cmc cc a groupware cscw cmc n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 142 Views
  • Uploaded on

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”

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. CMC/CC AGroupware, CSCW, CMC Master IK, CIW, MMI L.M. Bosveld-de Smet Mon. 30/10/06; 16.00-18.00

    2. Outline • CSCW: classifications / frameworks • Collaboration: “computer conferencing” • Features • Basic structure • Social – technical gap • Communication and coordination: “the Coordinator” • Speech-act based protocol

    3. 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

    4. Overview CSCW Groupware / CSCW / group support through CMC Communication Collaboration Coordination

    5. CSCW: system classes

    6. CSCW: detailed overview of systems

    7. 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

    8. 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

    9. Cooperative work frameworksDix et al. (2003)

    10. 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, …

    11. Synchronous CMC

    12. Example (1)

    13. Example (2): Avatar Conference

    14. 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

    15. 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

    16. “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

    17. Basic computer conferencing structure • Objects / nodes characterizing system • Relationships / links between objects / nodes

    18. 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

    19. 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

    20. Discourse structure for debating and argumentation options actions, goals, criteria, requirements, solutions, decisions voting scales: desirability, feasibility Pro link Con link arguments arguments opposition link voting scales: importance, validity

    21. 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

    22. 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

    23. 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

    24. Elements of Communication

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

    26. 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

    27. 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

    28. Coordinator

    29. 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"

    30. Application of CSCW to education • Distance learning • Exploration of novel teaching and learning styles • Creation of more engaging experiences for students • Greater learning efficiency

    31. 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

    32. 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

    33. 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