The document summarizes an inquiry project comparing different methods of collaboration - asynchronous chat, synchronous chat, and face-to-face interaction. It describes multiple attempts to build something together using balloons and discusses the quality of interactions, tempo, and energy level for each method. It concludes that while asynchronous and synchronous chats allow collaboration over distance, face-to-face interaction led to more genuine collaboration, innovations, and was more emotionally challenging but resulted in the highest quality interactions through the combination of visual, kinesthetic and audible clues being simultaneously available.

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

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