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” Speech-act based protocol

Groupware vs. CSCW vs. CMC

Groupware Applications written to support collaboration of several users Team-oriented computer products

CSCW Group working (cooperation, collaboration, competition ?)

supported by computer Makes use of groupware Research: design and evaluation of new technologies to support

social processes of team work, often among distant partners CMC

Group communication supported by computer Research: interpersonal communication via computer

Overview CSCW

Groupware / CSCW / group support through CMC

Communication Collaboration Coordination

CSCW: system classes

CSCW: detailed overview of systems

Groupware systems: classifications

By where and when the participants are performing the cooperative work (refined) time/space matrix

By function By aspect of cooperative work supported

Dix et al.’s classification

By function in cooperative framework primarily supported Direct communication between participants:

computer-mediated communication Common understanding: meeting and decision

supporting systems Participants’interaction with shared work objects:

shared applications and artifacts

Cooperative work frameworksDix et al. (2003)

Shneiderman’s classification

Asynchronous 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 results

Determinants of success are not clear Electronic mail, and chat: widespread success story Video conferencing: slowly growing Shared calendar programs: repeatedly spurned

Earliest CMC work

Hiltz & Turoff, 1993 Foundation: development of systems supporting

large groups to communicate about complex problems

Most fundamental principles for optimizing group support: Structures for group tasks User tailorability

“Computer conferencing”

Structured group communication accumulating permanent transcript of discussion

Most important features to take care of: Tailorability Quantitative communication structures Content-based communication Indirect communication Roles Notifications

Basic computer conferencing structure

Objects / nodes characterizing system Relationships / links between objects / nodes

Comment Reply Person Key words

Comment later than / earlier than

in response to

author / editor / reader

relevant material

Reply author / editor / reader

relevant material

Person member of conference

interests of

Key words related to

Current generation systems

Findings Turoff et al. (2001) Infrequent ad hoc use No continual process Little tailorability No seamless transitions among various modes

Information overload limit Limitation of discourse structures

Basically comment-response format

Semantic hypertext structure

Structure to organize a constructive debate about a topic in order to achieve: Collective group insights into

Alternative desirable resolutions Feasible actions to take …

Argumentation systems Aquanet gIBIS SEPIA Virtual Notebook Design Intent

Discourse structure for debating and argumentation

actions, goals, criteria, requirements, solutions,decisions

arguments arguments

options

Pro link Con link

opposition link

voting scales: desirability, feasibility

voting scales: importance, validity

Challenge CMC systems

Promotion of “collective intelligence” Hiltz et al. (1986): elimination of process losses

due to blocking of alternative opinions and views Design of human communication systems =

design of social systems Roles Rules Floor control …

Bridge the social – technical gap

Social-technical gapAckerman (2001)

Findings: CMC elements allow enough communicative suppleness computational entities (information transfer, roles, policies, …)

lack flexibility, nuance and contextualization similar to real life social activity attitude towards sharing information / making work visible lack of shared histories and meanings conflicting or multiple goals exceptions awareness vs. privacy vs. disturbing others lack of negotiation about norms of use, exceptions, breakdowns critical mass problem tailorability lack of incentives

Social – technical gap in action

Online privacy P3P: privacy preferences project of W3

consortium

No sufficient nuance No social flexibility

Systems require people to explicitly switch states Cf. “The Coordinator” (Winograd & Flores, 1986)

No allowance of ambiguity

Elements of Communication

Conversational Structure

Turn-taking Context (internal, external) Topics, focus, forms of utterances Breakdown and repair Construction of shared understanding

Speech Act Theory

Wittgenstein: Philosphical Investigations Austin: How to Do Things with Words

locutionary act illocutionary act perlocutionary act

Searle: The Classification of Illocutionary Acts representatives; directives; commissives;

expressives; declarations

Coordinator / Action Workflow

Structured conversations Action-oriented conversation

Central coordinating structure for human organizations

Based on taxonomy of linguistic acts Design concerned with breakdown anticipation

Coordinator

Coordinator under criticism

Suchman: "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 education

Distance learning Exploration of novel teaching and learning styles Creation of more engaging experiences for

students Greater learning efficiency

Research in cooperative systems

More difficult than in single-user applications Multiplicity of users (controlled experiments?) Flood of data from multiple users (orderly analysis?) No commonly accepted methodology

Wireless brainstorming

Davis et al. (2002) “Wireless brainstorming: overcoming status effects in small group decisions”

Simple and inexpensive GDSS on wireless handheld device Mitigation of adverse impact of status differences Brainstorm on potential market names for computer game Discussion of names in group Voting of the best name Males = higher status group members Anonimity helps minimize effects of status on group decisions

Cultural differences in participants’ online collaborative behaviors

Kim & Bonk (2002) “Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration”

Computer-supported collaborative learning of multicultural learners Comparison of online collaborative behaviors among preservice

teachers from 3 different cultures Korean students: more social and contextually driven Finnish students: more group-focused, refelective, and theoretically

driven U.S. students: more action-oriented, and pragmatic in seeking results

and giving solutions