Conceptual Design for Supporting CSCL
Computer-supported collaborative learning must be intuitive and accessible across all ages and expertise ranges while facilitating a multitude of possible group dynamics. Any design must therefore be flexible enough to bend to the needs of individual members or the entire group in order to aid rather than hinder interaction. Learning through software can only occur if it allows a reasonable alternative to natural face-to-face communication.
A preliminary step to design is to survey current technologies and their role in communication and learning. A collaborative learning environment can learn from current use trends. A few of today’s technologies have mass appeal including, but not exclusively, search interfaces like Google or a library website, text messaging, social networking sites like Flickr and MySpace, and simpler things like the iPod scroll wheel. From these examples, we can see that users are familiar with mining the web, an openness to share one’s life and less insistence on privacy, and the importance of simple designs. When designing an interface for collaboration then, it is important to take advantage of existing, familiar technologies and match them, when appropriate, to the needs of working groups. In this vein, we will be designing a web-based portal that incorporates many pre-existing Web 2.0 technologies.
Social software sites are good examples of collaboration over the web. These sites facilitate shared information across whole populations. One hurdle of these sites, however, is the reliability of the information. Existing Web 2.0 technologies, once incorporated, will allow instant communication routes among group members without redesigning the proverbial wheel. For example, for a sales force aimed at teenagers or twenty-somethings, Facebook or MySpace might be appropriate sites to advertise through. For art students, heavy use of Flickr might be most natural. In order to successfully leverage these types of technologies, our design must be able to bridge communication between the web-based portal and these existing sites. For instance, information shared in the portal should be easily migrated to Web 2.0 interfaces.
A web interface will enable continuous group interaction that disregards distance between and competing schedules of group members. Use of proprietary software will be avoided and replaced with open source alternatives to allow for continual development of the collaborative arsenal. Open source software is advantageous for our group-learning environment for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that open source solutions are themselves a product of collaboration and extended functionality is often built into them. Open source software is also continually updated by development communities and tends to be at the forefront of innovation. Ultimately, our design needs to be flexible so that it can be tailored to individual groups needs like online learning, project coordination or product development. Leveraging Web 2.0 technologies seems most appropriate given these needs.
Our design not only needs to be highly tailorable, but also highly mobile. Today’s mobile devices are often a necessity in the collaborative environments of education and business. Functionality of these devices, however, is variable. Some users need a compact computer while others use only text and voice messaging until they return to a computer. In general, mobile devices allow basic phone messaging, text messaging and web browsing. That means traveling group members may be uploading files, checking and responding to email, texting, talking, and trying to find any number of web data. Our design must allow for as little or as much as these devices can handle.
So how do we marry the multiplicity of the web, the ability to access differing forms of communication, and organize it in one interface so many types of collaboration are supported? It seems the best strategy for such cooperation is a dynamic virtual environment, accessible by computer and mobile devices alike. While allowing interactions to occur in other collaborative environments, the virtual environment must allow similar collaborative forms of communication to occur in-house.
Virtual Space
In order to develop a truly collaborative environment, the virtual learning portal must allow both synchronous and asynchronous interactions, space for group sharing as well as individual reflection, and utilities for shared work. The virtual space should generally provide areas for communication (e.g., chats, bulletin boards), content creation areas, and resource sharing space. These three categories should seamlessly work together to convey information:
- Communication: Individuals communicate naturally through spoken language. With Internet connection bandwidths on the rise, household capabilities for VOIP (Voice Over IP) have become the norm rather than the exception. A group environment is a perfect place to provide voice capabilities as it tends to free up screen space. In a best of both worlds scenario, voice logs are kept in written form for later reference by group members, and written chats are available for those without VOIP.
- Content: Group work tends to be centered on a tangible product either as a written document or a multimedia experience. Content areas must record group progress, individual work, and provide resource-gathering space such as a web browser. Content must be logically broken down into parts to ease navigation.
- Resources: Content creation is supported by finding, disseminating and digesting sources of information. A record of resources found by individuals, and a way to organize them, is necessary so that these reference sources can be reviewed repeatedly.
A virtual space allows all content to reside in one organized place. It also defines ways group members may interact. My concept of this space would allow virtually any combination of interactions to be customized based upon group requirements. If members must know the location of other group members, integrating Twitter may be necessary. For those groups that do not need certain capabilities like spreadsheets, integration with Excel may not loaded into the group space.
The virtual space would also allow dynamic editing and updating of content by multiple group members. Much like the VMT software capabilities, the virtual space would update for every change and allow group members to see progress as it happens. It is extremely important that the space facilitate real-time interaction to adequately replace face-to-face communication. If this conceptual design fails in this respect, it will seriously compromise group learning and most likely be replaced by something else.
The virtual space will also allow groups to remain private. Since the design proposed uses many web technologies, it may be open to vulnerabilities. Regardless of whether the virtual space is run off of a public or private server, invited access should be an option especially in cases where groups are involved with proprietary information.
Synchronous Learning & Sharing
Control: In the tradition of synchronous software commercially available, the virtual space will have functionality for a moderator. This capability is built into training software where a designated moderator is able to control the content everyone sees onscreen. For instance, the moderator can control a PowerPoint slideshow, browse the web or type up notes, questions and comments. This capability would allow one group member to seize control (with the group’s permission of course) of the virtual environment and direct everyone to specific content. This would be especially helpful in learning and research environments when highlighted specific content. The moderator shows group members exactly what he or she wants them to see. This enhanced ability to visually share information can be powerful and instructive. If, for instance, a group was discussing some calculation or geometrical proof, going through the correct answer might be instructive and allow group members to see the logical correctness or flaw in a proof. The moderator function would only seize control of content areas while allowing communication forums and resource sharing areas to continue.
Shared Space: The virtual environment should allow for content areas based upon need. For instance, there should be white space for content creation, web browsing capabilities, and multiple program supports (word processing, spreadsheets, graphics) for editing various resources. Much like the VMT interface, some sort of tabbed content pages might be advantageous. At the very least, shared space must be able to be broken down and organized in some fashion.
Virtually any program should be able to be loaded into the group space. For instance, if the group must edit graphics and pictures, running Adobe software or another visual editing program would allow all work to be done in the shared space. It is best to keep as much interaction in the shared space. Customization of the group space will be done when it is created for any particular group’s needs. The virtual environment is designed to be everything to everyone, which is impractical. Instead, the virtual software is only as powerful as needed, which should help with performance issues.
“Private” Space: Within the content area, there should be space for every group member to contribute notes, thoughts and ideas. From my own group interaction experience, I tend to record impressions prior to formal group work. Individually designated spaces, while accessible by all group members, allows for individual contributions regardless of group efforts.
Asynchronous Learning & Sharing
Accessibility: Group software must be able to be accessible by small, mobile devices like cellular phones as well as more capable full-size computers. While mobile devices are becoming more like computers in functionality and capabilities, there are still devices that are somewhat simplistic. Therefore, there should be a remote interface that allows for retrieval of the latest comments, changes and alerts in addition to the ability to add content. More and more, the ability to react outside of traditional work and study environments is appealing. It would be especially helpful for groups facing deadlines and those that must keep continually updated.
Group members must be able to upload text and files to the virtual environment and also be able to direct content to specific areas of the group workspace. For this, I envision the use of tags. Traditionally, tags are used to define subject matter and concepts in order to link similar topics together. In this case, we are not specifying content labels, but rather destination labels. The content area is sure to have many shared and personal spaces in addition to running discussion boards, file lists and a list of resource links. If you need to add something to the final draft, it would be necessary to use the tag for the final draft or maybe direct the note to your own personal space.
These tags would simply append content to the end of the destination section. By linking a content area to a pre-defined outline, group members may also specify specific sections of a content area. For instance, a group member on the go could upload a new conclusion to the final draft if the outline contained a summary bullet. The outline would resemble the outline on a wiki page. This micro-tagging would be invaluable to keeping content organized.
Summaries: It is important for a dynamic environment to be able to keep track of content evolution. Much like the VMT’s scroll feature and Apple’s new Time Machine software, being able to roll back time and see past content since deleted or reworded is invaluable when multiple people are working together. What one individual thinks is crucial to the final product may be deleted by another group member who downgrades its importance.
In addition to a summary of changes regarding content, a continuous record of group interaction (chat logs, etc.) is also necessary. This can be compiled by day or in one file, whichever makes sense to any particular group.
Conclusion
A virtual environment supporting collaboration does not need to be unnecessarily burdened by every technology available. It must, however, provide capabilities most appropriate to a wide range of group needs. Much like browser plug-ins and add-ons, customizing a virtual environment for group tasks is necessary to promote effective learning. The concept described above seeks to leverage change to meet group needs. A one-size-fits-all approach is becoming an antiquated notion and the Internet’s resources prove that diversity is a valued component of our online experience.
Dixon1May 5, 2008