IBG 1023 3 of 3
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`14 Computer—Supported Cooperative Work
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.5 Face to Face: Same Place, Same Time
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Teams of people often work together and use complex 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stocl<~marl<et trading rooms and commodity markets are other existing appli-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cations of face—to~face teamwork or negotiations that are computer mediated.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Newer applications in office and classrooin environments are attracting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`more attention because of the large numbers of potential users and the potential
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for innovative approaches to work and to learning. These applications include:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In this simple form of group
`0 Shared display from lecturer workstation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computing, a professor or lecturer may use the computer with a large-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`screen projector to demonstrate a computing application, to show a set
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of slides with business graphics, to retrieve images, or to run an anima-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tion. Fred Hofstetter (1995) of the University of Delaware developed a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`multimedia lectureware package, PODIUM, that allows instructors to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compose illustrated lectures using slides, computer graphics, anima—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tions, Videos, and audio sequences. l\/lany speakers are happy to use
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`standard commercial packages such as Microsoft PowerPoint, Lotus
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Freelance, or Adobe Persuasion. User-interface issues include simplic-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ity in moving to the next slide, capacity to jump out of sequence, and
`
`
`
`
`
`ease of making spontaneous changes.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0 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 commercials shown on a large screen. Votes in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parliamentary forums can be rapid and accurate. Promoters claim that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this simple 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-
`
`
`
`
`
`fected by the audience’s selections.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Text—submz'ssi0n workstations By giving each participant a keyboard and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`simple software, it is possible to create an inviting environment for con-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`versation or brainstorming. Batson (Bruce et al., 1992) at Gallaudet Uni-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`versity constructed a highly successful networking program that allows
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`each participant to type a line of text that is shown immediately, with V
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0513
`
`

`
`14.5 Face to Face: Same Place, Same Time
`
`495
`
`the author's name, on every participant's display. With 10 people typ-
`ing, new comments appear a few times per second and lively conversa-
`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—hurnan, a tool of control and suppression of
`human instinct and intuition, has really humanized my job. For the first
`time in a long time, I have real hope that we might make some progress. .
`.
`. Freed of having to be the cardboard figure at the front of the classroom,
`I beca.me a person again, with foibles, feelings and fantasies. As a group,
`we were more democratic and open with each other than any other writ-
`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 atmosphere.
`'
`
`0 Brainstorming, voting, and ranking Beyond talking, structured social
`processes can produce dramatic educational discussions and highly pro-
`ductive business meetings. The University of Arizona was a pioneer in
`developing the social process, the physical environment, and the software
`tools (Valacich et a1., 1991) to "reduce or eliminate 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-
`ing 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-
`puters built into the
`desks at the University
`of Arizona. (Group Sys-
`tems is a registered
`trademark of Ventana
`
`Corporation.)
`
`0514
`
`

`
`496
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`Figure 14.8
`
`GroupSyslcms ~Tlu: Guunncl Rt:slaur2:ul- [ddlglg [Sur\EE’:!I{?3 |.’",'l|'_2,3.-i E:
`Eile Edit Survey
`group Qptions
`flindow flelp
`
`Sample screens from
`Groupsystems Electronic
`Meeting software. Online
`restaurant survey (top).
`Results of a vote in part of
`the restaurant survey (bot-
`tom). (Used with permis-
`sion from Ventana Corp.,
`Tucson, AZ.) (Group
`Systems is a registered
`trademark of Ventana
`
`Corporation.)
`
`I‘?! E3 Eliillfll
`Put a do: In the right box (Female/Mab)
`2. Ace
`<2 = Less than zoyoars, <3 = 20-29 V, <4 = 30-39 V
`¢ = -:0 - 49 Y. >5 =MoI9 than 50 years old
`3. How would you describe our Food 7
`VB = very bad, 5 .-. Bad, N = Neulralfi G = Good, VG = Very Good
`-4. How Would you describe our Service ‘I
`I/B=veIyDad, B=9ad.N=Neu!raI,G=Gooo‘, I/G=l/eryGood
`5. How would you rlescriue our Environment ?
`VB = very bad, B= Bad, N = Neutral, 6 =Good, I/G = I/or;/Good
`I5 8. How wouldyou uascrlre our Price ‘I
`F3)! is dot in the staternenr that you lhink is most accurate
`3. As ‘value for ma may
`lx. A2": ml expensive‘
`
`c. As "loo enpensne‘ 7 Dlozcnrnnr rnrrnn In rnmmnm nn zmnhnm rnnr-mnlnn nur rsmuuumnt
`o=o=O‘020°0°0°c~or-,_(‘HSf'\§(W$‘SQ!2
`
`on on
`
`ososos0°0°0-
`
`Vote 8 read - Evaluating the '" I ' me]
`
`
`ezsiumamn-:l van-
`
`1%
`0
`o
`0
`0
`5.
`5
`’
`__
`E
`.
`1.;
`..
`[ABA
`.
`.l..‘,,l,...4._nn
`0.0
`Vote Grnph ~ Evaluating the SWOT [Vote]
`
`
`
`
`
`Belle! raw
`Educated p
`Nice Cudo
`Knowledge
`French Coo
`0
`
`
`-
`
`‘
`
`LOW ZOCK! 3.000 4000 SR!) 6.000 7.000 8.000 3.000 10.00
`
`20 for rental to users under the TearnFocus name. Well-trained facili-
`
`tators with backgrounds in social dynamics consult with the team
`leader to plan the decision session and to write the problem state-
`ment. In a typical task, 45 minutes of brainstorming by 15 to 20 peo-
`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 simi.lar 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):
`
`0 Parallel communication promotes broader input into the meet-
`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 conformance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pressure, so issues are discussed more candidly.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The group memory constructed by participants enables them 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-
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`Systems (Ventana Corp).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`File sharing A simple but powerful use of networked computers in a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`workplace, classroom, or meeting room is to share files. Participants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may arrive with sales reports that can be shared with other people in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the rooin rapidly. Alternatively, the group leaders may have agenda or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`budgets that they wish to broadcast to all participants, who may then
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`annotate or embed these documents in others. Shared files may 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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 VVYSIWIS (what
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`you see is what I see) (Stefik et al., 1987). The advantage of a shared
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`workspace is that everyone sees the same display and can work com-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`munally to produce a joint and recorded result (Weiser, 1991).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Group activities With the proper networking software among worksta—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ipants can issue commands to resolve the problem. Similarly, if partici-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`vidual workstations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0516
`
`

`
`498
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`Figure 14.9
`
`The LiveBoard Interactive Meeting System from LiveWorl<s, Inc., a Xerox company.
`Team discussions with groups at multiple locations can be facilitated with a 167-cm
`LiveBoard display. (Used with permission of LiveWorl<s, 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 1ong—promised but slow education
`revolution is speeding up as use of electronic mail and the web become wide-
`spread (Gilbert, 1996). Same—ti1ne, same-place electronic classrooms and a rich
`variety of distance-education strategies are promoted as ways to improve qual-
`ity or to lower costs, but a change in teaching and learning styles and the inclu-
`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 format for college courses, complete with homework assign-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communication with other learners is obvious. But even for campus~based
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`courses the technology provides a means for a rich, collaborative learning envi~
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ronment which exceeds the traditional classroom in its ability to ‘connect’ stu—
`dents and course materials on a round—the-clock basis. (Hiltz, 1992)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Distance education with broadcast—quality video lectures is common, 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~
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cial learning centers, and home~oriented students who cannot commit the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`time 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 Benirnoff, 1995).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The electronic classrooms at the University of Maryland balance the pur-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`suit of new technologies with the exploration of new teaching and learning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`styles (Shneiderman 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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ”The Role of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Media in the American Political Process,” "Chinese Poetry into English,” ”l\/lar-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`keting Research Methods,” ”Database 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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mon, electronic~classroom technologies can enliven lectures (Hofstetter,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0518
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`14 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
`
`
`
`
`Figure 14.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AT&T Teaching / Learning Theater at the University of Maryland has 20 high-resolu-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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—
`
`
`
`ing class time
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0 To Write essays in English or poems in a foreign language
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0 To do landscaping with computer—assisted design and graphics packages
`
`
`
`
`
`0 To compose computer programs
`0 To search the Internet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A common teacher strategy (Norman, 1994) is to assign time—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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dents provides feedback that inspires better work on subsequent tasks.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sma1l~group collaborative—learning experiences include having pairs of stu~
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dents work together at a machine on a time~limited task. Pairs often learn better
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`than individuals, because people can discuss their problems, learn from each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`other, and split their roles into problem solver and computer operator. With
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`paired teams, the variance of completion time for tasks is reduced compared to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`individual use, and fewer students get stuck in completing a task. Verbalization
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of problems has often been demonstrated to be advantageous during learning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and is an important job skill to acquire for modern team—oriented organizations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Innovative approaches with larger teams include simulated hostage negoti-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mercial Spanish. Teams work to analyze situations, to develop position state-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ments online, and to communicate 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 perforrnedta 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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tronic classrooms and discover that more than their teaching styles change———
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`
`
`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—
`
`storming.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evaluations revealed problems with network access from outside the class-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Res0urce—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~
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`groups, electronic conferences, and the web have enabled users to be in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`closer communication. Coordination within projects or between organiza-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`0 How would facilitating communication improve or harm teamwork?
`0 Where does the community of users stand oncentralization versus
`decentralization?
`
`Whatpressures exist for conformity versus individuality?
`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—in plan with" sufficient training?
`,_ Will there be consultants andadequate assistance in the early phases?
`Is there enough flexibility to handle‘ exceptional cases‘ and special needs
`(disabilities)? ’
`'
`
`What international, national,.organizational standards must be
`considered? ’
`‘
`’
`
`How will success be evaluated?
`
`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 universa1—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-
`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 stems from the vast uncharted territory: theories are sparse, controlled
`studies are difficult to arrange, data analysis is overwhelming, and predic-
`tive models are nonexistent (Olson et a1., 1993).
`
`warm wine wen nesuurces
`
`M
`
`
`
`Computer Supported Cooperative Work is naturally a part of the
`World Wide Web and novel tools are springing up on many web-
`sites. You can try various chat services, download special purpose
`software, or shop for conferencing tools (video, audio, or text-
`based). Evaluations are also available online.
`
`http://www.aw.com/DTUI
`
`References
`
`Alavi, Maryam, Computer mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evalua-
`tion, MIS Quarterly, 18, 2 (June 1994), 159-173.
`
`Anderson, Robert H., Bikson, Tora K., Law, Sally Ann, and Mitchell, Bridger M., Uni-
`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-
`ing Human—Human Collaboration, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (1993).
`
`Bly, Sara A., Harrison, Steve R., and Irwin, Susan, Mediaspacesc Bringing people
`together in a video, audio, and computing environment, Communications of the
`ACM, 36, 1 (January 1993), 28-47.
`
`Bruce, Bertram, Peyton, Ioy, 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-
`
`ity? Communications of the ACM, 34, 4 (April 1991), 117-119.
`
`Carroll, John M. and Rosson, Mary Beth, Developing the Blacksburg Electronic Vil-
`lage. Communications of the ACM, 39, 12 (December 1996), 69-74.
`
`0523
`
`

`
`
`
`14.8 Researcher’s Agenda
`
`
`
`505
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chapanis, Alphonse, Interactive human communication, Scientific American, 232, 3
`(l\/larch 1975), 36-42.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Crowley, Terrence, Milazzo, Paul, Baker, Ellie, Forsdick, Harry, and Tomlinson, Ray-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mond, MMConf: An infrastructure for building shared multimedia applications,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proc. Third Conference on Co1nputer—Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, New York
`(1990), 329-355.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dorcey, Tim, CU—SeeMe desktop videoconferencing software, Connexions, 9, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`(March 1995). Also at http: / /cu-seeme.cornell.edu/ DorceyConnexions.html.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. I., and Rein, G. L., Groupware: Some issues and experiences,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Communications of the ACM, 34, 1 (January 1991), 680-689.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fischer, Gerhard and Stevens, Curt, Information access in complex, poorly struc-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tured information spaces, Proc. ACM CHI '91 Human Factors in Computing Sys-
`
`tems, ACM, New York (1991), 63-70.
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fish, Robert S., Kraut, Robert E., and Chalfonte, Barbara, The VideoWindow System
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in informal communications, Proc. Third Conference on Com puter-Supported Cooper-
`ative Work, ACM, New York (1990), 1-11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Flores, E, Graves, M., Hartfield, 13., and Winogracl, T. Computer systems and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`design of organizational interaction, ACM Transactions on Office Information Sys-
`
`
`
`
`
`tems, 6, 2 (April 1988), 153-172.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fussel, S. R. and Benirnoff, 1., Social and cognitive processes in interpersonal com-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`munic