R-U-Typing-2-Me? Evolving a chat tool to increase understanding in learning activities

  • Hugo Fuks
  • Mariano Pimentel
  • Carlos José Pereira de Lucena
Article

Abstract

Very often, when using a chat tool where more than one participant is talking simultaneously, it is difficult to follow the conversation, read all the different messages and work out who is talking to whom about what. This problem has been dubbed “Chat Confusion.” This article investigates this problem in debate sessions in an online university course. Chat Confusion has been singled out as the main limitation to using chat in educational activities. Confusion needs to be reduced for understanding to increase, making it easier to track what is being discussed during a learning activity. This study investigated the phenomena responsible for causing this confusion. A version of the Mediated Chat tool was developed for each problem identified and was subsequently tested in online courses. This article describes the Mediated Chat development process, the problems identified, and the results obtained from the case studies.

Keywords

Chat 3C collaboration Groupware Development Process LMS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, K., Greenberg, S., & Gutwin, C. (2001). Heuristic evaluation of groupware based on the mechanics of collaboration. Proceedings of the 8th IFIP Working Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction (ECHI‘01). Toronto.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, N. S. (1984). Computer mediated communication as a force in language change. Visible Language, 18(2), 118–141.Google Scholar
  3. Borghoff, U. M., & Schlichter, J. H. (2000). Computer-supported cooperative work: Introduction to distributed applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conklin, J. (1988). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. In I. Greif (Ed.), Computer supported cooperative work: A book of readings (pp. 423–476). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated bommunication by training: Trade-offs in dudgmental tasks. Communication Research, 30, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589–609.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, C. A. (2000). An evaluation framework for collaborative systems (Technical Report CU-CS-901-00). Boulder, CO: Colorado University.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. L. (1991). Groupware—Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferraz, F. G. (2000). Framework Canais de Comunicação. Undergraduate Computer Science Department, Rio de Janeiro: Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  12. Filippo, D., Fuks, H., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2005). AulaNetM: Extension of the AulaNet Environment to PDAs. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 10—Context and Groupware, Proceedings of the Fifth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Contex, Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Fuks, H., Gerosa, M. A., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2002). The development and application of distance learning on the internet. Open Learning—The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 17(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  14. Fuks, H., Raposo, A. B., Gerosa, M. A., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2005). Applying the 3C model to groupware development. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS), 14(2–3), 299–328.Google Scholar
  15. Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. (1998). The interactional organization of computer mediated communication in the college classroom. Qualitative Sociology, 21(3), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn talking system in quasi-synchronous computer mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerosa, M. A., Pimentel, M., Fuks, H. & Lucena, C. J. P. (2005). No need to read messages right now: Helping mediators to steer educational forums using statistical and visual information. In G. Stahl & D. Suthers, (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005 (pp. 160–169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Gerosa, M. A., Pimentel, M., Raposo, A. B., Fuks, H., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2005). Towards an engineering approach for groupware development: Learning from the AulaNet LMS development. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on CSCW in Design (CSCWiD) (pp. 329–333). Coventry, U.K.Google Scholar
  19. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.htmlGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson-Lentz, P., & Johnson-Lentz, T. (1982). Groupware: The process and impacts of design choices. In E. B. Kerr & S. R. Hiltz, (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication systems: Status and evaluation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Laurillau, Y., & Nigay, L. (2002). Clover architecture for groupware. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (pp. 236–245). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lonchamp, J. (2005). A structured chat framework for distributed educational settings. In G. Stahl & D. Suthers, (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning (CSCL) 2005 (pp. 403–307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Lucena, C. J. P., Fuks, H., et al. (1998). AulaNet—An environment for the development and maintenance of courses on the web. Proceedings of ICEE‘98—International Conference on Engineering Education. Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  24. McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Special Issue: Developing dialogue for learning, 20(3), 194–204.Google Scholar
  25. McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. Intellectual teamwork: Social and technical foundations of cooperative work (pp. 23–61). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2005). Explicit referencing in chat supports collaborative learning. In G. Stahl & D. Suthers, (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning (CSCL) 2005 (pp. 460–469). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Oikarinen, J., & Reed, D. (1993). Internet relay chat protocol (RFC 1459). Network Working Group. Retrieved from http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1459.html.Google Scholar
  28. O'Neill, J., & Martin, D. (2003). Text chat in action. Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 40–49). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pimentel, M. (2002). HiperDiálogo: Ferramenta de bate-papo para diminuir a perda de co-texto. Master's dissertation, Computer Science Department of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  30. Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2003). Co-text loss in textual chat tools. Proceedings of the 4th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (pp. 483–490). Stanford.Google Scholar
  31. Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2004). Mediated chat 2.0: Embbeding coordination into chat tools. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 99–103). Hyères: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2005). Mediated chat development process: Avoiding chat confusion on educational debates. In G. Stahl & D. Suthers, (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2005 (pp. 499–503). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Raposo, A. B., Pimentel, M. G., Gerosa, M. A., Fuks, H., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2004). Prescribing e-learning activities using workflow technologies. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Computer Supported Activity Coordination (CSAC) (pp. 71–80). http://www.iceis.org/iceis2004/workshops/csac/csac2004-cfp.htmlGoogle Scholar
  34. Rezende, J. L. (2003). Aplicando técnicas de comunicação para a facilitação de debates no ambiente AulaNet. Master's dissertation, Computer Science Department of the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, M., Cadiz, J. J., & Burkhalter, B. (2000). Conversation trees and threaded chats. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 97–105). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  36. Teufel, S., Sauter, C., Mühlherr, T., & Bauknecht, K. (1995). Computerunterstützte gruppenarbeit. Bonn: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  37. Thirunarayanan, M. O. (2000). Cutting down on chat confusion: A proposal for managing instructor-controlled chat systems. Ubiquity, 1(38).Google Scholar
  38. Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  39. Viegas, F. B., & Donath, J. S. (1999). Chat circles. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  40. Vilhjálmsson, H. (2003). Avatar augmented online conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, Program in Media Arts and Sciences, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  41. Vilhjálmsson, H., & Cassell, J. (1998). BodyChat: Autonomous communicative behaviors in avatars. Proceedings of ACM Autonomous Agents ’98 (pp. 269–276), New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  42. Werry, C. C. (1996) Linguistic and interactional features of internet relay chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47–63). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  43. Winograd, T. (1989). Groupware: The next wave or another advertising slogan? Proceedings of CompCon 89 (pp. 198–200). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  44. Zemel, A. (2005). Texts-in-interaction: Collaborative problem-solving in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. In G. Stahl & D. Suthers, (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer‐Supported Collaborative Learning 2005 (pp. 753–757). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc., Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Fuks
    • 1
  • Mariano Pimentel
    • 1
  • Carlos José Pereira de Lucena
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCatholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations