Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

CoCoDeS: Multi-device Support for Collocated Collaborative Learning Design @ OZCHI 2016

283 views

Published on

We propose a novel principled approach and the toolset to
support collocated team-based educational design. We
scaffold teams of teachers as designers creating rapid
high-level course designs. We provide teachers with an
ecology of digital and non-digital devices, an embedded
design pattern library and a design dashboard. The toolset
is situated within a purpose-built educational design
studio and includes a set of surface devices that allow
teachers to manipulate iconic representations of a course
design and get real-time design analytics on selected
parameters. The contribution of the paper is a description
of the rationale for, implementation and evaluation of, an
innovative toolset that sits in an ecology of resources to
support collocated educational design.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CoCoDeS: Multi-device Support for Collocated Collaborative Learning Design @ OZCHI 2016

  1. 1. Roberto Martinez-Maldonado Peter Goodyear Multi device Support for Colocated Collaborative Design for Learning @RobertoResearch
  2. 2. F2F interaction is great for tasks like: Collaboration Ideation Storytelling Problem solving Negotiation Designing Collective thinking Team work Projects WICKED PROBLEMS …
  3. 3. Many times teams fail for varied reasons like: Inadequate tools, Social conflicts, Ill-defined tasks Personal differences, Limited resources …. and other situations hard to explain …
  4. 4. Supporting collaboration is not new: Collaborative Work (CSCW) and Learning to Collaborate and by Collaborating (CSCL)
  5. 5. Historical work on CSCW spaces (iLand) Streitz et al,, 1997 Bowers& Martin, 1991 Heat & Luff, 1991 (Roomware) Streitz et al,, 2000
  6. 6. Understanding collaboration is getting even more complex … as interactive surfaces become more accessible and pervasive
  7. 7. Yao et al., 2006 CSCW spaces-more recent work Wigdor et al., 2006 Luff et al., 2015 Marquardt, 2013
  8. 8. Understanding collaboration is still a key first step for designing better systems
  9. 9. Analysis Problem 1: Oversimplification, Quantification, Too much Focus (e.g. only on tools)
  10. 10. Analysis Alternative: Ethnography Problem: Quite expensive What happens if: we are not ethnographers? we don’t have the resources? parts of the analysis need to be automated? we need to provide support on the fly? we need to combine quantitative methods?  …..
  11. 11. Our contribution A toolset that sits in an ecology of resources to support collocated educational design (OZCHI’ 16). A holistic analysis approach to support the selection of analytical tools and interpretation of results (CHI’ 16*) *Martinez-Maldonado, R., Goodyear, P., J.Kay, Thompson, K., and Carvalho (2016) An Actionable Approach to Understand Group Experience in Complex, Multi-surface Spaces. SIGCHI Conference: Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2016, 2062-2074.
  12. 12. Our Analysis Framework (4 pieces)
  13. 13. Physical component the place in which activity unfolds, the physical and digital space and objects; the input devices, screens, software, material tools, awareness tools, artefacts, etc.
  14. 14. Social component types of groupings (e.g. dyads, trios, groups, networks of people); scripted roles; divisions of labour, etc,
  15. 15. Epistemic component implicit and explicit knowledge- oriented elements that shape the participants’ tasks and working methods
  16. 16. Enactment of the Designed Tasks
  17. 17. ACAD framework: Design -> Runtime
  18. 18. Our 3+1 components ACAD framework
  19. 19. Background: JiAnn Falleta Collocated Educational Design
  20. 20. TASK: Educational Design An educational design describes the tasks, materials, pedagogies and social dynamics for educators and their students aimed at providing learning opportunities in students’ face-to-face or online activities, over a particular time period
  21. 21. The studio CSCL Slide
  22. 22. Design patterns Pattern catalogue Editing learning tasks Learning workflows
  23. 23. DEMOGRAPHICS Four teams (A, B, C and D),- 4 male and 8 female Expertise teaching (4 advanced, 5 competent and 3 novice) and educational design (5 advanced) Tool experience: 8/12 participants had used an interactive tabletop 7/12 an interactive 5/12 had used both and all used tablets Goal: produce two high-level competing candidate designs Roles (Lecturer-L, Learning Designer-LD and Quality Assurance Officer-QAO)
  24. 24. A B C D User experience Set, Social, Epistemic Tools use Set, Social, Epistemic Attention Set, Social, Epistemic Space and mobility Set, Social, Epistemic Process Set, Social, Epistemic Roles Set, Social, Epistemic Teams Analyses Components Co-configuration ACAD ANALYSIS
  25. 25. 1- Usability Inspired by: Berkman and Karahoca. 2012. A direct touch table-top display as a multi-user information kiosk: Comparing the usability of a single display groupware either by a single user or people cooperating as a group. IwC, 24, 5 (September 1, 2012), 423-437. Umux
  26. 26. A B C D User experience 1 frustrated 3 inefficiency 1 frustrated No issues reported 1 frustrated 2 inefficiency Set, Social, Epistemic Tools use* Set, Social, Epistemic Attention* Set, Social, Epistemic Space and mobility Set, Social, Epistemic Process Set, Social, Epistemic Roles Set, Social, Epistemic Teams Analyses Components Co-configuration ACAD ANALYSIS
  27. 27. Method 1 2-3- Tools usage and attention
  28. 28. A B C D User experience 1 frustrated 3 inefficiency 1 frustrated No issues reported 1 frustrated 2 inefficiency Set, Social, Epistemic Tools use Tabletop Tabletop (1 member only) Tabletop, IWB and Wall Tabletop, IWB, dashboard and Wall Set, Social, Epistemic Attention Projector Dashboard, IWB, Projector IWB, Wall Dashboard, Projector, IWB, Wall Set, Social, Epistemic Space and mobility Set, Social, Epistemic Process Set, Social, Epistemic Roles Set, Social, Epistemic Teams Analyses Components Co-configuration ACAD ANALYSIS
  29. 29. 5- Space and Mobility Inspired by : Marquardt, Hinckley and Greenberg. 2012. Cross-device interaction via micro-mobility and f- formations. In UIST '12, 13-22
  30. 30. A B C D User experience 1 frustrated 3 inefficiency 1 frustrated No issues reported 1 frustrated 2 inefficiency Set, Social, Epistemic Tools use Tabletop Tabletop (1 member only) Tabletop, IWB and Wall Tabletop, IWB, dashboard and Wall Set, Social, Epistemic Attention Projector Dashboard, IWB, Projector IWB, Wall Dashboard, Projector, IWB, Wall Set, Social, Epistemic Space and mobility Fixed: SxS at the tabletop Fixed: 1 f2f and 2 sxd at the tabletop Variable: sxs at all the large devices Set, Social, Epistemic Process Set, Social, Epistemic Roles Set, Social, Epistemic Teams Analyses Components Co-configuration ACAD ANALYSIS Variable: 1 at IWB, f2f/sxs at the tabletop, sxs at the Wall
  31. 31. 6- Processes
  32. 32. A B C D User experience 1 frustrated 3 inefficiency 1 frustrated No issues reported 1 frustrated 2 inefficiency Set, Social, Epistemic Tools use Tabletop Tabletop (1 member only) Tabletop, IWB and Wall Tabletop, IWB, dashboard and Wall Set, Social, Epistemic Attention Projector Dashboard, IWB, Projector IWB, Wall Dashboard, Projector, IWB, Wall Set, Social, Epistemic Space and mobility Fixed: SxS at the tabletop Fixed: 1 f2f and 2 sxd at the tabletop Variable: sxs at all the large devices Set, Social, Epistemic Process Linear work Linear work + meta-analysis Parallel and Linear work Parallel, Iterative work + meta-analysis Set, Social, Epistemic Roles Set, Social, Epistemic Teams Analyses Components Co-configuration ACAD ANALYSIS Variable: 1 at IWB, f2f/sxs at the tabletop, sxs at the Wall
  33. 33. Strategies1
  34. 34. A B C D User experience 1 frustrated 3 inefficiency 1 frustrated No issues reported 1 frustrated 2 inefficiency Set, Social, Epistemic Tools use Tabletop Tabletop (1 member only) Tabletop, IWB and Wall Tabletop, IWB, dashboard and Wall Set, Social, Epistemic Attention Projector Dashboard, IWB, Projector IWB, Wall Dashboard, Projector, IWB, Wall Set, Social, Epistemic Space and mobility Fixed: SxS at the tabletop Fixed: 1 f2f and 2 sxd at the tabletop Variable: sxs at all the large devices Set, Social, Epistemic Process Linear work Linear work + meta-analysis Parallel and Linear work Parallel, Iterative work + meta-analysis Set, Social, Epistemic Roles Low differentiation Strict enactment Loose enactment Strong Leader Strict enactment, Distributed workload Set, Social, Epistemic Teams Analyses Components Co-configuration ACAD ANALYSIS Variable: 1 at IWB, f2f/sxs at the tabletop, sxs at the Wall
  35. 35. Conclusions (Based on the cases) Each team worked differently The design was enacted in different ways. The most effective teams used a limited range of tools. The most creative ones, were the more messy. Social (e.g. roles) and epistemic (process) components radically shaped the activity
  36. 36. We need more holistic approaches to understand collaborative activity in its full complexity Not just an agglomeration of methods: making sense of the intertwined dimensions that shape group work is key Some analysis methods can be automated, semi-automated or elicited Design is only a proposal (see Instrumental Genesis) Conclusions
  37. 37. We are hiring! 3 PHD positions available in areas of DATA SCIENCE & HCI At Sydney (University of Technology Sydney) https://utscic.edu.au/research/phd/
  38. 38. Thanks! Acknowledgments: Peter Goodyear Judy Kay Kate Thompson Lucila Carvalho Anonymous reviewers Laia (video editing) Contact: @RobertoResearch Roberto.MartinezMaldonado.net

×