0512
`
`IBG 1020 (Part 3 of 3)
`CBM of U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`

`
`494
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`14.5 Face to Face: Same Place, Same Time
`
`Teams of people often work together and use com.plex shared technology.
`Pilot and copilot cooperation in airplanes has been designed carefully with
`shared instruments and displays. Coordination among air-traffic controllers
`has a long history that has been studied thoroughly (Wiener and Nagel, 1988).
`Stock-market trading romns and com1nodity 1narkets are other existing appli(cid:173)
`cations of face-to-face tea1nwork or negotiations that are cmnputer mediated.
`Newer applications in office and classroom environments are attracting
`1nore attention because of the large numbers of potential users and the potential
`for innovative approaches to work and to learning. These applications include:
`
`• Shared display from lecturer workstation
`In this shnple form of group
`computing, a professor or lecturer 1nay use the cmnputer with a large(cid:173)
`screen projector to demonstrate a computing application, to show a set
`of slides with business graphics, to retrieve images, or to run an anima(cid:173)
`tion. Fred Hofstetter (1995) of the University of Delaware developed a
`1nultimedia lectureware package, PODIUM, that allows instructors to
`compose illustrated lectures using slides, computer graphics, anima(cid:173)
`tions, videos, and audio sequences. Many speakers are happy to use
`standard commercial packages such as Microsoft PowerPoint, Lotus
`Freelance, or Adobe Persuasion. User-interface issues include simplic(cid:173)
`ity in moving to the next slide, capacity to ju1np out of sequence, and
`ease of making spontaneous changes.
`• Audience response units Simple keypads have been used effectively in
`training courses. Students can answer multiple-choice questions at
`their desks, and results can be shown to the full class on a large display.
`Similar units have been used by advertising researchers who ask test
`audiences to respond to cmnmercials shown on a large screen. Votes in
`parliamentary forums can be rapid and accurate. Promoters claim that
`this shnple technology is easy to learn, is acceptable to most people, is
`nonthreatening, and heightens attention because of the participatory
`experience. The National Geographic interactive exhibit gallery in
`Washington, D.C., has five-button response units that allow visitors to
`try their hand at answering multiple-choice questions such as "What
`percentage of the earth is covered by water?" The set of answers is
`shown on the shared display, but the presentation sequence is unaf(cid:173)
`fected by the audience's selections.
`• Text-submission workstations By giving each participant a keyboard and
`simple software, it is possible to create an inviting environment for con(cid:173)
`versation or brainstorming. Batson (Bruce et al., 1992) at Gallaudet Uni(cid:173)
`versity constructed a highly successful networking program that allows
`each participant to type a line of text that is shown immediately, with
`
`0513
`
`

`
`14.5 Face to Face: Same Place, Same Time
`
`495
`
`the author's name, on every participant's display. With 10 people typ(cid:173)
`ing, new comments appear a few tim.es per second and lively conversa(cid:173)
`tions ensue. Batson's goal was to overcome his frustrated efforts at
`teaching college-level English writing, and his English Natural Form
`Instruction (ENFI) network software was spectacularly successful:
`
`It seems slightly ironic that the computer, which for twenty-five years
`has been perceived as anti-human, a tool of control and suppression of
`human instinct and intuition, has really humanized m.y job. For the first
`time in a long time, I have real hope that we might make smne progress ..
`. . Freed of having to be the cardboard figure at the front of the classroom,
`I became a person again, with foibles, feelings and fantasies. As a group,
`we were more de1nocratic and open with each other than any other writ(cid:173)
`ing class I'd had. (Bruce et al., 1992).
`
`The clatter of the keyboards adds to the laughter, groans, cheers, and
`grimaces to create a good ahnosphere.
`• Brainstorming, voting, and ranking Beyond talking, structured social
`processes can produce dramatic educational discussions and highly pro(cid:173)
`ductive business meetings. The University of Arizona was a pioneer in
`developing the social process, the physical environment, and the software
`tools (Valacich et al., 1991) to "reduce or elilninate the dysfunctions of the
`group interaction so that a group reaches or exceeds its task potential"
`(Fig. 14.7). By allowing anonymous submission of suggestions and rank(cid:173)
`il1g of proposals, the authors introduced a wider range of possibilities;
`also, ideas were valued on their merits, independently of the originator
`(Fig. 14.8a-c). Because ego investments and conflicts were reduced, groups
`seemed to be more open to novel suggestions. IBM has built 19 Decision
`Center rooms based on the Arizona model for its internal use, and another
`
`Figure 14.7
`
`Semicircular classroom
`with 24 personal com(cid:173)
`puters built into the
`desks at the University
`of Arizona. (Group Sys(cid:173)
`tems is a registered
`trademark of Ventana
`Corporation.)
`
`0514
`
`

`
`496
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`Figure 14.8
`
`Sample screens from
`GroupSystems Electronic
`Meeting software. Online
`restaurant survey (top).
`Results of a vote in part of
`the restaurant survey (bot(cid:173)
`tom). (Used with permis(cid:173)
`sion from Ventana Corp.,
`Tucson, AZ.) (Group
`Systems is a registered
`tradetnark of Ventana
`Corporation.)
`
`"*I File Edit Survey Group Options Window Help
`
`1.Sex
`Put a dot in the right boxrFema!e/Ma!e)
`2.Age
`<2 =Less than 20 years, <3 = 20-29 'Y, <4 = 30-39 Y
`<5 = 40 - 49 Y, >5 = Jl.·fore them 50 year.s old
`3. How would you describe our Food ?
`VB= vew bad, B =Bad, !V = !Vevlral, G =Good, VG = VewGood
`4. How Would you describe our Service?
`VB= vew bac\ B =Bad, !V = !Veultal, G =Good, VG = VewGood
`5. How would you describe our Environment ?
`VB= ve,oy bad, B =Bad, !V =Neutral, G =Good, VG = VetyGood
`f!il 6. How would you describe our Price ?
`Put a dot jn the statement tf)at vou think is most accumte.
`
`a. As "value for money''
`
`b. As "a bit expensive"
`
`c. As "too expensive"
`
`· ...... <;···· .... · ...•.......•...... """
`F M Ot
`
`Mark
`
`I]
`
`[
`
`[
`
`20 for rental to users under the TeamFocus name. Well-trained facili(cid:173)
`tators with backgrounds in social dynamics consult with the team
`leader to plan the decision session and to write the problem state(cid:173)
`ment. In a typical task, 45 minutes of brainstorming by 15 to 20 peo(cid:173)
`ple can produce hundreds of lines of suggestions for questions such
`as, "How can we increase sales?" Or, "What are the key issues in
`technological support for group work?" Then, items can be filtered,
`clustered into similar groups, and presented to participants for
`refinement and ranking. Afterward, a printout and electronic-file
`version of the entire session is immediately available. Numerous
`studies of electronic meeting systems with thousands of users have
`demonstrated and explored the benefits (Nunamaker et al., 1991):
`
`• Parallel communication promotes broader input into the meet(cid:173)
`ing process and reduces the chance that a few people dominate
`. the meeting.
`
`0515
`
`

`
`14.5 Face to Face: Same Place, Same Time
`
`497
`
`• Anonymity mitigates evaluation apprehension and confonnance
`pressure, so issues are discussed more candidly.
`• The group memory constructed by participants enables the1n to
`pause and reflect on information and on opinions of others during
`the meeting, and serves as a permanent record of what occurred.
`• Process structure helps to focus the group on key issues, and dis(cid:173)
`courages digressions and unproductive behaviors.
`• Task support and structure provide information and approaches to
`analyze that information.
`
`The University of Arizona system is marketed under the name Group(cid:173)
`Systems (Ventana Corp.).
`
`• File sharing A simple but powerful use of networked con'lputers in a
`workplace, classromn, or meeting room is to share files. Participants
`may arrive with sales reports that can be shared with other people in
`the romn rapidly. Alternatively, the group leaders 1nay have agenda or
`budgets that they wish to broadcast to all participants, who may then
`annotate or embed these documents in others. Shared files 1nay contain
`text, programs, spreadsheets, databases, graphics, animations, sound,
`X-ray images, or video. Presumably, distribution can go beyond the
`meeting room to allow participants to access the files from their offices
`and homes.
`• Shared workspace The complement to each person receiving a personal
`copy of a file is to have a shared view of a workspace that every user
`can access. The pioneering Capture Lab at Electronic Data Systems con(cid:173)
`tained an oval desk with eight Macintosh computers built into the desk
`to preserve the business-meeting atmosphere (Mantei, 1988). The large
`display in front of the desk is visible to all attendees, who can each take
`control of the large screen by pressing a button on a machine. At Xerox
`PARC, the research system Colab has generated the commercial large(cid:173)
`screen (167-cm-diagonal) display, LiveBoard (Fig. 14.9), on which users
`can see the current list of topics or proposals, and can point to, edit,
`move, or add to under the policy sometimes called WYSIWIS (what
`you see is what I see) (Stefik et al., 1987). The advantage of a shared
`workspace is that everyone sees the sa1ne display and can work com(cid:173)
`munally to produce a joint and recorded result (Weiser, 1991).
`• Group activities With the proper networking software among worksta(cid:173)
`tions, users can be assigned a problem, and those needing assistance
`can "raise their hands" to show their display on a large shared display
`or on the group leader's display. Then, the group leader or other partic(cid:173)
`ipants can issue commands to resolve the problem. Similarly, if partici(cid:173)
`pants have a particularly noteworthy result, graphic, or comment, they
`can share it with the group either on the large shared display or on indi(cid:173)
`vidual workstations.
`
`0516
`
`

`
`498
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`Figure 14.9
`
`The LiveBoard Interactive Meeting System from Live Works, Inc., a Xerox company.
`Team discussions with groups at multiple locations can be facilitated with a 167-cm
`LiveBoard display. (Used with permission of Live Works, Inc.)
`
`14.6 Applying CSCW to Education
`
`The potential for a groupware-mediated paradigm shift in education evokes
`passion from devotees, but there is ample reason for skepticism and resistance.
`No single technology will dominate, but successful combinations will have to
`be suited to the goals of the institution, pedagogic style of the instructor, and
`availability of equipment for students. The long-promised but slow education
`revolution is speeding up as use of electronic 1nail and the web become wide(cid:173)
`spread (Gilbert, 1996). Smne-time, same-place electronic classrooms and a rich
`variety of distance-education strategies are promoted as ways to improve qual(cid:173)
`ity or to lower costs, but a change in teaching and learning styles and the inclu(cid:173)
`sion of new students are often the main result (Harasim et al., 1995).
`Coordination of students in a virtual classroom is a complex process but it
`can enable a stimulating educational experience for people who cannot
`
`0517
`
`

`
`14.6 Applying CSCW to Education
`
`499
`
`travel to a regular classroom (Hiltz, 1992). Multiple trials with sociology,
`computer-science, and philosophy courses demonstrated the efficacy of a
`conference fonnat for college courses, complete with homework assign(cid:173)
`ments, projects, tests, and final examinations. Instructors found the constant
`flow of messages to be a rewarding challenge, and students were generally
`satisfied with the experience:
`
`The essence of the Virtual Classroom is an environment to facilitate collaborative
`learning. For distance education students, the increased ability to be in constant
`c01nm.unication with other learners is obvious. But even for campus-based
`courses the technology provides a means for a rich, collaborative learning envi(cid:173)
`ronment which exceeds the traditional classroom in its ability to 'connect' stu(cid:173)
`dents and course materials on a round-the-clock basis. (Hiltz, 1992)
`
`Distance education with broadcast-quality video lectures is cmnmon, but
`interactivity with students is often by telephone, electronic mail, or web
`exchanges. DTVC has the potential to create livelier two-way interactions
`for discussion, mentoring, and remediation. The greatest beneficiaries are
`professionals who can attend courses electronically from their offices or spe(cid:173)
`cial learning centers, and hmne-oriented students who cannot commit the
`ti1ne for travel to a traditional campus. Current desktop videoconferencing
`facilitates communication, but improvements are needed to give instructors
`better awareness of reactions at multiple sites and ways to manage smoother
`turn taking (Ramsay et al., 1996). Improved resolution will help to convey
`gesture, gaze direction, and body language, but seeing detail and context
`simultaneously at multiple sites is a challenge (Fussel and Benimoff, 1995).
`The electronic classrooms at the University of Maryland balance the pur(cid:173)
`suit of new technologies with the exploration of new teaching and learning
`styles (Shneidennan et al., 1995). Three classrooms were built with 40 seats
`and 20 high-resolution monitors partially recessed into the desks to preserve
`sightlines (Fig. 14.10). The computers were placed in a side room to increase
`security and room space and to reduce noise and heat. A workstation and
`two large rear-projected displays enable instructors to show everyone their
`screen or any student screen. Keys to success included provision of the nec(cid:173)
`essary infrastructure for faculty training and support, and collection of
`ample evaluation data to guide the process.
`Over the first six years, 68 faculty (30 tenured, 16 nontenured, 22 other staff)
`from 21 departments offered 233 courses with over 6782 students. Courses
`filled most slots from 8 A.M. to 10 P.M., and were as diverse as 11The Role of
`Media in the American Political Process," II Chinese Poetry into English," //Mar(cid:173)
`keting Research Methods," 11Database Design," and //Saving the Bay."
`Faculty members who used the electronic classrooms explored novel
`teaching and learning styles that can create more engaging experiences for
`students. While traditional lectures with or without discussion remain com(cid:173)
`mon, electronic-classromn technologies can enliven lectures (Hofstetter,
`
`0518
`
`

`
`500
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`Figure 14.10
`
`AT&T Teaching/Learning Theater at the University of Maryland has 20 high-resolu(cid:173)
`tion displays built into custom desks with seats for 40 students.
`
`1995) while enabling active individual learning, small-group collaborative
`learning, and entire-class collaborative learning. Most faculty acknowledge
`spending more preparation time to use the electronic classroom especially in
`their first semester, but one wrote that it is "well worthwhile in terms of
`greater learning efficiency."
`The assumption that improved lectures were the main goal changed as
`faculty tried collaborative teaching methods and talked about these methods
`with one another. Faculty who had used paper-based collaborations appreci(cid:173)
`ated the smoothness of showing electronic student submissions to the whole
`class. Faculty who had not used collaborative methods appreciated the ease
`and liveliness of an anonymous electronic brainstorming session.
`More active individual learning experiences include using software dur(cid:173)
`ing class time
`
`• To write essays in English or poems in a foreign language
`• To find antecedents of Impressionism in an art-history library of
`9000 images
`• To run business simulations to increase product quality
`• To perform statistical analyses of psychology studies
`
`0519
`
`

`
`14.6 Applying CSCW to Education
`
`501
`
`• To do landscaping with computer-assisted design and graphics packages
`• To compose c01nputer programs
`• To search the Internet
`
`A common teacher strategy (Norman, 1994) is to assign tilne-limited (3 to
`10 minutes) tasks, and then to use the video switcher to review the students'
`work, to give individual help when necessary, and to show the students' work
`to the entire class. The transformational breakthrough lies in opening the
`learning process by rapidly showing many students' work to the entire class.
`Doing so at first generates student and faculty anxiety, but quickly becomes
`normal. Seeing and critiquing exemplary and ordinary work by fellow stu(cid:173)
`dents provides feedback that inspires better work on subsequent tasks.
`Small-group collaborative-learning experiences include having pairs of stu(cid:173)
`dents work together at a 1nachine on a tilne-limited task. Pairs often learn better
`than individuals, because people can discuss their problems, learn fr01n each
`other, and split their roles into problem solver and computer operator. With
`paired tea1ns, the variance of c01npletion time for tasks is reduced compared to
`individual use, and fewer students get stuck in c01npleting a task. Verbalization
`of problems has often been de1nonstrated to be advantageous during learning
`and is an important job skill to acquire for modern team-oriented organizations.
`Innovative approaches with larger teams include silnulated hostage negoti(cid:173)
`ations with terrorist airplane hijackers in a course on conflict resolution, and
`business trade negotiations in a United Nations format for a course on com(cid:173)
`mercial Spanish. Teams work to analyze situations, to develop position state(cid:173)
`ments online, and to c01nmunicate their positions to their adversaries over the
`network. In an introductory programming course, 10 teams wrote components
`and sent them through the network to the lead team, who combined the pieces
`into a 173-line program, all in 25 minutes. The class performed a walkthrough
`of the code using the large-screen display, and quickly identified bugs.
`Some faculty find that adapting to the electronic-classroom environment
`changes their styles so much that they teach differently even in traditional
`classrooms. Other faculty vow that they will never teach in a traditional
`classroom again. Most faculty users want to continue teaching in these elec(cid:173)
`tronic classrooms and discover that more than their teaching styles change(cid:173)
`their attitudes about the goals of teaching and about the content of the
`courses often shift as well. Many faculty develop higher expectations for
`student projects. Some become evangelists within their disciplines for the
`importance of teamwork and its accompanying communications skills.
`On the negative side, a math professor who used the computers only to do
`occasional demonstrations returned to teaching in a traditional classroom,
`where he had much more blackboard space. Some reluctant instructors
`express resistance to changing their teaching styles and anticipate having to
`make a large effort to use the electronic classrooms.
`
`0520
`
`

`
`502
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`Evaluations included standard course evaluations, use of anonymous
`electronic ratings, and specially prepared questionnaires. A controlled
`study with 127 students (Alavi, 1994) indicated that electronic-classroom
`students had higher perceived skill development, self-reported learning,
`and evaluation of classroom experience than did students in a collabora(cid:173)
`tive-learning traditional classroom. Electronic-classroom students also
`had statistically significantly higher final-exam grades. Popular features
`were the electronic note taking, interactivity, idea sharing, and brain(cid:173)
`storming.
`Evaluations revealed problems with network access from outside the class(cid:173)
`rooms and with file-sharing methods within the classroom. Students generally
`were positive, and often were enthusiastic: "Everyone should have a chance to
`be in here at least once .... Great tech. Great education technique .... Easy to
`use, but tends to crash and die at times .... the best thing that I could think of to
`improve the ability to teach interactively. Even though there were a few humps
`to get over at the beginning-it was well worth the effort (and money)."
`Intense interest in educational technology and in new teaching strategies
`is widespread. Resource-rich universities are investing in teaching-learning
`theaters; others are making innovative use of electronic mail, listservs, and
`the web (Gilbert, 1996). Distance learning using CSCW technologies seems
`likely to expand.
`
`14.7 Practitioner's Summary
`
`Computing has become a social process. The networks and telephone lines
`have opened up possibilities for cooperation. Electronic mail has made it
`easy to reach out and touch someone, or thousands of someones. News(cid:173)
`groups, electronic conferences, and the web have enabled users to be in
`closer communication. Coordination within projects or between organiza(cid:173)
`tions is facilitated by text, graphic, voice, and even video exchanges. Even
`face-to-face meetings are getting a facelift with new tools for electronic meet(cid:173)
`ings and with teaching-learning theaters. The introspective and isolated
`style of past computer use is giving way to a lively social environment where
`training has to include netiquette (network etiquette). These collaboration
`tools are beginning to have a visible effect; it seems that their success will
`continue spreading. However, as there are in all new technologies, there will
`be failures and surprising discoveries, because our intuitions about the
`design of groupware are based on shallow experience (Box 14.1). Thorough
`testing of new applications is necessary before widespread dissemination.
`
`0521
`
`

`
`14.8 Researcher's Agenda
`
`503
`
`Box 14.1
`
`Questions for consideration. The novelty and diversity of computer-supported
`cooperative work means that clear guidelines have not emerged, but these sobering
`questions might help designers and managers.
`
`Computer-Supported Cooperative Work Questions
`• How would facilitating communication improve or harm teamwork?
`• Where does the community of users stand on centralization versus
`decentralization?
`• What pressures exis.t for conformity versusindividuality?
`• How is privacy compromised or protected?
`. • What are the sources of friction among participants?
`• Is there protection from hostile, aggressive, or malicious behavior?
`• Will there be sufficient equipment to support convenient access for all
`participants?
`• What network delays are expected and tolerable?
`• What is the user's level of technological sophistication or resistance?
`• Who is most likely to be threatened by computer-supported cooperative
`work?
`• How will high-level management participate?
`• Which jobs may have to be redefined?
`• Whose status will rise or fall?
`• What are the additional costs or projected savings?·
`• Is there an adequate phase:..fn plan with sufficient training?
`• Will there be consultants andadequate assistall.ceintheearly phases?
`• . Isthere en(>ugh flexibility to handle exceptional cases a1J.d specialneeds
`(disabilities)?
`·
`·
`·
`·
`• What international, national, orgapizational standards must be
`considered? ·
`·
`·
`• How will success be evalJ,lated?
`
`14.8 Researcher's Agenda
`
`The opportunities for new products and for refinements of existing products
`seem great. Even basic products such as electronic mail could be improved
`dramatically by inclusion of advanced features, such as online directories,
`filtering, and archiving tools, as well as by universal-access features, such as
`improved tutorials, better explanations, and convenient assistance. Confer-
`
`0522
`
`

`
`504
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`encing methods and cooperative document production will change as band(cid:173)
`width increases and video is added. The most dramatic projects thus far are
`the ambitious electronic-meeting systems and teaching-learning theaters.
`They are costly, but are so attractive that many organizations are likely to
`spend heavily on these new technologies during the next decade. Although
`user-interface design of applications will be a necessary component, the
`larger and more difficult research problems lie in studying the social
`processes. How will home life and work be changed? How might interfaces
`differ for games, cooperative work, and conflict-laden online negotiations?
`Some of the excitement for researchers in computer-supported cooperative
`work ste1ns from the vast uncharted territory: theories are sparse, controlled
`studies are difficult to arrange, data analysis is overwhelming, and predic(cid:173)
`tive 1nodels are nonexistent (Olson et al., 1993).
`
`World Wide Web Resources
`Computer Supported Cooperative Work is naturally a part of the
`World Wide Web and novel tools are springing up on many web(cid:173)
`sites. You can try various chat services, download special purpose
`software, or shop for conferencing tools (video, audio, or text(cid:173)
`based). Evaluations are also available online.
`
`www
`
`http:/ /www.aw.com/DTUI
`
`References
`
`Alavi, Maryam, Computer mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evalua(cid:173)
`tion, MIS Quarterly, 18,2 (June 1994), 159-173.
`Anderson, Robert H., Bikson, Tora K., Law, Sally Ann, and Mitchell, Bridger M., Uni(cid:173)
`versal Access to Email: Feasibility and Societal Implications, RAND, Santa Monica,
`CA (1995), also at http:/ /www.rand.org.
`Baecker, Ron, Readings in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assist(cid:173)
`ing Human-Human Collaboration, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (1993).
`Bly, Sara A., Harrison, SteveR., and Irwin, Susan, MediaSpaces: Bringing people
`together in a video, audio, and computing environment, Communications of the
`ACM, 36, 1 (January 1993), 28-47.
`Bruce, Bertram, Peyton, Joy, and Batson, Trent, Network-Based Classrooms, Cambridge
`University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1992).
`Borenstein, Nathaniel S., Multimedia electronic mail: Will the dream become a real(cid:173)
`ity? Communications of the ACM, 34,4 (April1991), 117-119.
`Carroll, John M. and Rosson, Mary Beth, Developing the Blacksburg Electronic Vil(cid:173)
`lage. Communications of the ACM, 39,12 (December 1996), 69-74.
`
`0523
`
`

`
`14.8 Researcher's Agenda
`
`505
`
`Chapanis, Alphonse, Interactive hurnan c01n1nunication, Scientific American, 232, 3
`(March 1975), 36-42.
`Crowley, Terrence, Milazzo, Paul, Baker, Ellie, Forsdick, Harry, and Tomlinson, Ray(cid:173)
`mond, MMConf: An infrastructure for building shared n:mltimedia applications,
`Proc. Third Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, New York
`(1990), 329-355.
`Darcey, Tim, CU-SeeMe desktop videoconferencing software, Connexions, 9, 3
`(March 1995). Also at http:/ I cu-seeme.cornell.edu/DorceyConnexions.html.
`Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., and Rein, G. L., Groupware: Some issues and experiences,
`Communications of the ACM,34, 1 (January 1991), 680-689.
`Fischer, Gerhard and Stevens, Curt, Infonnation access in cmnplex, poorly struc(cid:173)
`tured information spaces, Proc. ACM CHI '91 Human Factors in Computing Sys(cid:173)
`tems, ACM, New York (1991), 63-70.
`Fish, RobertS., Kraut, Robert E., and Chalfonte, Barbara, The Video Window System
`in informal communications, Proc. Third Conference on Computer-Supported Cooper(cid:173)
`ative Work, ACM, New York (1990), 1-11.
`Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., and Winograd, T. Computer systems and the
`design of organizational interaction, ACM Transactions on Office Information Sys(cid:173)
`tems, 6, 2 (April1988), 153-172.
`Fussel, S. R. and Benimoff, I., Social and cognitive processes in interpersonal cmn(cid:173)
`munications: hnplications for advanced teleconnnunications technologies,
`Human Factors, 27, 2 (1995), 228-250.
`Gale, Stephen, Human aspects of interactive multimedia comnmnication, Interacting
`with Computers, 2, 2 (1990), 175-189.
`Gilbert, Steven, Making the most of a slow revolution, Change: The Magazine of
`Higher Learning, 28, 2 (March/ April1996), 10-23.
`Greenberg, Saul, Hayne, Stephen, and Rada, Roy (Editors), Groupware for Real Time
`Drawing: A Designer's Guide, McGraw-Hill, New York (1995).
`Greenberg, Saul and Marwood, David, Real time groupware as a distributed system:
`Concurrency control and its effect on the interface, Proc. Conference on Computer Sup(cid:173)
`ported Cooperative Work '94, ACM, New York (1994), 207-217.
`Grudin, Jonathan, Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers,
`Communications of the ACM, 37,1 (January 1994),93-105.
`Harasim, Linda, Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, Teles, Lucio, and Turoff, Murray, Learning
`Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online, MIT Press, Cambridge,
`MA (1995).
`Hiltz, S. R., Online Communities: A Case Study of the Office of the Future, Ablex, Nor(cid:173)
`wood, NJ (1984).
`Hiltz, S. R., The Virtual Classroom, Ablex, Norwood, NJ (1992).
`Hiltz, S. R. and Turoff, M., The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer.
`Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1978).
`Hiltz, S. R., and Turoff, M., Structuring computer-mediated communication systems
`to avoid information overload, Communications of the ACM, 28, 7 (July 1985),
`680-689.
`
`0524
`
`

`
`506
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`Hoffert, Eric M. and Gretsch, Greg, The digital news system at EDUCOM: A conver(cid:173)
`gence of interactive co1nputing, newspapers, television and high-speed networks,
`Communications of the ACM, 34, 4 (April 1991), 113-116.
`Hofstetter, Fred T., Multimedia Literacy, McGraw-Hill, New York (1995).
`Isaacs, Ellen, Morris, Trevor, Rodriguez, Thmnas K., and Tang, John C., A con•pari(cid:173)
`son of face-to-face and distributed presentations, Proc. CHI '95 Conference: Human
`Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York (1995), 354-361.
`Isaacs, Ellen, Tang, John C., and Morris, Trevor, Proc. Conference on Computer Sup(cid:173)
`ported Cooperative Work '96, ACM, New York (1996), 325-333.
`Ishii, H., Kobayashi, M., and Arita, K., Iterative design of seamless collaboration
`media: From Team WorkStation to Clear Board, Communications of the ACM, 37, 8
`(1994), 83-97.
`Kraut, Robert E., Coot Colleen, Rice, Ronald E., and Fish, RobertS., Life and death
`of new technology: Task, utility and social influences on the use of a coininunica(cid:173)
`tions mediun•, Proc. Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work '94, ACM,
`New York (1994), 13-21.
`Malone, T., and Crowston, K. What is coordination theory and how can it help
`design cooperative work systems? In Proc. Third Conference on Computer-Support-ed
`Cooperative Work, ACM, New York (1990), 357-370.
`Malone, T. W., Grant, K. R., Turbak, F. A., Brobst, S. A., and Cohen, M.D., Intelligent
`information-sharing systems, Communications of the ACM, 30 (1987), 390-402.
`Mantei, M., Capturing the capture lab concepts: A case study in the design of com(cid:173)
`puter supported meeting environments, Proc. Second Conference on Computer-Sup(cid:173)
`ported Cooperative Work, ACM, New York (1988), 257-270.
`Mantei, Marilyn M., Baecker, Ronald S., Sellen, Abigail J., Buxton, William A. S., and
`Milligan, Thomas, Experiences in the use of a media space, Proc. Conference:
`CHI '91 Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York (1991), 203-208.
`Mark, Gloria Haake, Jorg M., and Streitz, Norbert A., Hypermedia Structures and the
`Division of Labor in Meeting Room Collaboration, Proc. Conference on Computer Sup(cid:173)
`ported Cooperative Work '96,ACM, New York (1996), 170-179.
`Mitchell, Alex, Posner, Ilona, and Baecker, Ronald, Learning to write together using
`groupware, Proc. CHI '95 Conference: Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM,
`New York (1995), 288-295.
`Norman, Kent, Navigating the educational space with HyperCourseware, Hyperme(cid:173)
`dia, 6, 1 (January 1994), 35-60.
`Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, Alan R., Valacich, JosephS., Vogel, Douglas R., and
`George, Joey F., Electronic meeting systems to support group work, Communica(cid:173)
`tions of the ACM, 34, 7 (July 1991), 40-61.
`Olson, Judith S., Card, Stuart K., Landauer, Thomas K., Olson, Gary M., Malone,
`Thomas, and Leggett, John, Computer supported co-operative work: Research
`issues for the