Analysis of Analyzing & Designing paper
From VMT
- Return to Designing Social Interaction Software
Contents |
[edit] Instructions
- Provide a review of this paper.
- Comment on what you found relevant to the course in this paper.
[edit] Comments on Team Statements
There seems to be some difference of opinion between the group reviews as to how applicable this analysis of math problem solving is to your own chat experience in reviewing papers and designing software. Group A emphasizes that math problems have correct solutions, in contrast to your assignments. However, note that the group in the paper did not solve the math problem by applying an algebraic procedure, but by their own argument about what the answer must be given the multiple-choice options and the growth patterns in the problem statement. While this paper used traditional SAT problems with correct answers in order to produce quantitative results, many VMT sessions use much more open-ended problems that are more like design situations.
The central contribution of the paper is the idea of "math proposal adjacency pairs." The idea is that these can be seen as a primary driving mechanism for the chats. So a natural question for you to ask would be whether some forms of proposal bid/response pairs play a similar role in your chats. It could be that in both the VMT chats and in your chats there is a similar process of individuals making proposals and the group considering whether to accept or discuss the proposals. The group decisions would then result from the series of proposals and the responses to them. In both cases, various criteria and arguments would be applied to the consideration of proposals. The specific kinds of criteria and the style of arguments would be different in math and in design, but the structure of the interactions would be similar. In both cases, the group could arrive at results that combined individual contributions in a powerful way.
You might want to look back over some of your chats and see if they ever have this kind of structure.
It is interesting to note that in the math problem-solving one person did a major piece of the final problem-solving, building on the path laid out by previous proposals from the other group members. Math often requires some concentrated individual reflection. Similarly, design work often requires the integration of a single perspective and a written document requires the unity of a single voice. This suggests the need for a combination of group and individual work. So there might be a multi-phase process for reviewing a paper:
- Each person reads the paper and thinks about it
- There is a group chat with proposals from individuals and brainstorming
- The group lays out an approach to the review and summarizes several main points
- One or more individuals drafts a review incorporating the group decisions
- The group might come back together to critique and refine the draft
- One person posts the review to the wiki
Collabortion is not necessarily a single process, but combines individual and group processes, synchronous and asynchronous, exploratory and explanatory.
Gerry 11:26, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Team A Statement
- Members: Seth, Brian, Olivia
- Date and Time of posting: Olivia 19:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Stahl, G. (2006). Analyzing and designing the group cognition experience. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS), 15, 157-178.
[edit] Review of Paper:
This paper focuses the analysis of group cognition and how groupware should be designed with group cognition in mind. Stahl discusses the various ways in which groups think and act, and posits that if groupware if to be effectivley developed, group psychology must first be understood. The main focus is to compare and contrast how groups think as a collective unit versus how individuals work on the same task in separate efforts.
This paper provides an empirical example of how group collaboration is more effective and productive than when problem-solving is attacked as an individual effort. Stahl points out how traditional software supports the work of individuals by structuring their applications for use by individuals one at a time (1). Individuals would either take turns corresponding (as in an email application), or individually work on a document (as in a word processing application).
The empirical example explicitly how the group managed to solve the math problem and highlights each individual's contributions. The point to stress is that although the individuals worked out the problem separately in their minds, they were all working off a bit of contributed knowledge of one of their other group members. Without the support and suggestions of their peers, the final solution would not have been achieved. This was proven by having the individuals solve each math problem on their own without collaboration. The linkage of knowledge, also known as adjacency pairs, are a perfect example of how multiple minds can work better together than individually.
Although the group in the paper's example is working to solve a math problem, there is a bit of a difference between working collaboratively to put together a paper review and working together to identify a solution for a math problem. The main difference is because the an article review is based on opinion, while a math problem has a concrete right or wrong answer. It is much more structured when trying to figure out the answer to a problem, versus putting together a summary or critique of a paper that has no definite answer.
Overall, this article provides several practical, real-life examples, which is a nice change compared to the conceptual and theoretical papers we have critiqued over the past few weeks.
[edit] How can this be applied to this class?
The paper can be applied to this class in a few ways. To start with, Stahl, who is one of the leaders in the field of Human-Computer Interaction, or social computing, teaches the class. His articles gives an introductory tour of group cognition. Group cognition, which a is derivative of educational psychology, is a major concept in Human-Computer interaction. In developing a social computing system, it is necessary to understand how group psychology works. In this class we are learning theory / methodology as it applies to Human-Computer interaction, and it is necessary to understand group psychology before one can move on to design and construction of those systems. Collective reasoning only happens in a collaborative environment: when the individual minds fall into natural roles within the collective; their unique strengths are fitted into place and a collectivization occurs. This is true collaborative thinking. In essence, it is perfect sharing of knowledge. However, this type paper about collaborative thinking is restricted to a set or stage of the VMT and Math field. It can be hard to understand or think about how our interaction and collective thinking in this class mirrow solving math problems a group.
In order to use knowledge effectively, a group mind must interact through collaborative communication. This is the true representation of group cognition. Research in group cognition has shed light on educational methodology - on all levels - and how the ubuiquitous "ways of the past" favored cooperative and individual learning. What researchers like Stahl are discovering is that true collaborative learning allows students to learn in ways that offer more efficient and powerful knowledge building. This group cognition uses each individual mind as a memetic hub; the group mind is able to extrapolate and use information in ways that the individual would strain to do. As an application to this class, it gives the student an instroduction to this fascinating field, Groupware, and elucidates the future of educational methodology.
The informaton provided in this article suggests that because group collaboration is more effective than individual contributions, the results of groupwork may be better if they were discussed amongst the team, versus divided up amongst the team members to work on separately. The phase "a three ply thread is stronger then one" applies this paper and to this group. Our collaboration certainly strengthens the teams productivity and analytical abilities.
[edit] Team B Statement
- Elizabeth
- 20:14, 15, May 2007
Analyzing and Designing the Group Cognition Experience:
The paper focused on the advantages of group learning versus traditional individual learning. It looked at how groupware software can be specially designed to help people work collaboratively versus cooperatively in groups.
In the paper Stahl reports on a group of students working on a set of math problems in an online chat room. By studying this group of students, the author was able to better understand and determine what tools would be needed to more effectively design groupware software. Due to the ever evolving nature of technology, this is an ongoing process that will have to be continually revisited.
Elements of this paper found relevant to the course:
In the Group Cognition in Online Math section, (pg 8), the author notes that the problem solving methods used by the group of students is qualitatively different from the methods they used individually. Although students in this paper were solving math problems, this finding seems to hold true whether collaboratively solving for the answers to math problems of collaboratively critiquing a research paper such as we do for this class. Group collaboration brings different methods to the table, versus if students were instead working by themselves.
Also found relevant were the observations the author made concerning chatting. Trying to get our individual points-of-view across to our teammates while simultaneously trying to keep track of what others are typing, drawing and posting to each other adds up to big activity from seemingly small details – a point well noted by users of social networks, the VMT included.
[edit] Team C Statement
- Members Ben, Kevin
- Date and Time of posting Kevin 12:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Review of paper: The paper provded a comparison between individual learnign in groups and group learning. The paper also demonstrated other aspects of group learning through some sample text taken from a group of students. Inside the chat both exploritory inquiry and expository narrative could be seen. It was also shown that both forms of group discourse can be seen in the same chat group at different times. The group used an exploratory inquiry discourse untill the end where they changed to an expository narrative for one person to explain her reasoning behind solving the problem. The paper also showed the different roles that individuals inside the group can have. While Mic at forst glance doesn't seem to be contributing much to the group his antics actually help relieve the stress and tensions inside thr group and help everyone relax and work better together.
+One major goal of this paper is to encourage the creation of groupware which truly supports group work, and not which simply allows individuals to interact in a group setting. Three functions can help support true group work: "formation of groups, the intertwining of perspectives, and negotiation of group decisions (page 2, 31-32)."
+As has been stated in previous group readings, expository narrative (cooperation) involves one group member dominating the exchanges, and exploratory inquiry (collaboration) features group members working together to explore a topic.
+The idea of group cognition is that the meaning which is constructed for the group is not brought about by the addition of the individual knowledge of the group members, but by the interaction between the group members. Group cognition is enabled in part by the communication pattern known as adjacency pairs. An adjacency pair is a small unit of meaning which is contributed to by more than one person; each individual contribution is meaningless, but when the contributions are taken together, the unit has meaning.
+One major point of the expository narrative is that each group member may not be contributing input which is obviously significant, but the addition of subtle and varied forms of input has an effect on the group work as a whole. So while one group member may be temporarily dominating the chat, other group members are enabling this, and encouraging the dominant group member in ways which individual learning would not allow.
Relevance to course:
The paper suggests that groups can solve problems that are mroe complex then those that the individuals involved in the groups can solve by themselves.
+In a sense, it shows group learning in effect, and how the exploritory/expository dynamic enables groups to create new knowledge that is more than the sum of individual knowledge.
[edit] Team D Statement
- Members : : Eric, Bertha, Jeeves
- Date and Time of posting : Eric 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Group statement on reading.
"Analyzing and Designing the Group-Cognition Experience"
Software in the past was designed and buit for individual users. Groupware is software specifically written to support the work of groups The main issues with the design of groupware is that the dynamics and analysis of group problem solving has not been the primary focus for designing this software. The groupware has been built around the communications and transmissions of messages.
Group cognition is being investigated within the VMT project, and seeing how group problem solving is carried out within a group mathematical problem solving space. The research has shown different structures of problem solving based on analysis of the chat dialogues within the VMT.
Expository narratives are portions of problem solving dominated by an individual user with longer texts and a lack of turn taking. There is a general agreement and validation as a student proceeds to solve the problems with feedback from time to time from the other students. This process is more an individual focus and less on group problem solving.
Complement this with the exploratory inquiry type of discourse where turn taking is shared and the process is more a collaborative one with a focus on consensus and group solutions. Within the processes themselves you may have multiple shifts from one form to another as students who feel thay have a solution to the problem may take over discussion and to seek consensus on their solution from the remainder of the group.
When analyzed the majority of math problems were actrually solved by individuals but the dynamics of the group led to a higher percentage of problems solved within the group setting than by individuals alone. Supporting the supposition that group dynamics actually enhance problem solving even when individuals in the group are responsible for the solutions. This concept is outlined by Vygotsky and his psychological experiments and paraphrased as the "Zone of Proximal Development".
Within the analysis of the chat a significant problem solving paradigm emerged which the author coined as "the math proposal adjacency pair". This was a student putting forth a problem solving proposal followed by a response. This can be a proposal followed by a secondary proposal that developed upon the first or that countered the initial proposal.
Mathematical problem solving is a paradigm case of human cognition. The ideology of individual accomplishment rather than group problem solving has shaded the development of groupware to be nothing more than generic communication platforms. Rather than focusing on collaboration processes to be the basis of groupware design these still focus on the individual as cognitive agents.
Meaning is created at the group unit of anaylsis rather than individual sustains the concept of "group cognition". The creation of gouup meaning whereby groups constitute themselves and as in a Gestalt generate a whole greater than any individual parts. The prelimary design principles are persistency and visiblity, deictic referencing, visual workspaces, shared and personal spaces, computational support, access to tools and resources, opening new worlds and sub communities and allowing natural language subtleties.
- Return to Designing Social Interaction Software
[edit] Team E Statement
- Members Dave, Fernando, LisaG
- Date and Time of posting LisaG 21:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Analyzing and Designing The Group Cognition Exprience - Review
Using a small group of math students in the Virtual Math Teams (VMT), research has shown that groups using group cognition can come to the solution of problems far more often then individuals alone. Chat discourse online can be categorized into to two different types, expository narrative and exploratory inquiry. Expository narrative is normally dominated by one person who is contributing more and interchanging longer texts. Exploratory inquiry involves group members working together to investigate an issue and tends to bring about group cognition. This tends to bring about collaboration whereas expository narrative tends to lead to cooperation where individuals sumit their own parts and these are brought together as a whole. Collaboration in larger groups tends to be more difficult as the difference between members in experience with the system they are using and mode of working tends to be greater.
Using a group of math students solving SAT problems we can see that they bring their best individual answers to the group (in a cooperative fashion) but start to collaborate on a final answer. This sort of transitional hybrid approach allowed the students to learn much from each other. Working together the group cognition got far more questions right than any one individual could. One of the more interesting characters in the group was Mic. Seemingly clowning around for most of the time, he actually kept the flow of ideas going by relaxing the anxiety through his light-hearted attitude.
In conversations adjacency pairs are the smallest unit measured. They consist of a set of utterances. So a greeting or question followed by the response or return greeting. Sometimes though a greeting or question is not followed by a response. This sort of "broken adjacency pairs" may arise when interpretation of the question or greeting is not clear. Sometimes the easiest way for people to respond to this is to not respond at all. In mathematical problem solving this is defined as a math proposal adjacency pair. There is a problem solving proposal, followed by a response or a series of responses.
Group cognition as seen in the VMT represents the bits and pieces that everyone individually contributes. Though the original idea of cognition was the "ideas and thoughts" of individual minds, group cognition represents the group as an individual entity with members contributing and coming to a consensus. Understanding individual contributions are important as they form the basis for understanding how each person will contribute individual knowledge as well as how they will interact and participate in the solution. These groups seem to "constitute themselves", meaning that once individuals are placed within an environment that supports collaboration, group cognition will naturally come out. This arises as part of a chain reaction of thoughts triggered by individual ideas. Using the understanding of how individuals input their contributions and accomplish problem solving is the first step in designing groupware for today.
