Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
S Kerr Ip3 Part 2, Continued
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

S Kerr Ip3 Part 2, Continued

566
views

Published on

Part two of presentation about Inquiry Project 3. Please read PowerPoint notes for narration.

Part two of presentation about Inquiry Project 3. Please read PowerPoint notes for narration.

Published in: Technology

11 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • I analyzed the video to get the intervals between speakers. It was too difficult to clock each new idea offered, so the intervals represent when a different person began speaking. The rhythm is quite regular with the longer intervals representing times we were building, rather than communicating verbally.<br /><br/>
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • In spite of my doubts this package worked! In fact it bounced a few times. As we cut apart the packaging we found that the egg had no cracks at all! Hurray!<br /><br/>
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • We also blew up the balloon a little and placed it alongside the paper in the place where there was a break in the egg carton layer.<br /><br/>
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • We cushioned the egg directly with paper, surrounded the paper with the octagonal egg carton structure from the second package, and cut apart the toilet paper tube to use it as cushion in the place where there was a break in the egg carton layer.<br /><br/>
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • The egg broke more in this package than it had in the first package. We think that the stiff paper towel tube transferred much of the impact to the egg and broke it, so we decided to take a radically different approach for our third design.<br /><br/>
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
566
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
11
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. Inquiry Project 3, Continued By Sharon Kerr for EAD 806
    • 2. Face-to-face Interaction
      • Both of us were in Abu Dhabi working in the study of my house
    • 3. First Attempt: First Layer
    • 4. First Attempt: Reinforced Sides
    • 5. First Attempt: Balloon Cushion
    • 6. First Attempt: The drop
    • 7. Second Attempt: The Outer Layer
    • 8. Second Attempt: Inner Layer Added
    • 9. Second Attempt: The Drop
    • 10. Third Attempt: Overall View
    • 11. Third Attempt: Reinforced Cushion
    • 12. Third Attempt: The Drop
    • 13.  
    • 14. Conclusions: Flow
      • Energy was highest and most even in the synchronous chat.
      • Energy was lowest and most difficult to sustain in the asynchronous chat.
      • Energy ebbed after the second unsuccessful attempt in the face-to-face interaction, but returned to a high level after we had a snack
    • 15. Conclusions: Tempo and Rhythm
      • The tempo and rhythm of the asynchronous chat were the slowest and most deliberate
      • The tempo and rhythm of the synchronous chat and the in person work were surprisingly similar. Rhythm and Tempo were rapid during planning, slowed during building, and increased during reflection. This cycle repeated.
    • 16. Conclusions: Quality of Interactions, Asynchronous Chat
      • Quality of the writing was highest in the asynchronous chat. Each of us posted logical paragraphs and included thoughtful questions, but we felt as though we were working in isolation.
    • 17. Conclusions: Quality of Interactions, Synchronous Chat
      • Written posts were clear and brief
      • We only interacted visually when we shared photos in the end
      • During the building phases, we felt as though we were working on our own
      • We did not modify Jamie’s design, but simply tried to replicate it
    • 18. Conclusions: Quality of Interactions, face-to-face
      • The quality of the spoken interactions (analogous to the writing) was often low in the face-to-face work, but because of the combination with kinesthetic and visual communication our ideas genuinely developed and we made more innovations and design changes. Face-to-face work also required the most patience, since we had to share the structure.
    • 19. Overall Conclusions
      • All of the means of collaboration worked to some degree
      • The asset of synchronous and asynchronous chats is that you can collaborate with people who are very far away
      • You also get to do everything yourself during the building phase
    • 20. Overall Conclusions
      • However, the face-to-face problem solving involved much more genuine collaboration and a greater variety of innovations
      • It seems this was because visual, kinesthetic, and audible clues were simultaneously available
      • This method was also the most emotionally challenging one, since it required patience