CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC

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
• Participantsinteraction with shared work
  objects shared applications and artifacts

9
Cooperative work frameworksDix et al. (2003)
10
Shneidermans 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

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
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