Abstract

In asynchronous online discussions, users actively reference visual materials (e.g., video, document) to provide supporting evidence and additional context. However, creating and comprehending complex references can be challenging, especially when there are multiple referents to refer, or when a referent is highly specific (e.g., specific sentences in a paper rather than the paper as a whole). To identify users' challenges in making references with multiple and specific referents while using existing discussion tools, we conducted an observational study and a preliminary interview. Based on the design lessons, we built Korero, a discussion interface that aims to facilitate complex referencing actions. For evaluation, we compared Korero against conventional interfaces in two user studies with referencing tasks of different referential difficulty. We found that Korero not only significantly reduces the time and effort in making references with multiple and specific referents, but also shows potential in increasing users' engagement with the discussion and referent materials.
- Michael Baker, Tia Hansen, Richard Joiner, and David Traum. 1999. The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches: 31--63.Google Scholar
- Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller. 2008. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24, 6: 574--594.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- H Russell Bernard and Gery W Ryan. 2009. Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. SAGE publications.Google Scholar
- A J Brush, David Bargeron, Jonathan Grudin, Alan Borning, and Anoop Gupta. 2002. Supporting interaction outside of class: anchored discussions vs. discussion boards. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, 425--434. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Herbert H Clark and Susan E Brennan. 199 Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition 13, 1991: 127--149.Google Scholar
- Herbert H Clark and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1: 1--39.Google Scholar
- Derrick Coetzee, Armando Fox, Marti A Hearst, and Bjoern Hartmann. 2014. Chatrooms in MOOCs: all talk and no action. In In Proc. of ACM [email protected] '14, 127--136. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Brian Dorn, Larissa B Schroeder, and Adam Stankiewicz. 2015. Piloting TrACE: Exploring spatiotemporal anchored collaboration in asynchronous learning. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 393--403. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Paul Dourish and Victoria Bellotti. 1992. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, 107--114. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Michael Eisenberg and Gerhard Fischer. 2014. MOOCs: A perspective from the learning sciences. Proceedings of ICLS 2014.Google Scholar
- Susan R Fussell, Robert E Kraut, and Jane Siegel. 2000. Coordination of communication: Effects of shared visual context on collaborative work. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 21--30. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Susan R Fussell, Leslie D Setlock, Jie Yang, Jiazhi Ou, Elizabeth Mauer, and Adam D I Kramer. 2004. Gestures over video streams to support remote collaboration on physical tasks. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 3: 273--309. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Fei Gao, Tianyi Zhang, and Teresa Franklin. 2013. Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology 44, 3: 469--483.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Darren Gergle, Robert E Kraut, and Susan R Fussell. 2013. Using visual information for grounding and awareness in collaborative tasks. Human-Computer Interaction 28, 1: 1--39.Google Scholar
- Carl Gutwin and Saul Greenberg. 2002. A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)11, 3--4: 411--446. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Carl Gutwin, Mark Roseman, and Saul Greenberg. 1996. A usability study of awareness widgets in a shared workspace groupware system. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 258--267. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Carl Gutwin, Gwen Stark, and Saul Greenberg. 1995. Support for workspace awareness in educational groupware. In The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning, 147--156. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mark Guzdial and Jennifer Turns. 2000. Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The journal of the learning sciences 9, 4: 437--469.Google Scholar
- Michel Hupet, Xavier Seron, and Yves Chantraine. 1991. The effects of the codability and discriminability of the referents on the collaborative referring procedure. British Journal of Psychology 82, 4: 449--462.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- David S Kirk and Danaë Stanton Fraser. 2005. The effects of remote gesturing on distance instruction. In Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years!, 301--310. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- David Kirk and Danae Stanton Fraser. 2006. Comparing remote gesture technologies for supporting collaborative physical tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, 1191--1200. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Robert E Kraut, Susan R Fussell, and Jane Siegel. 2003. Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human-computer interaction 18, 1: 13--49. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Benjamin Lafreniere, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2013. Community enhanced tutorials: improving tutorials with multiple demonstrations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1779--1788. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- David W McDonald, Chunhua Weng, and John H Gennari. 2004. The multiple views of inter-organizational authoring. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 564--573. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jakko van der Pol, Wilfried Admiraal, and P Robert-Jan Simons. 2006. The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1, 3: 339--357.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- J Van Der Pol, W Admiraal, and R-J Simons. 2003. Grounding in electronic discussions: Standard (threaded) versus anchored discussion. In Designing for change in networked learning environments. Springer, 77--81.Google Scholar
- Carolyn Penstein Rosé and Oliver Ferschke. 2016. Technology Support for Discussion Based Learning: From Computer Supported Collaborative Learning to the Future of Massive Open Online Courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education: 1--19.Google Scholar
- Susana Rubio, Eva Diaz, Jesús Martin, and José M Puente. 2004. Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology 53, 1: 61--86.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Patrick E Shrout and Joseph L Fleiss. 1979. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological bulletin 86, 2: 420.Google Scholar
- George Siemens. 2014. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.Google Scholar
- Michael Tsang, George W Fitzmaurice, Gordon Kurtenbach, Azam Khan, and Bill Buxton. 2002. Boom chameleon: simultaneous capture of 3D viewpoint, voice and gesture annotations on a spatially-aware display. In Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 111--120. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Patricia G Wojahn, Christine M Neuwirth, and Barbara Bullock. 1998. Effects of interfaces for annotation on communication in a collaborative task. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 456--46 Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dongwook Yoon, Nicholas Chen, François Guimbretière, and Abigail Sellen. 2014. RichReview: blending ink, speech, and gesture to support collaborative document review. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 481--490. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dongwook Yoon, Nicholas Chen, Bernie Randles, Amy Cheatle, Corinna E Löckenhoff, Steven J Jackson, Abigail Sellen, and François Guimbretière. 2016. RichReview++: Deployment of a Collaborative Multi-modal Annotation System for Instructor Feedback and Peer Discussion. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 195--205. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joyce Zhu, Jeremy Warner, Mitchell Gordon, Jeffery White, Renan Zanelatto, and Philip J Guo. 2015. Toward a Domain-Specific Visual Discussion Forum for Learning Computer Programming: An Empirical Study of a Popular MOOC Forum.Google Scholar
- Sacha Zyto, David Karger, Mark Ackerman, and Sanjoy Mahajan. 2012. Successful classroom deployment of a social document annotation system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1883--1892. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Korero: Facilitating Complex Referencing of Visual Materials in Asynchronous Discussion Interface
Recommendations
Explicit referencing in chat supports collaborative learning
CSCL '05: Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years!In Pfister & Mühlpfordt (2002) a study was presented showing that chat discussions with a strict turn order combined with the requirement to assign a type and an explicit reference to each message lead to a higher learning score than discussions in a ...
Dialog acts in greeting and leavetaking in social talk
ISIAA 2017: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI International Workshop on Investigating Social Interactions with Artificial AgentsConversation proceeds through dialogue moves or acts, and dialog act annotation can aid the design of artificial dialog. While many dialogs are task-based or instrumental, with clear goals, as in the case of a service encounter or business meeting, ...
Natural Language, Mixed-initiative Personal Assistant Agents
IMCOM '18: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and CommunicationThe increasing popularity and use of personal voice assistant technologies, such as Siri and Google Now, is driving and expanding progress toward the long-term and lofty goal of using artificial intelligence to build human-computer dialog systems ...






Comments