User and Group Behavior in Computer
Support for Collaborative Reflection in
Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Michael...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Behavio...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
The Tal...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Sharing...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Explori...
How do people use tools supporting
collaborative reflection at work?
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Measuri...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Measuri...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Measuri...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Measuri...
Differences in the performance of groups using
collaborative reflection support
What influences activity and quality?
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Roles i...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Compari...
Collaborative reflection needs a critical mass of
activity
Groups with separated roles may
• create too little overall act...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
The rol...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
▪ Drawi...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
(One) I...
User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis
Thanks ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis - Talk at COOP Conference 2014

869
-1

Published on

Although reflection in groups has been shown to be beneficial for many workplaces, there are little insights on how such collaborative reflection can be supported and how users apply the support in practice. This paper aims to diminish this lack by analyzing usage figures and qualitative information from four cases of using a tool supporting collaborative reflection. From the analysis, it derives means to describe individual user and group behavior as well as implications for the design and application of support for collaborative reflection in practice.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
869
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Discrepancy
  • User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis - Talk at COOP Conference 2014

    1. 1. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Michael Prilla Information and Technology Management, Ruhr University of Bochum
    2. 2. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Behavior Ideas Feelings Returning to experience Attending to feelings Re-evaluating experience New perspectives Change in behavior Readiness for application Commitment to action Experience(s) Reflective process Outcomes Articulating, sharing (similar) experience(s) Articulating, sharing insights / outcomes Shared perspectives, shared understanding Coordinating and embedding group processes of reflection into work Critical / counterfactual thinking Inference, abstraction Boud (1985) Collaborative Reflection: Sharing, Communication
    3. 3. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis The TalkReflection App for Collaborative Reflection
    4. 4. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Sharing and communicating in context Referring to experiences Experience Report Comment
    5. 5. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Exploring Collaborative Reflection in Practice 4 Studies: Hospital, Care Home, Public Administration Neurological Hospital (DE) “How to act professionally in demanding situations?” Dementia Care Home (UK) “How to answer this question?” Interns in Public Administration (UK) “How to deal with challenges?” Parking departments (UK) “How to learn good practice from each other?”
    6. 6. How do people use tools supporting collaborative reflection at work?
    7. 7. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Measuring collaborative reflection Interest Interns Parking Care home Hospital Participants (all/active) 23/11 12/8 9/5 6/6 Days 32 32 63 49 Experience reports read 284 421 144 153 Experience reports read by active user 25.8 52.6 28.8 18.9 Experience reports read per day 12 14.3 2.4 3.1 Experiences commented on 21 (81%) 23 (45%) 11 (73%) 18 (86%) Experience reports read per comment 8.1 7.8 8 4.7 Length of threads 2.05 2.24 1.5 1.37
    8. 8. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Measuring collaborative reflection Feedback Interns Parking Care home Hospital Participants (all/active) 23/11 12/8 9/5 6/6 Days 32 32 63 49 Experience reports read 284 421 144 153 Experience reports read by active user 25.8 52.6 28.8 18.9 Experience reports read per day 12 14.3 2.4 3.1 Experiences commented on 21 (81%) 23 (45%) 11 (73%) 18 (86%) Experience reports read per comment 8.1 7.8 8 4.7 Length of threads 2.05 2.24 1.5 1.37
    9. 9. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Measuring collaborative reflection Quality Interns Parking Care home Hospital Participants (all/active) 23/11 12/8 9/5 6/6 Days 32 32 63 49 Experience reports read 284 421 144 153 Experience reports read by active user 25.8 52.6 28.8 18.9 Experience reports read per day 12 14.3 2.4 3.1 Experiences commented on 21 (81%) 23 (45%) 11 (73%) 18 (86%) Experience reports read per comment 8.1 7.8 8 4.7 Length of threads 2.05 2.24 1.5 1.37
    10. 10. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Measuring collaborative reflection Interest, Feedback and Quality Content analysis: Cases 1 and 2 outperform cases 3 and 4 in output: solutions, learning, change (Prilla and Renner 2014) Interns Parking Care home Hospital Participants (all/active) 23/11 12/8 9/5 6/6 Days 32 32 63 49 Experience reports read 284 421 144 153 Experience reports read by active user 25.8 52.6 28.8 18.9 Experience reports read per day 12 14.3 2.4 3.1 Experiences commented on 21 (81%) 23 (45%) 11 (73%) 18 (86%) Experience reports read per comment 8.1 7.8 8 4.7 Length of threads 2.05 2.24 1.5 1.37
    11. 11. Differences in the performance of groups using collaborative reflection support What influences activity and quality?
    12. 12. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Roles in Collaborative Reflection Example: Hospital 7 6 4 2 1 00 7 1 0 5 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 U4.1 U4.2 U4.3 U4.4 U4.5 U4.6 Documented experiences Comments 7 44 14 21 33 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 U4.1 U4.2 U4.3 U4.4 U4.5 U4.6 Shared experiences read Commenter: Mainly comments, little writing Documenter: Mainly reports, little reading / commenting Reader: Interest in other reports, little writing / commenting (Typical) Reflection participant: All activities
    13. 13. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Comparing the groups Interns and Hospital 7 6 4 2 1 00 7 1 0 5 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 U4.1 U4.2 U4.3 U4.4 U4.5 U4.6 Hospital 7 44 14 21 33 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 U4.1 U4.2 U4.3 U4.4 U4.5 U4.6 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 9 8 3 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 U1.1 U1.2 U1.3 U1.4 U1.5 U1.6 U1.7 U1.8 U1.9 U1.10 U1.11 InternsDocumented experiences Comments 64 24 29 6 12 18 20 21 27 28 33 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 U1.1 U1.2 U1.3 U1.4 U1.5 U1.6 U1.7 U1.8 U1.9 U1.10 U1.11 Shared experiences read Broad, active reflection group Separated roles, low activity Case 1 Case 4 Reports read per day 12 3.1 Avg. length of threads 2.05 1.37
    14. 14. Collaborative reflection needs a critical mass of activity Groups with separated roles may • create too little overall activity to succeed • complement / add on each others’ activities @ Walter Reich / Pixelio
    15. 15. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis The role of dominant users Reflection groups focused on one user 37 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 32 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 U2.1 U2.2 U2.3 U2.4 U2.5 U2.6 U2.7 U2.8 U2.9 Parking Documented experiences Comments 213 28 25 38 27 47 19 11 13 -30 20 70 120 170 220 U2.1 U2.2 U2.3 U2.4 U2.5 U2.6 U2.7 U2.8 U2.9 Shared experiences read 7 6 4 2 1 00 7 1 0 5 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 U4.1 U4.2 U4.3 U4.4 U4.5 U4.6 Hospital 7 44 14 21 33 12 -30 20 70 120 170 220 U4.1 U4.2 U4.3 U4.4 U4.5 U4.6 User 2.1: Driver of reflection, motivating participation, blocking other authors User 4.6: Providing (only) answers, hierarchical position, blocking further reflection Case 2 Case 4 Experience reports read 421 153 Avg. length on threads 2.24 1.37
    16. 16. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis ▪ Drawing conclusion 1 from Comparing stats / qualitative data 1 (e.g., lead user good/bad or critical mass and takeup) For collaborative reflection support a dominant user may • facilitate usage • support group activity • block participation • spoil reflection
    17. 17. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis (One) Implication: Activation and prompting ▪ Foster active participation in reflection ▪ Reflection mostly not implied by work ▪ Create interest, e.g. make documenters aware of relevant content ▪ Foster discussion, e.g. ask readers for comments ▪ Motivate sharing experiences, e.g. prompt commenters for reports ▪ Current activity: Content analysis for identification of key contributions in reflection ▪ Specific support of activities
    18. 18. User and Group Behavior in Computer Support for Collaborative Reflection in Practice: An Explorative Data Analysis Thanks for your attention. Questions? Michael Prilla michael.prilla@rub.de www.imtm-iaw.rub.de, www.mirror-project.eu michael.prilla imtm mirrorip
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×