Advertisement

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1433–1453 | Cite as

ScriptStorm: scripting to enhance tabletop brainstorming

  • Andrew Clayphan
  • Judy Kay
  • Armin Weinberger
Original Article

Abstract

Brainstorming is a widely used method for enhancing creativity. Interactive tabletops offer promise for making brainstorming more effective. This is because tabletops should help collocated people collaborate in natural round-table discussions at a shared digital space. However, tabletops have not been found in and of themselves to improve collaboration. This paper explores how to adapt an approach called scripted collaboration to enhance the effectiveness of tabletop brainstorming. We describe the design and implementation of ScriptStorm in two forms: fixed scripting, where the table enforces a set script that the brainstorming participants cannot alter, in the spirit of a human facilitator; and participant-defined scripting, where the interface gives participants control over the script settings. We hypothesised that: the additional interface complexity of the scripting is acceptable in terms of learning time and usability (H1-usability); both forms of scripting support effective brainstorming (H2-effectiveness); people consider that both forms of scripting help them learn about how to brainstorm (H3-learning); and people would prefer participant-defined scripting for the control it gave them over the script (H4-control). We conducted a user study to evaluate these hypotheses. Our results give support to all four hypotheses, although the relative benefits of fixed scripting and participant-defined scripting are nuanced. Our key contributions are insights into two ways that scripted collaboration can support brainstorming, pointing to the potential benefits of fixed scripting and participant-defined scripting for other classes of collaborative tabletop activities.

Keywords

CSCL scripts Brainstorming Interactive surfaces Tabletops Design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is partially funded by the Smart Services CRC.

References

  1. 1.
    Azevedo R (2007) Understanding the complex nature of self-regulatory processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: an introduction. Metacogn Learn 2(2):57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouchard T Jr, Hare M (1970) Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. J Appl Psychol 54(1p1):51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buisine S, Besacier G, Aoussat A, Vernier F (2012) How do interactive tabletop systems influence collaboration? Comput Hum Behav 28(1):49–59Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clayphan A, Collins A, Ackad C, Kummerfeld B, Kay J (2011) Firestorm: a brainstorming application for collaborative group work at tabletops. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, pp 162–171. ACMGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clayphan A, Kay J, Weinberger A (2012) Enhancing brainstorming through scripting at a tabletop. In: Educational interfaces, software, and technology 2012: 3rd workshop on UI technologies and educational pedagogyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(3):497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dillenbourg P (2002) Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Three worlds of CSCL can we support CSCL, pp 61–91. Open Universiteit NederlandGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dillenbourg P, Tchounikine P (2007) Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. J Comput Assist Learn 23(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dourish P, Bellotti V (1992) Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on computer supported collaborative work, pp 107–114. ACMGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer F, Kollar I, Mandl H (2007) Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. Springer, New York, pp 1–343Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foster G, Stefik M (1986) Cognoter: theory and practice of a colaborative tool. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on computer supported collaborative work, pp 7–15. ACMGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallupe R, Bastianutti L, Cooper W (1991) Unblocking brainstorms. J Appl Psychol 76(1):137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haake J, Pfister H-R (2010) Scripting a distance-learning university course: Do students benefit from net-based scripted collaboration?. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 5(2):191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hilliges O, Terrenghi L, Boring S, Kim D, Richter H, Butz A (2007) Designing for collaborative creative problem solving. In: Proceedings of C&C 2007, pp 137–146. ACMGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinrichs U, Hancock M, Collins C, Carpendale S (2007) Examination of text-entry methods for tabletop displays. In: Horizontal interactive human–computer systems, (TABLETOP), pp 105–112. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunter S, Maes P (2008) WordPlay: a table-top interface for collaborative brainstorming and decision making. In: horizontal interactive human–computer systems, (TABLETOP). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Isaksen S (1998) A review of brainstorming research: six critical issues for inquiry. Creative research unit. Creative problem solving group-buffaloGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Isaksen S, Gaulin J (2005) A reexamination of brainstorming research: implications for research and practice. Gift Child Q 49(4):315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jessup L, Valacich J (1992) Group support systems: new perspectives. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    King A (2007) Chap 2: Scripting collaborative learning processes: a cognitive perspective. In: Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. Springer, New York, pp 13–37. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_2
  21. 21.
    Kollar I, Fischer F, Hesse F (2006) Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 18(2):159–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamm H, Trommsdorff G (1973) Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): a review. Euro J Soc Psychol 3(4):361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mander R, Salomon G, Wong YY (1992) A “pile” metaphor for supporting casual organization of information. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 627–634, NY, USA. ACMGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martinez R, Collins A, Kay J, Yacef K (2011) Who did what? Who said that? Collaid: an environment for capturing traces of collaborative learning at the tabletop. In: ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, ITS 2011, pp 172–181Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinez R, Kay J, Wallace J, Yacef K (2011) Modelling symmetry of activity as an indicator of collocated group collaboration. User Model Adapt Pers 6787:207–218Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meier A, Spada H, Rummel N (2007) A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 2(1):63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mullen B, Johnson C, Salas E (1991) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: a meta-analytic integration. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 12(1):3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Osborn A (1953) Applied imagination, principles and procedures of creative thinking. Scribner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parnes S, Meadow A (1959) Effects of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. J Educ Psychol 50(4):171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pea R (1994) Seeing what we build together: distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. J Learn Sci 3(3):285–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pissarra J, Jesuino J (2005) Idea generation through computer-mediated communication: the effects of anonymity. J Manag Psychol 20(3/4):275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roland J (1985) Questorming: an outline of the method. http://pynthan.com/vri/questorm.htm/
  33. 33.
    Rummel N, Spada H, Hauser S (2009) Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 4(1):69–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ryall K, Morris MR, Everitt K, Forlines C, Shen C (2006) Experiences with and observations of direct-touch tabletops. In: Horizontal interactive human–computer systems (TABLETOP), pp 89–96, Washington, DC, USA. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmitt L, Buisine S, Chaboissier J, Aoussat A, Vernier F (2012) Dynamic tabletop interfaces for increasing creativity. Comput Hum Behav 28(5):1892–1901Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schön D (1999) The reflective practitioner, vol 1. Basic books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scott SD, Sheelagh M, Carpendale T, Inkpen KM (2004) Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on computer supported collaborative work, pp 294–303, NY, USA. ACMGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sosik J, Avolio B, Kahai S (1998) Inspiring group creativity. Small Group Res 29(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Valacich J, Dennis A, Nunamaker J (1992) Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Res 23(1):49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    VanGundy A (1993) Brain writing for new product ideas: an alternative to brainstorming. J Consumer Market 1(2):67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weinberger A (2011) Principles of transactive computer-supported collaboration scripts. Nordic J Digit Lit 03:189–202Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information TechnologiesThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Educational TechnologySaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations