• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Coherence, Engagement, and Usefulness as Sensemaking Criteria in Participatory Media Practice (CHI 2009)
 

Coherence, Engagement, and Usefulness as Sensemaking Criteria in Participatory Media Practice (CHI 2009)

on

  • 2,047 views

Slides presenting the article: ...

Slides presenting the article:

Selvin, A.M. and Buckingham Shum, S. (2009). Coherence, engagement, and usefulness as sensemaking criteria in participatory media practice. In: Sensemaking Workshop, ACM Computer-Human Interaction (CHI) Conference, 2009, 4-5 April 2009, Boston, MA, USA. ePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/12910

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,047
Views on SlideShare
1,484
Embed Views
563

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
15
Comments
0

2 Embeds 563

http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk 562
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Coherence, Engagement, and Usefulness as Sensemaking Criteria in Participatory Media Practice (CHI 2009) Coherence, Engagement, and Usefulness as Sensemaking Criteria in Participatory Media Practice (CHI 2009) Presentation Transcript

    • Last year in Florence   (I think it was) Stu Card asked: “Are we even talking about the same thing?”   I’m still not sure Informational Experiential Sensemaking Sensemaking
    • Coherence, Engagement, and Usefulness as Sensemaking Criteria in Participatory Media Practice Sensemaking Workshop, ACM CHI 2009 Conference, Boston Al Selvin * ** Simon Buckingham Shum * * Knowledge Media Institute Open University Milton Keynes, UK MK7 6AA ** Verizon Information Technology White Plains, NY USA 10604
    • This talk describes…   How the concepts of coherence, engagement, and usefulness…   …can contribute to an understanding of practitioner sensemaking…   …in the context of participatory media practice Current PhD research at the Knowledge Media Institute, Open University UK (advisor: Simon Buckingham Shum)
    • Practitioner sensemaking   A teacher stands in front of a class, lecturing on a math problem, when a student asks an unexpected question   A doctor gives a healthy patient their annual physical exam, and suddenly comes across a lump   A guitarist in the middle of a jazz improvisation hears the drummer change to an unusual beat An anomaly is encountered in the course of events, requiring action (often improvised) in response
    • Participatory media Involving participants in the creation of media artifacts
    • Participatory media practitioner   The person(s) orchestrating the participatory event, responsible for its success   Concerned with the quality of the representation and the participants’ relationship to it   Varying levels of intervention; not necessarily the ones with their hands on the equipment
    • Participatory hypermedia Collaborative, real-time shaping of a hypermedia artifact
    • A framework for participatory hypermedia practice
    • Specific focus   Practitioner moves and choices in participatory hypermedia sessions   How these contribute to the ways in which participants engage with the media artifacts   Special emphasis on the character of the real- time shaping of the representation   Not focusing on whether the tool/approach “works”   Rather, what’s the human experience of trying to make them work for participants
    • Setting Workshops held at NASA Ames And Rutgers University in 2007 Participants and practitioners had varying levels of experience with the tools
    • Setting
    • Format for the workshops   Small groups given a common task   Working from a prepared set of images, construct a collaborative representational task for the large group   Each group given 1 hour to plan a 15 minute session   Large group sessions   Typically, one person would act as mapper and one as facilitator   Each group took a different direction
    • Analytical tools Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing form analysis description analysis analysis
    • Analytical tools Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing form analysis description analysis analysis Characterizing the representational character of the whole session What kind of shaping took place?
    • Analytical tools Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing form analysis description analysis analysis Mapping the coherence, engagement, and usefulness dimensions of each timeslot to build up a signature for the session Aids in identifying sensemaking episodes
    • Analytical tools Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing form analysis description analysis analysis Rich description of sensemaking episode
    • Analytical tools Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing form analysis description analysis analysis Increasing theoretical sensitivity Characterizing the practitioner actions during the episode in aesthetic, ethical, and experiential terms (informed by theoretical framework)
    • The CEU criteria   Coherence   keeping the hypermedia representation and participant interactions understandable, clear, evocative, and organized   Engagement   the relationship of participants to the artifact   looking at it, talking about it, referring to it, and involved in its construction or reshaping   Usefulness   the extent to which the representation appears to be adding value for the participants and helping to fulfill the goals of the session
    • CEU grid Narrative descriptions of the activities in each 30 second timeslot CEU ratings for Coherence each Engagement timeslot Usefulness Absolute and Coherence relative timing descriptions for (bottom two rows each timeslot are timings from video recordings) Engagement descriptions Screenshots Usefulness when display descriptions had changed significantly
    • Comparing CEU across sessions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Ames Group 1 C E U Low Medium High Numeric Numeric Numeric Ames Group 2 C rating Color rating Color rating Color E 1 2 3 U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Ames Group 3 C E Good places to look for U discontinuities & Ames Group 4 C sensemaking moments E U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Rutgers Group 1 C Good places to look at E how (relative) equilibrium U was fostered and Rutgers Group 2 C maintained E U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Ames Rutgers Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 1 Group 2 Coherence 2.2 1.5 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.9 Engagement 2.7 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 Usefulness 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.8 2.8 3.0 Overall 2.3 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.9 3.0
    • What does this get us?   Insights into how shaping of participatory media artifacts takes place, and the character of practitioner sensemaking in situ   Working towards a methodology for characterizing the ethical dimensions of (participatory) media practice   Development of practitioner education and improved software support Making a complex phenomenon visible and fostering reflective practice
    • This research is part of… kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse compendium.open.ac.uk/institute knowledgeart.blogspot.com