysis of literary styles. The American Statistician, 56(3), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar

Rack, O., Ellwart, T., Hertel, G., & Konradt, U. (2011). Team-based rewards in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26 (5), 419–438. doi:10.1108/02683941111139029CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robbins, N. B. (2005). Creating more effective graphs, Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported Collaborative Learning. In Sawyer, R. K., (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–474). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vokey, J. R. (2003). Multiway frequency analysis for experimental psychologists. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 57, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Walter, S. G., & Rack, O. (2010). Eine anwendungsbezogene Einführung in die Hierarchisch Lineare Modellierung (HLM). In Albers, S., Klapper, D., Konradt, U., Walter, A., & Wolf, J. (Eds.). Methoden der empirischen Forschung, S. 293–310. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar

Wickens, T. D. (1993). Analysis of contingency tables with between-subjects variability. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wickham, H. (2006). ggplot: An implementation of the grammar of graphics. R package version 2.0.0.Google Scholar

Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools, 8(2), 45–57.Google Scholar

Zahn, C. (2017). Digital design and learning. Cognitive-constructivist perspectives. In Schwan, S. & Cress, U. (Eds.), The psychology of digital learning: Constructing, exchanging, and acquiring knowledge with digital media (pp. 147–170). Springer International Publishing AG.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2009). Participation in knowledge building “revisited”: Reflective discussion and information design with advanced digital video technology. In O’Malley, C., Suthers, D., Reimann, P., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 596–600). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).Google Scholar

Zahn, C., Pea, R., Hesse, F. W., & Rosen, J. (2010). Comparing simple and advanced video tools as supports for complex collaborative design processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 403–440. doi:10.1080/10508401003708399CrossRefGoogle Scholar