HCI-CSCL: Group Design Project 2

From VMT

Jump to: navigation, search

Return to Designing for CSCL

[edit] Instructions for Week Two

Read the postings for Week One and decide as a group which you would rank as the best three. Post your decision to the Group Design Project 1 wiki page. (Each week you should review and rank the previous week's postings and post your group's selection of the best three.)

Now discuss your group's process of collaborating to research, write, document and rank the Week One assignment. Go back and review the chat and the use of the different tabs (you can reload the history of the chat with the reload icon above the chat. You can scroll through the history of the chat and the whiteboard.

Reflect on how the technologies you used (chat, whiteboard, graphical referencing, summary space, the Web, Wikipedia, Google, Google Scholar, Google Book, etc.) helped and/or hindered your group work. How did your group organize your collaboration within this technology? What are the implications for supporting the CSCL research community that now only uses email for online interaction.

Select another group that seemed to have an interesting collaborative research process. Look at their chat room and analyze their process of collaborating to research, write, document and rank the Week One assignment.

Post a summary of your reflections and discussions below.

[edit] Comments on Analyses below

[edit] Ratings of Analyses below

Group A's pick of 3 best analyses:

Group B's pick of 3 best analyses:

Group C's pick of 3 best analyses:

Group D's pick of 3 best analyses:

Group E's pick of 3 best analyses:

Group F's pick of 3 best analyses:

Group G's pick of 3 best analyses:

[edit] Group H's pick of 3 best analyses:

Team Members: Chanthy Yoeun, Justin Patterson, Erik Poole, Mike Johnson, and "Richard Porter" 08:59, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

**Group Ranking and Analysis by Group H**
Ranking	Group	Analysis
1	H	Most thorough in terms of content. Only one opinion given from one group member. In comparison, Collaborative Learning definition is a bit short. Trial evaluations isn't specifically related to other material on wiki. I would rank this #1. I think this group was the most complete in its analysis (good work, guys). Just as important, is the method in which it structured the information. Rank #1. Had all materials required and very detailed. However, I thought the layout and content maybe a little confusing. Maybe organizing it to be a little more simple. Most comprehensive. Good selection of quoted material to convey import of article. Good coverage on the literature research on concepts and sources. Biased? Maybe. I would have liked more in summary and transition, but I think the quotes were well selected. Does good job of unpacking the authors' arguments.
2	I	Everything covered exemplifies thorough research, lacks final two vocabulary. I think this was the first one with a great deal of content. It probably provided a base for the rest of the groups. Most of the content was summarized pretty effectively. I think some of the vocabulary is missing. Group could have added a little more info on reading analysis. Great info on literature review. Very much like Group H's unpacking of the article. Good summary statements of the arguments put forth. Some terms missing in the literature search.
3	G	Thorough summary, design on wiki orderly, but lacking a table. Chose different terms to define for analysis, but good sources all around to support. I agree with the statement above. I think this is the 3rd best posting. I don't mind they chose different terms as the ones presented were just suggestions. The summary was very good, which is more important. Lol! I am going to have to argee with the rest. I thought this would be #3 ranking. Reading analysis was good, but too lengthy.

[edit] Group I's pick of 3 best analyses:

[edit] Group J's pick of 3 best analyses:

[edit] Analyses by groups

[edit] Group A analysis

[edit] Group B analysis

[edit] Group C analysis

[edit] Group D analysis

[edit] Group E analysis

[edit] Group F analysis

[edit] Group G analysis

[edit] Group H analysis

Team Members: Chanthy Yoeun, Justin Patterson, Erik Poole, Mike Johnson, and "Richard Porter" 08:59, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Analysis of our collaboration

During the first week, we started by deconstructing the problem, which helped us form a strategy as we worked through the work.

At first, it was difficult to bring all the other members together and decide on a meeting time and set schedule. This was most likely due to the nature of the chat - no one in the group was accustomed to this this type of work. At first, most of the people were interested in tackling the problem from a cooperative perspective. There was a real need to make sure we did this from a collaborative point of view instead.

[edit] How technology helped/hindered

We felt the chat wasn't the best application for this type of work. We felt the text features were not really developed and hindered our work at times. It seems textual analysis was an afterthought with this application. It also only allows for limited collaboration types. We were curious as to how this would work with audio/video capabilities. Finally, we tended to run out of room on the whiteboard (Note: we later learned how to create new tabs).

We did like the ability to post text on the whiteboard. This allowed us to visualize our progress and easily see how much knowledge we had constructed. However, transferring this to the wiki was a bit difficult as some of us could not figure out how to copy/paste the text. So, in this regard, if one could combine some of the chat functionality with the collaborative features of something like Google Docs, it would be ideal.

Despite these inefficiencies, technology in education is inevitable. Scardamalia asks that we step back and think through the models for software to support education. This is probably especially important in the field of CSCL, which relies so heavily on technology. Other than e-learning, there may be no other form of education that is so closely tied together with technology as CSCL.

[edit] How does it affect researchers

We tossed around the the notion if researchers were primarily using email to communicate they would be at a disadvantage because they were trying to study a synchronous technology while primarily engaging via an asynchronous one. In addition, email is probably not as an effective tool to build a community. There may be long delays between communication and meaning can be lost or misinterpreted.

[edit] Why CSCL might fail

In response to some of the shortcomings in the CSCL technology, there was additional talk as to why the practice may fail. The amount of work needed was one primary reason. The team members agreed this was an obstacle to the field. In response, CSCL software designers may want to accommodate mobile applications, which would allow for the ability to contribute more readily.

Another obstacle noted by Litz is the lack of motivation on the students' part. It appears collaborative learning takes more effort due to the fact meeting times must be scheduled. In addition, there is often a sense of confusion in the early stages of the chat. Ultimately, these are the obstacles we must overcome as designers of cscl software.

What is interesting is the "process before the learning process." In other words, how did learners come to a point where they were ready to collaborate and work on the assignment? Researchers would be wise to study how users get to the point when they're ready to actually do the work. This may help identify how learners are motivated to participate.

[edit] Group I analysis

[edit] Group J analysis