Reflections – Javier Lanchang – June 9, 2008 – Page 6
Reflections on
Information Systems 608
Human-Computer Interaction:
Designing to support the CSCL research community
June 9, 2008
Javier Lanchang
Information 608 has been one of the most original classes that I have had the pleasure of taking. Admittedly, after nearing completion, this class was not in the format that I expected. However, as a class on interface development, I found it invaluable. I believe this class has provided me with a new paradigm on learning, that of group cognition that will be invaluable for me in the future. Understanding the processes of prototyping, data gathering, analysis, interactional design; the use of scenarios, task analysis, use cases, heuristical analysis and cognitive walkthroughs within this framework will be useful to me in the future professionally. It definitely provided a foundation for understanding human-computer interactions and techniques for developing and evaluating interfaces.
I found it an interesting concept to merge the undergraduate and graduate class as was done. I found it both added and detracted from the learning process. I did understand that by involving undergraduate classes, it created a physical class presence and a media for presentation. However, as a graduate student, I found that this interfered with the Wiki activities and roles. Most graduate students are at a different stage of their educational process and have a different commitment level to this field of study than undergraduate students. Although I found the undergraduate students involved and interested, they frequently ceded being active participants during the initial writing processes to the graduate students. The different books used for each class level were an initial source of confusion as we attempted to discuss the material. On the positive side, these interactions did create different perspectives and at times added to the creation of group cognitive processes. After the initial assignment and re-assignment of groups during the first three weeks of the term, our group consisted of five members. I have to admit that throughout the term, I found myself wishing that the group was larger by one or two more members to facilitate synchronous interactions.
I found the Apreso class recordings were very useful. However, there were occasions when the recordings were barely audible and it was difficult to make out what the presentations and what consisted of the class discussions. Perhaps Powerpoint presentations along with requiring purchase of microphones might create artifacts useful to the CSCL community as part of the class presentations. Aside from these technical issues, the youtube videos and pdf articles were thought provoking and informative as guides to changing technologies that will drive changing learning processes. They served to emphasize the need to use the technology tools to augment human cognitive processes and the necessity for research to develop new learning theories.
The class readings for all participants were invaluable to create a cohesive unit and common ground. Writing the article summaries together afforded a means of discussing the material and providing a foundation of learning that could then be used for the weekly problems.
I found Dr. Stahl’s (2006) paper on Group Cognition very effectively defined the expected interactions and processes. Although I recognize that the class readings built up to this paper’s thesis, I felt that providing this paper in the middle of the course would have been invaluable. There was one point in the discussion when we were discussing the use of voice as part of an interface and one of the undergraduate students pointed out the mnemonic value of voice. This was an amazing moment for me because although I recognized voice as a part of an interface would speed up interactions and provide the added dimension of tone and emotion lacking in typed chat sessions, I had not thought of the value that voice would add to remembering the interactions. Although we did not use it as part of our group’s interface in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), the concept was very original and useful. I hope to use it professionally for the Computer Supported Work Collaboration (CSWS) at my institution. Although throughout the class, the importance of the group interactions was emphasized, until reading this paper, the role of the group verbalizations was not apparent to me.
Based on previous coursework, I was familiar with the software development cycles such as the waterfall lifecycle model, spiral lifecycle model and Rapid Applications Development (RAD); but the Star lifecycle model, usability engineering lifecycle and ISO 13407 Human-centered design processes were new methods for development to me. The last four weeks of the course were very interesting as we attempted to develop an interface ourselves. Evaluating the process we underwent, I wish that we did have more time to develop the interface. For the CSCL community, I do believe that some type of social network would be useful for researchers to find each other and to share developments quickly. Although iCSCL and other print media are useful, electronic processes offer to provide information faster and to add to the collaborative processes for development.
I believe as a group we encountered many of the same issues in our attempts to collaborate effectively as the CSCL community is probably dealing with. A calendar to coordinate meeting times would have been very useful. Our group did use e-mail as a method for scheduling our meetings initially but found it cumbersome. We found ourselves using precious discussion time introducing ourselves and getting to know each other. This is one function that a social network could serve well.
The class format of using the Wiki was useful for those occasions when we needed to work asynchronously due to time constraints. I found it interesting that there was a reluctance to post information to the Wiki itself until it was in final draft mode. I have worked previously using a Wiki collaboratively and this was unusual. With more time, I would have hoped to encourage more use of the Wiki and a greater degree of synchronous activity with more verbalizations from everyone in the group to see if we could create artifacts useful to the CSCL community.
The VMT forum tools for chat and the whiteboard were very useful for providing media for posting information for the group. Our first three weeks were partially finding common ground and evaluating each others skill sets as much as creating the article summaries.
The class process of having each group do the work review provided a means of peer review at a small scale. For our group, the initial use of Facebook created confusion for this process at the beginning. The heuristic analysis gave our group invaluable feedback to improve the interface we were developing as well as enhancing its presentation. In hindsight, I wish our group had begun with a low-fidelity prototype and scenario of the interface rather than using Facebook. Perhaps the interface development could have focused more on defining requirements rather than interface refinement. It was only at the final interface development week that defining the nature of social networks and how they were more effective being exclusive rather than inclusive occurred.
Were more time available, I would choose to revisit the interface developed as a group. Create a new scenario, several use cases and a low-fidelity prototype. I would ask the CSCL community what elements of social networking would be useful to them to determine the requirements and then proceed to create an interface to meet those needs. The heuristic analysis would require interface development independent of current available software in such areas as error prevention, help and documentation, recognition rather than recall, and visibility of system status that were areas that were not well defined within the interface developed.
Using the VMT forum was a good tool. Periodically we did experience Math Forum students stopping by with math questions. Although it was good to be able to answer their reference questions, it did impress upon the group the importance of a dedicated interface for the CSCL community.
As a group, we found ourselves working both collaboratively and cooperatively at times. Part of the reason was scheduling but another reason was the constant evaluation and re-evaluation of our roles. We found our roles constantly shifting between writing drafts, being reviewers and at the same time researchers. Frequently working cooperatively was effective at writing the article summaries. However, for resolution of the weekly problem assignment, we were at our most effective when working collaboratively.
One of the most effective tools was the cognitive walkthrough for evaluating the interface. Hearing the verbal feedback from a potential end user was very effective at evaluating areas that were possible sources of confusion. Stepping though the interface and hearing possible points of misunderstanding such as links that were not highlighted properly was very useful. This type of ethnographic approach was interesting as well as effective.
Specific areas of interest for me were the usability studies. It was interesting to learn about Fitts’ Law to evaluate pointing devices and their effectiveness at reaching the target:
T= k log2 (D/S+1.0), T= time to move the pointer to a target, D = distance between the pointer and the target, S = size of the target, K = constant of approximately 200 msec/bit. At the library system where I work, we are in the process of evaluating self-checkout machines and their interfaces. This will provide a means of evaluating the interfaces which are similar but distinct enough to evaluate.
In addition, we are currently in the process of redesigning the website and I do intent to do usability studies of the potential web designs and templates. The usability study evaluating web page design (Sharpe, Rogers and Preece, 2007) was very pertinent and will provide a means of doing this. Currently there has been significant internal discussion of the number of levels and the total number of categories that would be most effective for general public use. An important point of conversation has been how to evaluate the templates and proposed levels for effective information access. This scenario provides a means of doing the usability studies for this purpose.
Another point, I have learned from this class is to consider the end user and possible frustration points. As the book discussed web site under construction pages, it emphasized the importance of considering the effort user’s may make to arrive at different information points and their frustration at finding a place holder page. In the future, as different library programs are discussed and developed, usability studies will be an integral element of their implementation.
I do intend to use the DECIDE framework to assist in these evaluation processes. By going over this process of Determining the goals, Explore the questions, Choose the evaluation approach and methods, Identify the practical issues, Decide how to deal with the ethical issues, and Evaluate, analyze, interpret, and present the data with my co-workers, I hope to set up an evaluation process for these projects.
At the institution where I work, we have been evaluating the use of Adobe Connect to conduct web conferences and employee training. This class has provided a foundation for how to implement these processes. I hope that perhaps by limiting participation within this framework to small groups, perhaps development of library programs might be a more effective and creative process to take advantage of group cognition. Of course, there are still many unanswered questions in how to effectively manage this process of development within the specific project needs that will need to be determined. I believe that this class has provided the techniques for making these determinations and appropriately conducting the project management.
Overall, I have to admit that I look forward to implementing some of the theories learned during this class and assessing the results from their use. I also look forward to continuing to read the iCSCL journal and learning of further development of collaborative learning theory.