skip to main content
10.1145/1028014.1028063acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

A laboratory method for studying activity awareness

Published:23 October 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many failures in long-term collaboration occur because of a lack of activity awareness. Activity awareness is a broad concept that involves awareness of synchronous and asynchronous interactions over extended time periods. We describe a procedure to evaluate activity awareness and collaborative activities in a controlled setting. The activities used are modeled on real-world collaborations documented earlier in a field study. We developed an experimental method to study these activity awareness problems in the laboratory. Participants worked on a simulated long-term project in the laboratory over multiple experimental sessions with a confederate, who partially scripted activities and probes. We present evidence showing that this method represents a valid model of real collaboration, based on participants' active engagement, lively negotiation, and awareness difficulties. We found that having the ability to define, reproduce, and systematically manipulate collaborative situations allowed us to assess the effect of realistic conditions on activity awareness in remote collaboration.

References

  1. Arrow H., McGrath, J. E. Berdahl, J. L., Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Co-ordination, Development, and Adaptation. Sage Publications, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, K. Heuristic Evaluation of Shared Workspace Groupware based on the Mechanics of Collaboration. MSc Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 4, (1959), 297--312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. M., Neale, D. C., Isenhour, P. L., Rosson, M. B., and McCrickard, D. S. Notification and awareness: synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. Int., Journ. of Human-Computer Studies 58, (2003) 605--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Clark, H. H. Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cockton, G., & Woolrych, A. Sale must end: Should discount methods be cleared off HCI's shelves?, interactions 9(5) (2002), 13--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Connolly, T., Jessup, L., & Valacich, J. S., "Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups," Management Science 36, (1990), 689--703. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Easterbrook, S. (ed.), CSCW: Co-operation or Conflict, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Endsley, M. R., Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37, (1995), 32--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin 51(4), (1954), 327--358.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ganoe, C. H., Somervell, J. P., Neale, D. C., Isenhour, P. L., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., and McCrickard, D. S. Classroom BRIDGE: Using Collaborative Public and Desktop Timelines to Support Activity Awareness. Proc. of the ACM '03 Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, ACM Press, (2003) 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Groove Networks Inc., http://www.Grove.com, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Grudin, J., Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces, Proc. CSCW'88, (1988), 85--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Gutwin, C. & Greenberg, S. (2000). The Mechanics of Collaboration: Developing Low Cost Usability Evaluation Methods for Shared Workspaces. IEEE 9th Int'l Workshop WET-ICE'00 (2000). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Gutwin, C. & Greenberg, S. Workspace Awareness Position paper for the ACM CHI'97 workshop on Awareness in Collaborative Systems, organized by McDaniel S. E., & Brinck T., Atlanta, Georgia (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutwin, C. & Greenberg, S., Workspace awareness for groupware. Proc. CHI'96, ACM Press, (1996), 208--209. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hayes-Roth, B. & Hayes-Roth, F. A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, (1979), 275--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kuutti, K. & Arvonen, T. Identifying potential CSCW applications by means of Activity Theory concepts: A case example. Proc. CSCW '92, ACM Press, (1992), 233--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. McGrath, J. E., Methodology matters: Doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. In R. M. Baecker, J. Grudin, W. A. S. Buxton, & S. Greenberg (Eds.), Readings in human-computer interaction: Toward the year 2000, Morgan Kaufmann, (1995), 152--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B., Team Mental Models: Expanding Theory and Measurement Through Cross-Disciplinary Boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (2001), 89--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Neale, D. C., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Evaluating Computer-Supported Co-operative Work: Models and Frameworks, Proc. CSCW '04, ACM Press, (2004) (to appear). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Neale, D. C., Carroll, J. M., 1999. Multi-faceted evaluation for complex, distributed activities. Proc. of the CSCL'99 Computer Supported Co-operative Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, 425--433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Pinelle, D., & Gutwin, C., Groupware walkthrough: Adding context to groupware usability evaluation. Proc. 2002, ACM Press, (2002) 455--462. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S., Task Analysis for Groupware Usability Evaluation: Modeling Shared-Workspace Tasks with the Mechanics of Collaboration, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10, (4) (2003), 281--311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Prinz W., Mark G., Pankoke-Babatz P. (1998), Designing Groupware for Congruency in Use, Proc. CSCW'98, ACM Press, 373--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ramage M., The Learning Way: Evaluating Co-operatives Systems, PhD thesis, Lancaster Univ., 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D. P., & Shrestha, L., Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurements and training, Human Factors, 37 (1995), 123--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Scriven, M. The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally, p. 39--83, 1967.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Steves, M., Morse, E., Gutwin, C., & Greengerg, S., A comparison of usage evaluation and inspection methods for assessing groupware usability. Proc. 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work. ACM Press (2001), 125--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Suchman, L. A. Plans and situated actions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Twidale, M. Randal, D., Bentley, R. (1994), Situated Evaluation for Co-operative Systems. Proc. CSCW'94, ACM Press (1994), 22--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Watts, L., Monk, A., & Daly-Jones, O. Inter-Personal Awareness and Synchronization: Assessing the Value of Communication Technologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 44 (6), (1996), 849--873. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Weisband, S., Overcoming social awareness in computer-supported groups: Does anonymity really help?, Proc. CSCW'94 (2) (1994), 285--297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Winograd, T., & Flores, F., Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    NordiCHI '04: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction
    October 2004
    472 pages
    ISBN:1581138571
    DOI:10.1145/1028014

    Copyright © 2004 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 23 October 2004

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader