CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC. Master IK, CIW, MMI L.M. Bosveld-de Smet Mon. 30/10/06; 16.00-18.00. Outline. CSCW: classifications / frameworks Collaboration: “computer conferencing” Features Basic structure Social – technical gap Communication and coordination: “the Coordinator” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC

  • CMC/CC A

    Groupware, CSCW, CMCMaster IK, CIW, MMIL.M. Bosveld-de SmetMon. 30/10/06; 16.00-18.00

  • OutlineCSCW: classifications / frameworksCollaboration: computer conferencingFeaturesBasic structureSocial technical gapCommunication and coordination: the CoordinatorSpeech-act based protocol

  • Groupware vs. CSCW vs. CMCGroupwareApplications written to support collaboration of several usersTeam-oriented computer productsCSCWGroup working (cooperation, collaboration, competition ?) supported by computerMakes use of groupwareResearch: design and evaluation of new technologies to support social processes of team work, often among distant partnersCMCGroup communication supported by computerResearch: interpersonal communication via computer

  • Overview CSCWGroupware / CSCW / group support through CMCCommunicationCollaborationCoordination

  • CSCW: system classes

  • CSCW: detailed overview of systems

  • Groupware systems: classificationsBy where and when the participants are performing the cooperative work(refined) time/space matrixBy functionBy aspect of cooperative work supported

  • Dix et al.s classificationBy function in cooperative framework primarily supportedDirect communication between participants: computer-mediated communicationCommon understanding: meeting and decision supporting systemsParticipantsinteraction with shared work objects: shared applications and artifacts

  • Cooperative work frameworksDix et al. (2003)

  • Shneidermans classificationAsynchronous interactions: e-mail, news groups, Synchronous distributed interactions: group editing, Internet Relay Chat, video conferencing, Face to Face interactions: brainstorming, voting, and ranking,

  • Synchronous CMC

  • Example (1)

  • Example (2): Avatar Conference

  • CSCW: global resultsDeterminants of success are not clearElectronic mail, and chat: widespread success storyVideo conferencing: slowly growingShared calendar programs: repeatedly spurned

  • Earliest CMC work Hiltz & Turoff, 1993Foundation: development of systems supporting large groups to communicate about complex problemsMost fundamental principles for optimizing group support:Structures for group tasksUser tailorability

  • Computer conferencingStructured group communication accumulating permanent transcript of discussionMost important features to take care of:TailorabilityQuantitative communication structuresContent-based communicationIndirect communicationRolesNotifications

  • Basic computer conferencing structureObjects / nodes characterizing systemRelationships / links between objects / nodes

    CommentReplyPersonKey wordsCommentlater than / earlier thanin response toauthor / editor / readerrelevant materialReplyauthor / editor / readerrelevant materialPersonmember of conferenceinterests ofKey wordsrelated to

  • Current generation systemsFindings Turoff et al. (2001)Infrequent ad hoc useNo continual processLittle tailorabilityNo seamless transitions among various modes

    Information overload limitLimitation of discourse structuresBasically comment-response format

  • Semantic hypertext structureStructure to organize a constructive debate about a topic in order to achieve:Collective group insights into Alternative desirable resolutionsFeasible actions to takeArgumentation systemsAquanetgIBISSEPIAVirtual NotebookDesign Intent

  • Discourse structure for debating and argumentationactions, goals, criteria, requirements, solutions,decisionsargumentsargumentsoptionsPro linkCon linkopposition linkvoting scales: desirability, feasibilityvoting scales: importance, validity

  • Challenge CMC systemsPromotion of collective intelligenceHiltz et al. (1986): elimination of process losses due to blocking of alternative opinions and viewsDesign of human communication systems = design of social systemsRolesRulesFloor controlBridge the social technical gap

  • Social-technical gapAckerman (2001)Findings: CMC elements allow enough communicative supplenesscomputational entities (information transfer, roles, policies, ) lack flexibility, nuance and contextualization similar to real life social activityattitude towards sharing information / making work visiblelack of shared histories and meaningsconflicting or multiple goalsexceptionsawareness vs. privacy vs. disturbing otherslack of negotiation about norms of use, exceptions, breakdownscritical mass problemtailorabilitylack of incentives

  • Social technical gap in actionOnline privacyP3P: privacy preferences project of W3 consortium

    No sufficient nuanceNo social flexibilitySystems require people to explicitly switch statesCf. The Coordinator (Winograd & Flores, 1986)No allowance of ambiguity

  • Elements of Communication

  • Conversational StructureTurn-takingContext (internal, external)Topics, focus, forms of utterancesBreakdown and repairConstruction of shared understanding

  • Speech Act TheoryWittgenstein: Philosphical InvestigationsAustin: How to Do Things with Wordslocutionary actillocutionary actperlocutionary actSearle: The Classification of Illocutionary Actsrepresentatives; directives; commissives; expressives; declarations

  • Coordinator / Action WorkflowStructured conversationsAction-oriented conversationCentral coordinating structure for human organizationsBased on taxonomy of linguistic actsDesign concerned with breakdown anticipation

  • Coordinator

  • Coordinator under criticismSuchman: "the adoption of speech act theory as a foundation for system design, with its emphasis on the encoding of speakers intentions into explicit categories, carries with it an agenda of discipline and control over organization members actions"

  • Application of CSCW to educationDistance learningExploration of novel teaching and learning stylesCreation of more engaging experiences for studentsGreater learning efficiency

  • Research in cooperative systemsMore difficult than in single-user applicationsMultiplicity of users (controlled experiments?)Flood of data from multiple users (orderly analysis?)No commonly accepted methodology

  • Wireless brainstormingDavis et al. (2002) Wireless brainstorming: overcoming status effects in small group decisionsSimple and inexpensive GDSS on wireless handheld deviceMitigation of adverse impact of status differencesBrainstorm on potential market names for computer gameDiscussion of names in groupVoting of the best nameMales = higher status group members Anonimity helps minimize effects of status on group decisions

  • Cultural differences in participants online collaborative behaviorsKim & Bonk (2002) Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaborationComputer-supported collaborative learning of multicultural learnersComparison of online collaborative behaviors among preservice teachers from 3 different culturesKorean students: more social and contextually drivenFinnish students: more group-focused, refelective, and theoretically drivenU.S. students: more action-oriented, and pragmatic in seeking results and giving solutions