CSCW

Facilitating group work

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 2

CSCW

Computer Supported Cooperative Work Study of how people work together as a

group and how technology affects this Support the social processes of work,

often among geographically separated people

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 3

Examples

Scientists collaborating on a technical issue

Authors editing a document togetherProgrammers debugging a system

concurrentlyWorkers collaborating over a shared video

conferencing applicationBuyers and sellers meeting in eBay

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 4

Research Focus

Often divided into two main areas Systems - Groupware

Designing software to facilitate collaboration

Social componentStudy of human and group dynamics in

such situations

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 5

Taxonomy

Time

Place

Same

Same

Different

Different

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 6

Taxonomy

Time

Place

Synchronous

Co-located

Asynchronous

Remote

Face-to-face Post-it note

Phone call Letter

E-meeting room Argument. tool

Video window,wall

Email, newsgroup, CoWeb

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 7

A more-fleshed out taxonomy

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 8

Styles of Systems

1. Computer-mediated communication aids

2. Meeting and decision support systems

3. Shared applications and tools

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 9

Computer-mediated Communication Aids

Examples Email, Chats, MUDs, virtual worlds,

desktop videoconferencing Example: CUSee-Me

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 10

Meeting and Decision Support Systems

Examples Corporate decision-support conference

roomProvides ways of rationalizing decisions,

voting, presenting cases, etc.• “Delphi” method: magic?

Concurrency control is important

Shared computer classroom/clusterGroup discussion/design aid tools

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 11

Shared Applications and Tools

Examples Shared editors, design tools, etc.

Want to avoid “locking” and allow multiple people to concurrently work on document

Requires some form of contention resolutionHow do you show what others are doing?

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 12

Example

Teamrooms - Univ. of Calgary, Saul Greenberg

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 13

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 14

Using the CoWeb

QuickTime™ and aQuickDraw decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 15

Features to support collaboration:Recent Changes and Attachments

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 16

Handling contention in CoWeb

No locking On the Web, how do you know if someone walks away?

But if person A edits, then person B starts and saves edit before A saves, how do you deal with it? Old way: A “wins,” but B’s is available in history for

retrieval Current way:

Each edit time is recorded If incoming edit time is earlier than last save, then note

collision. Provide user with both versions for resolution.

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 17

Security

We save everything,

But it’s mostly social pressure that keeps it working

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 18

Social Issues

People bring in different perspectives and views to a collaboration environment

Goal of CSCW systems is often to establish some common ground and to facilitate understanding and interaction

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 19

Turn Taking

There are many subtle social conventions about turn taking in an interaction Personal space, closeness Eye contact Gestures Body language Conversation cues

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 20

Geography, Position

In group dynamics, the physical layout of individuals matters a lot “Power positions”

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 21

Evaluation

Evaluating the usability and utility of CSCW tools is quite challenging Need more participants Logistically difficult Apples - oranges

Often use field studies and ethnographic evaluations to assist

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 22

Evaluation Effort at Calgary

http://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/grouplab/papers/2001/01-HeurisiticsMechanics.EHCI/talk/EHCI_2.html

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 23

When the CoWeb fails...

The CoWeb has been successful in many settings (See papers at

http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/csl/Papers)But not in Math and Engineering...

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 24

The Challenge of Engineering and Math: Anecdotes

On a mandatory assignment involving a math class studying results from Engineering students’ simulations, 40% of math students accepted a zero rather than collaborate with engineers.

We provided an Equation Editor in the CoWeb for an Engineering and a Math course to facilitate talking about equations. Not a single student even tried the Editor.

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 25

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 26

Competition

Student quotes on “Why didn’t you participate in CoWeb?”“1) didn't want to get railed 2) with the curve it is better when your peers do badly”“since it is a curved class most people don’t want others to do well”

(Note: Students claimed that the course grades were “curved” even when there was none!)

Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 27

Learned helplessness

Student quotes:“I haven't posted about questions because I am confident that my answers are wrong.”“I thought I was the only one having problem understanding what was asked in the exam.”“Who am I to post answers?”“The overall environment for [this class] isn't a very help-oriented environment.”

Bottom line: For Collaboration to work in Engineering,must be explicit focus to make it work.