Embedding Thinking Strategies within a Tangible Tree to Orchestrate Small Group Brainstorming
Article No.: 13, Pages 1 - 18
Abstract
Small group brainstorming has been widely used for learning, business, and marketing, but most of the time, group brainstorming is ineffective. New technologies, especially tangible user interfaces, open new potentials for improving the group brainstorming experience. In this paper, we designed and developed a tangible device named IdeaTree to improve small group brainstorming. IdeaTree encapsulated the famous group brainstorming theory Six Thinking Hats [22] to orchestrate the brainstorming processes. We conducted within-subject user studies with 32 participants and one group moderator. Each group had three users who used traditional paper-pen and IdeaTree to brainstorm. The results showed that small group brainstorming with IdeaTree a) created and orchestrated a productive brainstorming process; b) did not influence participants’ overall talking time but equalized the group conversation; c) significantly increased participants’ sense of immersion and social interaction. Our main contribution is that IdeaTree was a meaningful exploration to make the communicative and collaborative space benefit from the tangible advantages.
References
[1]
[n.d.]. Six Thinking Hats. https://www.groupmap.com/portfolio/six-thinking-hats. Accessed: 2022-10-29.
[2]
[n.d.]. What Are The Six Thinking Hats? And How to Use Them?https://www.designorate.com/the-six-hats-of-critical-thinking-and-how-to-use-them/. Accessed: 2022-10-18.
[3]
Sreeramana Aithal and Shubhrajyotsna Aithal. 2016. Using Six Thinking Hats as a Tool for Lateral Thinking in Organizational Problem Solving. International Journal of Engineering Research and Modern Education (IJERME), ISSN (Online): 2455 - 4200 1 (12 2016), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.198724
[4]
Hosam Al-Samarraie and Shuhaila Hurmuzan. 2018. A Review of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.002
[5]
Aloha Hufana Ambe, Margot Brereton, Alessandro Soro, and Paul Roe. 2017. Technology Individuation: The Foibles of Augmented Everyday Objects. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6632–6644. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025770
[6]
Alissa N. Antle, Alyssa F. Wise, and Kristine Nielsen. 2011. Towards Utopia: Designing Tangibles for Learning(IDC ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/1999030.1999032
[7]
Uddipana Baishya, Alissa N. Antle, and Elgin-Skye McLaren. 2019. Idea Bits: A Tangible Design Tool to Aid Idea Generation for Tangible Manipulation. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312820
[8]
Uddipana Baishya, Alissa N. Antle, and Carman Neustaedter. 2021. Exploring Opportunities to Aid Generation of Input Action Ideas for Tangible User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 476, 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445713
[9]
Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, Amanda Lazar, and Norman Makoto Su. 2019. (Re-)Framing Menopause Experiences for HCI and Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300345
[10]
Henri Barki and Alain Pinsonneault. 2001. Small Group Brainstorming and Idea Quality. Small Group Research - SMALL GROUP RES 32 (04 2001), 158–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200203
[11]
Jonali Baruah and Paul B. Paulus. 2016. The Role of Time and Category Relatedness in Electronic Brainstorming. Small Group Research 47, 3 (2016), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416642296
[12]
Lars Bollen, Guillermo Juarez, Micha Westermann, and H. Ulrich Hoppe. 2006. PDAs as Input Devices in Brainstorming and Creative Discussions. In 2006 Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education (WMTE’06). 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2006.261362
[13]
Nathalie Bonnardel and John Didier. 2020. Brainstorming Variants to Favor Creative Design. Applied Ergonomics 83 (2020), 102987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102987
[14]
Vincent Brown and Paul Paulus. 2002. Making Group Brainstorming More Effective: Recommendations From an Associative Memory Perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11 (12 2002), 208–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00202
[15]
Kevin Byron. 2012. Creative reflections on brainstorming. London Review of Education 10 (07 2012), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2012.691284
[16]
L. Camacho and Paul Paulus. 1995. The Role of Social Anxiousness in Group Brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (06 1995), 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1071
[17]
Ting-Ju Chen, Ronak R. Mohanty, Miguel Hoffmann Rodriguez, and Vinayak Krishnamurthy. 2019. Collaborative Mind-Mapping: A Study of Patterns, Strategies, and Evolution of Maps Created by Peer-Pairs. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2019-98125
[18]
Jane Marie Cioffi. 2017. Collaborative Care: Using Six Thinking Hats for Decision Making. International Journal of Nursing Practice 23, 6 (2017), e12593. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12593
[19]
Andrew John Clayphan, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, and Judy Kay. 2017. A Student-Facing Dashboard for Supporting Sensemaking about the Brainstorm Process at a Multi-Surface Space. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) (OzCHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152771.3152777
[20]
Terry Connolly, Robert Routhieaux, and Sherry Schneider. 1993. On the Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming: Test of One Underlying Cognitive Mechanism. Small Group Research 24 (11 1993), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496493244004
[21]
Edward De Bono. 1985. Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business Management. Little Brown and Company.
[22]
Edward De Bono. 2000. Six Thinking Hats (Revised and Updated). Penguin Life.
[23]
Saroja Dhanapal. 2013. A Study to Investigate How Six Thinking Hats Enhance the Learning of Environmental Studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSRJRME) 1 (01 2013), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0162029
[24]
José Van Dijck. 2021. Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Visualizing Platformization and Its Governance. New Media & Society 23, 9 (2021), 2801–2819. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820940293
[25]
Courtney Dornburg, Susan Adams, George Davidson, and Stacey Hendrickson. 2008. Individual and Group Electronic Brainstorming in an Industrial Setting. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 52 (09 2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805200503
[26]
Orly Dotan-Eliaz, Kristin L. Sommer, and Yonata S. Rubin. 2009. Multilingual Groups: Effects of Linguistic Ostracism on Felt Rejection and Anger, Coworker Attraction, Perceived Team Potency, and Creative Performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 31, 4 (2009), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903317177
[27]
Kenneth P. Fishkin. 2004. A Taxonomy for and Analysis of Tangible Interfaces. 8, 5 (sep 2004), 347–358.
[28]
Fong-Ling Fu, Rong-Chang Su, and Sheng-Chin Yu. 2009. EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education 52, 1 (2009), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.004
[29]
Olga Goldenberg and Jennifer Wiley. 2019. Individual and Group Brainstorming: Does the Question Matter?Creativity Research Journal 31, 3 (2019), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1619399
[30]
Ummu Hani, Ismail Petrus, and Margaretha Dinar Sitinjak. 2016/11. The Effect of Six Thinking Hats and Critical Thinking on Speaking Achievement. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 9). Atlantis Press, 85–88. https://doi.org/10.2991/conaplin-16.2017.18
[31]
Shalya Hirschson, Elzette Fritz, and Dean Kilian. 2018. The Tree of Life as a Metaphor for Grief in AIDS-Orphaned Adolescents. American Journal of Dance Therapy 40, 1 (01 Jun 2018), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10465-017-9243-7
[32]
JESSICA A. HOBSON and R. PETER HOBSON. 2007. Identification: The Missing Link between Joint Attention and Imitation?Development and Psychopathology 19, 2 (2007), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579407070204
[33]
Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a Grip on Tangible Interaction: A Framework on Physical Space and Social Interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montréal, Québec, Canada) (CHI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124838
[34]
Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and Atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’97). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258715
[35]
Steven J Karau and Janice R Kelly. 1992. The Effects of Time Scarcity and Time Abundance on Group Performance Quality and Interaction Process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28, 6 (1992), 542–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90045-L
[36]
David Klahr, Lara Triona, and Cameron Williams. 2007. Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical Versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44 (01 2007), 183 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20152
[37]
Annakaisa Kultima, Johannes Niemelä, Janne Paavilainen, and Hannamari Saarenpää. 2008. Designing Game Idea Generation Games. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (Future Play ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1145/1496984.1497007
[38]
Yanhong Li, Aditi Kothiyal, Thomas Weber, Beat Rossmy, Sven Mayer, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2022. Designing Tangible as an Orchestration Tool for Collaborative Activities. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 6, 5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6050030
[39]
Yanhong Li, Meng Liang, Julian Preissing, Nadine Bachl, Michelle Melina Dutoit, Thomas Weber, Sven Mayer, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2022. A Meta-Analysis of Tangible Learning Studies from the TEI Conference. In Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Daejeon, Republic of Korea) (TEI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490149.3501313
[40]
Marcela Litcanu, Octavian Prostean, Cosmin Oros, and Alin Vasile Mnerie. 2015. Brain-Writing Vs. Brainstorming Case Study For Power Engineering Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015), 387–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.452
[41]
Andrés Lucero, Jaakko Keränen, and Hannu Korhonen. 2010. Collaborative Use of Mobile Phones for Brainstorming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Lisbon, Portugal) (MobileHCI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 337–340. https://doi.org/10.1145/1851600.1851659
[42]
Milena S. Markova, Stephanie Wilson, and Simone Stumpf. 2012. Tangible user interfaces for learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 4, 3-4 (2012), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051578
[43]
Bernhard Maurer, Michael Lankes, Barbara Stiglbauer, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2016. EyeCo: Effects of Shared Gaze on Social Presence in an Online Cooperative Game. In Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2016, Günter Wallner, Simone Kriglstein, Helmut Hlavacs, Rainer Malaka, Artur Lugmayr, and Hyun-Seung Yang (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 102–114.
[44]
Brian Mullen, Craig Johnson, and Eduardo Salas. 1991. Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-Analytic Integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12, 1 (1991), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1
[45]
Bernard A. Nijstad, Wolfgang Stroebe, and Hein F.M. Lodewijkx. 1999. Persistence of Brainstorming Groups: How Do People Know When to Stop?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35, 2 (1999), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1374
[46]
Azeez Olugbenga. 2016. Six Thinking Hats and Social Workers’ Innovative Competence: An Experimental Study. 7 (08 2016).
[47]
Alex Osborn. 1953. Applied Imagination - Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York, Scribner. https://archive.org/details/appliedimaginati00osborich (Visited 2022-10-14).
[48]
Paul B. Paulus and Vincent R. Brown. 2007. Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1, 1 (2007), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x
[49]
Paul B. Paulus, Mary T. Dzindolet, George Poletes, and L. Mabel Camacho. 1993. Perception of Performance in Group Brainstorming: The Illusion of Group Productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19, 1 (1993), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293191009
[50]
Tam Phan, Doug A. Bowman, and Sang Won Lee. 2022. Integrating Traditional Input Devices to Support Rapid Ideation in an Augmented-Reality-Based Brainstorming. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Online, CA, USA) (SUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 30, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3565970.3567692
[51]
Johan Redström. 2008. Tangled Interaction: On the Expressiveness of Tangible User Interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 15, 4, Article 16 (dec 2008), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460355.1460358
[52]
John T.E. Richardson. 2018. The Use of Latin-square Designs in Educational and Psychological Research. Educational Research Review 24 (2018), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.003
[53]
Eric F. Rietzschel, Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe. 2006. Productivity Is not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorming Groups on Idea Generation and Selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42, 2 (2006), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005
[54]
Simone M. Ritter and Nel M. Mostert. 2018. How to Facilitate a Brainstorming Session: The Effect of Idea Generation Techniques and of Group Brainstorm after Individual Brainstorm. Creative Industries Journal 11, 3 (2018), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2018.1523662
[55]
John R. Rossiter and Gary L. Lilien. 1994. New "Brainstorming" Principles. Australian Journal of Management 19, 1 (1994), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289629401900104
[56]
Gianluca Schiavo, Alessandro Cappelletti, Eleonora Mencarini, Oliviero Stock, and Massimo Zancanaro. 2016. Influencing Participation in Group Brainstorming Through Ambient Intelligence. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 32, 3 (2016), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1136179
[57]
Orit Shaer and Eva Hornecker. 2009. Tangible User Interfaces: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 3 (01 2009), 1–137. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000026
[58]
Garriy Shteynberg. 2015. Shared Attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, 5 (2015), 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615589104
[59]
Del Siegle. 2020. I Have an Idea I Need to Share: Using Technology to Enhance Brainstorming. Gifted Child Today 43, 3 (2020), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520919967
[60]
J Simkus. 2022. Within-Subjects Design: Examples, Pros & Cons. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html. Accessed: 2022-10-24.
[61]
Barbora Siposova and Malinda Carpenter. 2019. A New Look at Joint Attention and Common Knowledge. Cognition 189 (2019), 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.03.019
[62]
Hyo-Jeong So and Thomas A. Brush. 2008. Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education 51, 1 (2008), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
[63]
Wolfgang Stroebe and Michael Diehl. 1994. Why Groups are less Effective than their Members: On Productivity Losses in Idea-generating Groups. European Review of Social Psychology 5, 1 (1994), 271–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000084
[64]
Sarah Tausch, Doris Hausen, Ismail Kosan, Andrey Raltchev, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2014. Groupgarden: Supporting Brainstorming through a Metaphorical Group Mirror on Table or Wall. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (Helsinki, Finland) (NordiCHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639215
[65]
Amy Van Looy. 2021. How the COVID-19 Pandemic Can Stimulate More Radical Business Process Improvements: Using the Metaphor of a Tree. Knowledge and Process Management 28, 2 (2021), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1659
[66]
Tatiana Vershinina and Olga Kocheva. 2015. Adaptation of Foreign Students to the Foreign Culture Learning Environment Using the Six Thinking Hats Method. International Education Studies 8 (05 2015). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n6p124
[67]
Hao-Chuan Wang, Susan R. Fussell, and Dan Cosley. 2011. From Diversity to Creativity: Stimulating Group Brainstorming with Cultural Differences and Conversationally-Retrieved Pictures. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Hangzhou, China) (CSCW ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958864
[68]
William Widjaja and Makoto Takahashi. 2016. Distributed Interface for Group Affinity-diagram Brainstorming. Concurrent Engineering 24, 4 (2016), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X16657860
[69]
Chauncey Wilson. 2006. Brainstorming pitfalls and best practices. Interactions 13 (09 2006), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151314.1151342
[70]
Chauncey Wilson. 2013. Brainstorming and Beyond: A User-centered Design Method. Newnes.
[71]
M.L. Wong, C.W. Khong, and H. Thwaites. 2012. Applied UX and UCD Design Process in Interface Design. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 51 (2012), 703–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.228
[72]
Alexopoulos Y., Angelou L., Venetia Barbopoulou, Vasileios Bellis, Athanasios Devetzidis, Douvitsa I., Kavoulakos K.I., Nektaria Marava, Kostas Nikolaou, Andreas Oikonomou, Papafilippou A., and Maria M.P.2020. Skills in Social Economy - Educator’s Manual.
[73]
Eleni Zalavra and Katerina Makri. 2022. Relocating Online a Technology-Enhanced Microteaching Practice in Teacher Education: Challenges and Implications. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 20, 3 (2022), 270–283.
[74]
Xiao Zhang, Hyunjoo Lee, Carlos Rodriguez, Joshua Rudner, and Dimitrios Papanagnou. 2018. A Novel Approach to Debriefing Medical Simulations: The Six Thinking Hats. Cureus 10 (04 2018). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2543
Index Terms
- Embedding Thinking Strategies within a Tangible Tree to Orchestrate Small Group Brainstorming
Recommendations
Teaching Computational Thinking Through Bio-Design (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science EducationWe are developing ways to teach computational thinking through interaction with tangible digital tools for synthetic biology. Inspired in part by Jeannette Wing's (Wing 2008) notion of the essence and pervasiveness of computational thinking, a growing ...
Using language-retrieved pictures to support intercultural brainstorming
CHI EA '11: CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsGroup brainstorming is a commonly practiced technique to enhance creative outcomes. Cultural differences in knowledge and perspectives are valuable sources for diversity essential to creative outcomes, while cultural discrepancy in communication and ...
From diversity to creativity: stimulating group brainstorming with cultural differences and conversationally-retrieved pictures
CSCW '11: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative workGroup brainstorming, or collaboratively generating ideas through idea sharing, demands diverse contributions to spark more ideas and improve creativity. One approach to supporting group brainstorming is to introduce conceptual diversity. In this study, ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
February 2024
1058 pages
ISBN:9798400704024
DOI:10.1145/3623509
- General Chairs:
- Luigina Ciolfi,
- Trevor Hogan,
- Program Chairs:
- Tanja Döring,
- Tom Jenkins,
- Jelle van Dijk,
- Samuel Huron,
- Zhuying Li,
- Publications Chairs:
- David Coyle,
- Beat Signer
Copyright © 2024 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 the author(s) 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].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 February 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
TEI '24
Sponsor:
TEI '24: Eighteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction
February 11 - 14, 2024
Cork, Ireland
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 393 of 1,367 submissions, 29%
Upcoming Conference
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 129Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)129
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format