research-article

Metaphor or diagram?: comparing different representations for group mirrors

Authors:

Karsten Stegmann,

Heinrich Hußmann,

Frank FischerAuthors Info & Claims

OZCHI '09: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7

Pages 249 - 256

https://doi.org/10.1145/1738826.1738866

Published: 23 November 2009 Publication History

Abstract

This paper aims at answering the question how ambient displays can be used as group mirrors to support collaborative (learning) activities. Our research question is to what extent the type of feedback representation affects collaborative processes. Two different representations have been created and compared in a user study: a diagram and a metaphor. In the diagram version the quality rating for each person is explicitly shown in charts and numbers. In the metaphorical representation feedback is implicitly visualized by changing certain characteristics of a pictorial scene. The results show that the metaphoric group mirror was not only more popular than the diagram, it also had a greater impact on the group behavior. When receiving negative feedback from the metaphoric group mirror, a correction of behavior was made significantly faster than with the diagram. Furthermore, both group mirrors had a positive effect on the self-regulation of the group compared to the baseline condition without feedback.

References

[1]

Bachour, K., Kaplan, F., and Dillenbourg, P. Reflect: An interactive table for regulating face-to-face collaborative learning. In Times of Convergence. Technologies Across Learning Contexts. Springer (2008), 39--48.

Digital Library

[2]

Baker, M., and Lund, K. Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3). Wiley (1997), 175--193.

[3]

Bergstrom, T., and Karahalios, K. Conversation clock: Visualizing audio patterns in co-located groups. Proc. HICSS '07. IEEE Computer Society (2007), 78.

Digital Library

[4]

Dillenbourg, P. Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In: Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., Spada, H. (Eds.), Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication. Springer, (2005), 497--501.

[5]

DiMicco, J. M., Pandolfo, A., and Bender, W. Influencing group participation with a shared display. Proc. CSCW '04. ACM Press (2004), 614--623.

Digital Library

[6]

Dourish, P. and Bly, S. Portholes: supporting awareness in a distributed work group. Proc. 'CHI 92. ACM Press (1992), 541--547.

Digital Library

[7]

Espinosa, A., Cadiz, J., Rico-Gutierrez, L., Kraut, R., Scherlis, W., and Lautenbacher, G. Coming to the wrong decision quickly: why awareness tools must be matched with appropriate tasks. Proc. CHI '00. ACM Press (2000), 392--399.

Digital Library

[8]

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1). SAGE (2007), 81--112.

[9]

Ishii, H., Wisneski, C., Brave, S., Dahley, A., Gorbet, M., Ullmer, B., and Yarin, P. Ambient displays: Turning architectural space into an interface between people and digital information. Proc. CoBuild '98. Springer (1998), 22--32.

Digital Library

[10]

Jermann, P., Soller, A., and Muehlenbrock, M. From Mirroring to Guiding: A review of the state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. Proc. EuroCSCL '01. IOS Press (2001), 324--331.

Digital Library

[11]

Kelley, J. F. An empirical methodology for writing user-friendly natural language computer applications. Proc. CHI '83. ACM Press (1983), 193--196.

Digital Library

[12]

King, A. Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York: Springer (2007), 13--37.

[13]

Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., and Fischer, F. Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Springer (2007) 2--3.

[14]

Kollar, I., Fischer, F., and Slotta, J. D. Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning & Instruction, 17(6). Elsevier (2007), 708--721.

[15]

Lee, A., Girgensohn, A., and Schlueter, K. NYNEX Portholes: Initial User Reactions and Redesign Implications. Proc. GROUP '97. ACM Press (1997), 385--394.

Digital Library

[16]

Lengler R., and Eppler, M. J. Towards A Periodic Table of Visualization Methods for Management Proc. GVE 2007. ACTA Press (2007), 1--6.

Digital Library

[17]

Lohse, G. L., Biolsi, K., Walker, N., and Rueter, H. H. A classification of visual representations. Communications of the ACM 37(12). ACM Press (1994), 36--49.

Digital Library

[18]

Mankoff, J., Dey, A. K., Hsieh, G., Kientz, J., Lederer, S., and Ames, M. Heuristic evaluation of ambient displays. Proc. CHI '03. ACM Press (2003), 169--176.

Digital Library

[19]

Mathur, P., and Karahalios, K. Visualizing remote voice conversations. Proc. CHI EA '09, ACM Press (2009), 4675--4680.

Digital Library

[20]

McCarthy, J. F., and Meidel, E. S. ActiveMap: A Visualization Tool for Location Awareness to Support Informal Interactions. Proc. HUC '99. Springer (1999), 158--170.

Digital Library

[21]

Nesbitt, K. V., and Shen, R. Butterfly/Dragonfly -- An Ambient Display of Stock Market Data. In Journal of Engineering, Computing and Architecture 1(1). Scientific Jounals International (2007).

[22]

Redström, J., Skog, T., and Hallnäs, L. Informative art: using amplified artworks as information displays. Proc. of DARE '00. ACM Press (2000), 103--114.

Digital Library

[23]

Rosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., and Fischer, F. Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 3(3). Springer (2008), 237--271.

[24]

Shneiderman, B. The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. Proc. Visual Languages 1996, IEEE (1996), 336--343.

Digital Library

[25]

Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., and Fischer, F. Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4). Springer (2007), 421--447.

[26]

Toulmin, S. The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press (1958).

[27]

Weinberger, A. Scripts for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Unpublished doctoral diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München (2003).

Cited By

Farshad SZorin EAmangeldiuly NFortin C(2023)Engagement assessment in project-based education: a machine learning approach in team chat analysisEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-12381-529:10(13105-13131)Online publication date: 11-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12381-5
Wölfel M(2020)Non-distracting Feedback in Artificial Intelligence Supported LearningArtificial Intelligence Supported Educational Technologies10.1007/978-3-030-41099-5_2(31-44)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41099-5_2
Glikson EWoolley AGupta PKim Y(2019)Visualized Automatic Feedback in Virtual TeamsFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0081410Online publication date: 16-Apr-2019
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00814
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Metaphor or diagram?: comparing different representations for group mirrors
1. Human-centered computing

Recommendations

Groupgarden: supporting brainstorming through a metaphorical group mirror on table or wall
NordiCHI '14: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational

To ensure the productivity of brainstorming, group members have to observe several rules. Nevertheless, problems such as free riding or imbalanced participation can occur. We present Groupgarden, a metaphorical group mirror providing feedback about ...
The Metaphor-Simulation Paradox in the Study of Computer Games

This article discusses the metaphor-simulation paradox in the study of computer games. It is derived from three observations. Firstly, often when authors use the concept of metaphor with regard to games they use it in conceptual and textual vicinity to ...
Intuition Pumps

The award of the 2003 Barwise Prize to Daniel Dennett by the American Philosophical Association signifies Dennett's importance in the developing area of philosophical inquiry into computing and information. One source of Dennett's intellectual stature ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

OZCHI '09: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7

November 2009

445 pages

ISBN:9781605588544

DOI:10.1145/1738826

Conference Chair:
Marcus Foth
Queensland University of Technology
,
Program Chairs:
Jesper Kjeldskov
Aalborg University
,
Jeni Paay
CSIRO

Copyright © 2009 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 November 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

OZCHI '09

OZCHI '09: Proceedings of the 21st conference of the computer-human interaction special interest group of Australia on Computer-human interaction: design

November 23 - 27, 2009

Melbourne, Australia

Acceptance Rates

OZCHI '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 32 of 60 submissions, 53%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 362 of 729 submissions, 50%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

14
Total Citations
View Citations
254
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)12
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Farshad SZorin EAmangeldiuly NFortin C(2023)Engagement assessment in project-based education: a machine learning approach in team chat analysisEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-12381-529:10(13105-13131)Online publication date: 11-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12381-5
Wölfel M(2020)Non-distracting Feedback in Artificial Intelligence Supported LearningArtificial Intelligence Supported Educational Technologies10.1007/978-3-030-41099-5_2(31-44)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41099-5_2
Glikson EWoolley AGupta PKim Y(2019)Visualized Automatic Feedback in Virtual TeamsFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0081410Online publication date: 16-Apr-2019
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00814
Liu ANesbit J(2019)Dashboards for Computer-Supported Collaborative LearningMachine Learning Paradigms10.1007/978-3-030-13743-4_9(157-182)Online publication date: 17-Mar-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13743-4_9
Lachand VSerna ATabard AMarty JLalanne DNigay L(2016)The impact of indexical and symbolic indicators on the regulation of collaborative activities.Actes de la 28ième conference francophone sur l'Interaction Homme-Machine10.1145/3004107.3004115(144-154)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3004107.3004115
Tausch STa SHussmann HKaye JDruin ALampe CMorris DHourcade J(2016)A Comparison of Cooperative and Competitive Visualizations for Co-located CollaborationProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/2858036.2858072(5034-5039)Online publication date: 7-May-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2858036.2858072
Kelly RWatts LPayne SGergle DMorris MBjørn PKonstan J(2016)Can Visualization of Contributions Support Fairness in Collaboration?Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing10.1145/2818048.2819977(664-678)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2818048.2819977
Tausch SCosley DForte ACiolfi LMcDonald D(2015)Investigating the Different Characteristics of Group MirrorsProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing10.1145/2685553.2699333(109-112)Online publication date: 28-Feb-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2685553.2699333
Martinez-Maldonado RYacef KKay J(2015)TSCLInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.00183:C(62-82)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.001
Tausch SHausen DKosan IRaltchev AHussmann HRoto VHäkkilä JVäänänen-Vainio-Mattila KJuhlin OOlsson THvannberg E(2014)GroupgardenProceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational10.1145/2639189.2639215(541-550)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2639189.2639215
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents