Advertisement

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 3, Issue 3–4, pp 327–357 | Cite as

Comparative study on the effects of groupware and conventional technologies on the efficiency of collaborative writing

  • Antonios Michailidis
  • Roy Rada
Article

Abstract

In this paper the concept of efficiency in collaborative writing is considered in detail and a definition of efficiency is proposed. The definition of efficiency leads to the development of a research framework that delineates five operational measures of efficiency: (a) writing activities efficiency, (b) coordination efficiency, (c) quality of output, (d) absence of breakdowns, and (e) satisfaction with group performance. A comparative study is subsequently presented on the effects that groupware and conventional technologies have on the effciency of collaborative writing. The hypothesis is advanced that groupware can improve the efficiency of collaborative writing over conventional technologies. The results seem to support the hypothesis and indicate that (a) the groupware system examined in this study (MUCH system) offers efficiency benefits in terms of coordination, (b) MUCH users tend to face communication breakdowns while users of conventional technologies tend to face task-related breakdowns, (c) the documents produced with MUCH are of higher content quality, more coherent, and of higher rhetorical effectiveness than the documents produced with conventional technologies, and (d) the comparison of MUCH with conventional technologies shows no significant difference in terms of their effects on group performance satisfaction.

Key words

Collaborative writing efficiency groupware coordination quality breakdowns 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abshire, Gary M. and Dan Culberson, (1985): A Team Approach to Producing Good Documentation.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC, vol. 28 no. 4, pp. 38–41.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Thomas H. and Bonnie B. Armbruster (1985): Studying Strategies and Their Implications for Textbook Design. InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 159–177.Google Scholar
  3. Baecker, Ronald M. Dimitrios Nastos, Ilona R. Posner and Kelly L. Mawby, (1993): The User-Centred Iterative Design of Collaborative Writing Software. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (INTERCHI' 93), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24–29 April, 1993. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, pp. 399–405.Google Scholar
  4. Bødker, Susanne and Kaj Grønbæk (1991): Cooperative Prototyping: Users and Designers in Mutual Activity. InComputer-supported Cooperative Work and Groupware, ed. Saul Greenberg. Academic Press, pp. 331–356.Google Scholar
  5. Burnett, Rebecca E. (1991): Substantive Conflict in a Cooperative Context: A Way to Improve the Collaborative Planning of Workplace Documents.Technical Communication, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 532–539.Google Scholar
  6. Charnock, Elizabeth, Roy Rada, Steve Stichler and Peter Weygant (1994): A Rule-Based. Task-Oriented Method of Creating Usable Hypertext for Commercial Audiences.Interacting with Computers, September 1994 Issue.Google Scholar
  7. Daiute, Colette and Bridget Dalton (1988): “Let's Brighten It Up a Bit”: Collaboration and Cognition in Writing. InThe Social Construction of Written Communication, eds. Bennett A. Rafoth and Donald L. Rubin. Norwood, New Jersey Ablex Publishing Company, pp. 249–269.Google Scholar
  8. Delisle, Norman M. and Mayer D. Schwartz (1989): Collaborative Writing With Hypertext.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 183–188.Google Scholar
  9. Dillon, Andrew (1993): How Collaborative is Collaborative Writing? An Analysis of the Production of Two Technical Reports. InComputer Supported Collaborative Writing, ed. M. Sharples. Springer-Verlag, pp. 69–86.Google Scholar
  10. Easterbrook, S. M., E. E. Beck, J. S. Goodlet, L. Plowman, M. Sharples and C. C. Wood (1992): A Survey of Empirical Studies of Conflict in Relation to CSCW.Technical Report CSRP 227, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, The University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  11. Faigley, Lester and Thomas P. Miller (1982): What We Learn from Writing on the Job.College English, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 557–569.Google Scholar
  12. Faigley, Lester (1985): Nonacademic Writing: The Social Perspective. InWriting in Nonacademic Settings, eds. Lee Odell and Dixie Goswami. The Guilford Press, pp. 231–248.Google Scholar
  13. Farkas, David K. (1991): Collaborative Writing, Software Development, and the Universe of Collaborative Activity. InCollaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice, eds. Mary M. Lay and William M. Karis. Amityville, N.Y.: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., pp. 13–30Google Scholar
  14. Fowler, Susan and David, Roeger (1986): Programmer and Writer Collaboration: Making User Manuals that Work.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications PC, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 21–25.Google Scholar
  15. Galegher, J. and R. E. Kraut (1990): Computer-Mediated Communication for Intellectual Teamwork: A Field Experiment in Group Writing. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW '90, Los Angeles, CA, Oct. 7–10, 1990, ACM Press, pp. 65–78.Google Scholar
  16. Galegher, J. and R. E. Kraut (1992): Computer-mediated Communication and Collaborative Writing: Media Influence and Adaptation to Communication Constraints. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'92), Toronto, Ontario. ACM Press, pp. 155–162.Google Scholar
  17. Gere, Anne Ruggles (1980): Written Composition: Toward a Theory of Evaluation.College English vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 44–58.Google Scholar
  18. Gere, Anne Ruggles (1987):Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gifford, James and Donald Pattow (1991): Networks, Collaboration, and the Systems Documentation Classroom. InComputers and Writing IV Proceedings, pp. 60–65.Google Scholar
  20. Goldstein, John Rymer (1984): Trends in Teaching Technical Writing.Technical Communication, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
  21. Haas, Christine (1989): Does the Medium Make a Difference? Two Studies of Writing With Pen and Paper and With Computers.Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 149–169.Google Scholar
  22. Halasz, F. G. and M. Schwartz (1990): The Dexter Hypertext Reference Model. InProc. NIST Hypertext Standardization Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, 16–18 January, 1990, pp. 95–134.Google Scholar
  23. Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976):Cohesion in English. Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Haness, Joel (1983): How to Critique a Document.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar
  25. Hansen, Wilfred J. and Christina Haas (1988): Reading and Writing with Computers: A Framework for Explaining Differences in Performance.Communications of the ACM, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1080–1089.Google Scholar
  26. Hartley, James (1984): The Role of Colleagues and Text-Editing Programs in Improving Text.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 42–44.Google Scholar
  27. Hawisher, Gail E. (1992): Cross-disciplinary Perspectives: Computer-mediated Communication (CmC), Electronic Writing Classes, and Research.SIGCUE OUTLOOK vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 45–52.Google Scholar
  28. Hiltz, Starr Roxanne (1990): Evaluating the Virtual Classroom. InOnline Education: Perspectives on a New Environment, ed. L. Haras. New York: Praeger Press, pp. 133–183.Google Scholar
  29. Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Kenneth Johnson (1990): User Satisfaction with Computer-Mediated Communication Systems.Management Science, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 739–763.Google Scholar
  30. Jarvenpaa, L. S., Rao, V. S. and Huber, P. G. (1988): Computer Support for Meetings, of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment.MIS Quarterly, pp. 645–666.Google Scholar
  31. Kellog, Ronald T. (1989): Idea Processors: Computer Aids for Planning and Composing Text. InComputer Writing Environments: Theory, Research, & Design, eds. Bruce K. Britton and Shawn M. Glynn. LEA, pp. 57–92.Google Scholar
  32. Kellog, Ronald T. and Suzanne Mueller (1993): Performance Amplification and Process Restructuring in Computer-Based Writing.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 39, pp. 33–49.Google Scholar
  33. Kemp, Fred (1992): Emphasising Rhetorical Effectiveness Through Computer Networks.SIGCUE OUTLOOK vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 29–31.Google Scholar
  34. Lehner, Franz (1993): Quality Control in Software Documentation Based on Measurement of Text Comprehension and Text Comprehensibility.Information Processing & Management, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 551–568.Google Scholar
  35. Lutz, Jean A. (1987): A Study of Professional and Experienced Writers Revising and Editing at the Computer and with Pen and Paper.Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 398–422.Google Scholar
  36. Mackler, Tobi (1987): Group Produced Documents: An Exploratory Study of Collaborative Writing Processes.Ph. D. Thesis, Columbia University Teachers College.Google Scholar
  37. Malone, T. and K. Crowston (1990): What is Coordination Theory and How Can It Help Design Cooperative Work Systems?. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW' 90, Los Angeles, CA, Oct. 7–10, 1990. ACM Press, pp. 357–370.Google Scholar
  38. Marshall, Catherine C. and Peggy M. Irish (1989): Guided Tours and On-Line Presentations: How Authors Make Existing Hypertext Intelligible for Readers. InHypertext' 89 Proceedings, pp. 15–26.Google Scholar
  39. McCarthy, John C., Victoria C. Miles, Andrew F. Monk, Michael D. Harrison, Alan J. Dix and Peter C. Wright (1993): Text-Based On-Line Conferencing: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis Using a Minimal Prototype.Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 8, pp. 147–183.Google Scholar
  40. Meyer, Bonnie J. F. (1982): Signalling the Structure of Text. InThe Technology of Text, Volume Two, ed. David H. Jonassen. Educational Technology Publications, pp. 64–89.Google Scholar
  41. Michailidis, Antonios, Roy Rada and Weigang Wang (1993): Matching Roles and Technology for Collaborative Work: An Empirical Assessment.Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 138–148.Google Scholar
  42. Michailidis, Antonios, Roy Rada and Pelagia-Irene Gouma (1994): A Study of Efficiency in Computer-Supported Collaborative Writing.Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 4, no. 1–2, pp. 133–162.Google Scholar
  43. Min, Zheng and Roy Rada (1994): MUCH Electronic Publishing Environment-Principles and Practices.Journal of American Society of Information Science, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 300–309.Google Scholar
  44. Nelson, Ronald J. (1990): Preparing to Write the Document: A Worksheet for Situational Analysis in the Workplace.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 12–18.Google Scholar
  45. Newman, Julian and Rhona Newman (1992): Three Modes of Collaborative Authoring. InComputers and Writing: Models and Tools, eds. N. Williams and P. Holt. Oxford: Intellect Books, pp. 20–28.Google Scholar
  46. Nielsen, J. (1990):Hypertext & Hypermedia. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  47. Novick, David G. and Jonathan Walpole (1990): Enhancing the Efficiency of Multiparty Interaction through Computer Mediation.Interacting with Computers, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 227–246.Google Scholar
  48. Nylund, A. (1989): Aspects of Cooperation in a Distributed Problem Solving Environment. InProceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work-ECSCW' 89, London, UK, Sept. 13–15, 1989. pp. 247–260.Google Scholar
  49. Odell, Lee and Charles R. Cooper (1980): Procedures for Evaluating Writing: Assumptions and Needed Research.College English, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 35–43.Google Scholar
  50. Olson, David R. (1985): On the Designing and Understanding of Written Texts. InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  51. Olson, J. S., G. M. Olson, M. Storrøsten and M. Carter (1992): How a Group-editor Changes the Character of a Design Meeting as Well as its Outcome. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW' 92), Toronto, Ontario. ACM Press, pp. 91–98.Google Scholar
  52. Orna, Elizabeth (1985): The Author: Help or Stumbling Block on the Road to Designing Usable Texts? InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
  53. Poole, Marshall Scott, Michael Holmes and Gerardine DeSanctis (1988): Conflict Management and Group Decision Support Systems. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW88, Portland, Oregon, New York: ACM Press, pp. 227–243.Google Scholar
  54. Rada, Roy (1990): Hypertext Writing and Document Reuse: the Role of a Semantic Net.Electronic Publishing, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
  55. Rada, Roy, Mahmoud Mhashi and Judith Barlow (1990): Hierarchical Semantic Nets Support Retrieving and Generating Hypertext.Information and Decision Technologies, vol. 16, pp. 117–135.Google Scholar
  56. Rada, Roy, Akmal Zeb, Geeng-Neng You, Antonios Michailidis and Mahmoud Mhashi (1991): Collaborative Hypertext and the MUCH System.Journal of Information Science: Principles & Practice, vol. 17, pp. 191–196.Google Scholar
  57. Rada, Roy (1991):Hypertext: From Text to Expertext. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  58. Schriver, Karen A. (1989): Evaluating Text Quality: The Continuum From Text-Focused to Reader-Focused Methods.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 238–255.Google Scholar
  59. Schumacher, Gary M. and Robert Waller (1985): Testing Design Alternatives: A Comparison of Procedures. InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 377–403.Google Scholar
  60. Sharples, Mike (1993): Introduction. InComputer Supported Collaborative Writing, ed. M. Sharples. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Silverman, Barry G. (1992): Human-Computer Collaboration.Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 7, pp. 165–196.Google Scholar
  62. Sternglass, Marilyn S. (1981): Assessing Reading, Writing, and Reasoning?.College English, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 269–275.Google Scholar
  63. Streitz, Norbert (1993): The Role of Hypermedia for CSCW Applications: H1 Tutorial Notes-The Role of Hypermedia for CSCW Applications. InThird European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW' 93, 13–17 September 1993, Milano, Italy, New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  64. Thüring, Manfred, Jörg M. Haake and Jörg Hannemann (1991): What's Eliza doing in the Chinese Room? Incoherent hyperdocuments-and how to avoid them. InHypertext '91 Proceedings, pp. 161–177.Google Scholar
  65. Trigg, Randal H. (1988): Guided Tours and Tabletops: Tools for Communicating in a Hypertext Environment. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work-CSCW88, Portland, Oregon pp. 216–226.Google Scholar
  66. Urquijo, Silvia Ponguta, Stephen A. R. Scrivener and Hilary K. Palmén (1993): The Use of Breakdown Analysis in Synchronous CSCW System Design. InProceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW' 93), 13–17 September, Milan, Italy, pp. 281–293.Google Scholar
  67. Williams, Noel (1991):The Computer, the Writer and the Learner. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  68. Williamson, Michael M. and Penny Pence (1989): Word Processing and Student Writers. InComputer Writing Environments: Theory, Research & Design, eds. Bruce K. Britton and Shawn M. Glynn. LEA, pp. 93–127.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, Patrick (1993): Communication Efficiency in Research and Development.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 376–382.Google Scholar
  70. Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986):Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
  71. Wright, Patricia (1982): Is Evaluation a Myth? Assessing Text Assessment Procedures. InThe Technology of Text, Volume Two, ed. David H. Jonassen. Educational Technology Publications, pp. 418–435.Google Scholar
  72. Wright, Patricia (1985): Editing: Policies and Processes. InDesigning Usable Texts, eds. Thomas M. Duffy and Robert Waller. Academic Press, pp. 63–96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonios Michailidis
    • 1
  • Roy Rada
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations