Video as a Lens

 

The Knowledge Innovation & Technology Lab (KITL): a new space for collaboration and knowledge creation and exchange.

 

Introduction:

 

In recent years digital technology has become perceived as a common tool within a wide-range of both personal and professional environments. People have recently begun to notice the impact of digital technologies, and their enhancement of communication and knowledge exchange; however, communication through these new technologies can also cause new and unique barriers. Individuals are now finding their use of these new artifacts and technologies are, as a result, making their lives richer and more complex.

 

The Knowledge Innovation & Technology Lab (KITL), located at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE/UT), is a state of the art facility housing many tools for distributive knowledge building communities. The communication tools of interest for our KMD 1002 project were the web-based tools and the Polyvision Thunder system, a tool that allows people to collaboratively learn and work with groups that are located in other cities and countries. These tools were to be examined by a group of learning scientists to explore activities that would be enhanced by this digital learning environment. The learning scientist that participated in this research were call the SAIL group.

 

This project presents an argument for how individuals can use video to understand human behaviours and patterns of social interaction within this new technology space. The implications of this study will establish criteria for optimum group environments for learning and collaboration within the KITL room. Recent literature from the fields of organizational behaviour and sociology regarding collaboration, team building and neogational strategies will be discussed and used to analyze and establish patterns of social action. Finally, this paper will look at the limitations, implications and future challenges of this type of technology space, as well as, outlining the types of collaborative groups that can work within this space.

 

Objectives and Goals:

 

There are three central objectives for this study:

 

The first objective is to develop an understanding about practical human interactive issues such as time management and organization. These aspects will be studied to determine their effects on collaboration. The second objective within this project is to determine how users establish the rules of engagement within the KITL room. The final objective of this project is to observe learning researchers' uses of the Thunder System for collaboration and discussion.

 

The hypothesis of this study are:

 

H1: Effective time management and organization leads to successful interactions and collaborations.

 

H2: Users benefit from social rules of engagement that can lead to successful collaborative outcomes.

 

H3: Users would more effectively collaborate and develop community through the use of the Thunder System.

 

The goals and objectives of this project will create an awareness and understanding of humans social patterns within web-based collaborations and explore how video can monitor these patterns within a social context and framework.

 

Theoretical Framework:

 

A large portion of CSCW research is concerned with either remote collaboration or asynchronous collaboration. The KITL technology can facilitate remote collaboration, but our research focused on a computer-mediated local meeting. Xerox PARC has produced a sizable body of research in this context, starting with the work done on Colab by Steffik et al (1987). Work on this and other tools led Tang and Leifer (1988) to create a framework for understanding techology-laden collaborative tasks.

 

The framework devised by Tang and Leifer has three components. It describes activities in a meeting by breaking them down into actions and functions. Actions “describe the means of producing the activity” (p. 245). Crucially, the three action categories -- list, draw and gesture -- are rooted in movement and process rather than language. The talk of a meeting is important for establishing the context, but is not the focus of analysis.

 

An action is performed in the service of a function -- “the purpose that the activity accomplishes” (p. 245). Tang et al list four functions: storing information, conveying ideas, representing ideas, and engaging attention.

 

Third, combinations of functions and actions can be grouped into activities -- the broader aims of the group at any given time. Collaborative meetings are normally imagined as sessions where participants store information and convey ideas (functions) using lists and drawings (actions). This conventional view is one of the activities. The space defined by the other function/action combinations is divided into the gestural expression activity, which encompasses any function performed through gesture; developing ideas, which encompasses any action performed in the service of representing ideas; and mediating interaction, which consists of any action intended to engage and manage attention.

 

An example usage of this scenario would be to analyze a segment of video in which a group of designers is brainstorming a user interface. This process may consist of sketching the interface on a whiteboard. In the framework of Tang and Leifer, that portion of the activity would be a drawing action that carries out a representing ideas function.

 

We use this framework to analyze how the activities of the KITL meeting were shaped by its context. The context is both social and technical -- while the abundance of technology affected the actions and functions through which the activities were carried out, the social structure of the group also had a hand in the course of the meeting. A room without whiteboards is less conducive to the drawing action, but that dampening effect on drawing may be counteracted by a community of practice that considers idea-sketching to be a very important part of the collaborative process.

 

 

 

• Crampton, C. (2002). Finding Common Ground in Dispersed Collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 30 (4).

 

• Mutual knowledge parties try to communicate. Within this new technology space, not only was the technology unfamiliar to the group but the activity to determine possible activities were difficult and awkward. The collaborative group had various strengths but little common ground and it was difficult to create that common ground to develop cohesive activity.

• Wellman, B. (1996). For Social Network Analysis of computer networks: a sociological perspective on collaborative work and virtual community. Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research.

• looks at humans and social networks through computer networks - collaborative ideas

 

 

• Olson, M. & Olson, J. (2000). Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interactions, 15.

 

• looks at how people think that it is easier to work together and in reality it is very difficult through the technology backdrop.

 

• Other Theoretical papers should look at Team Building, Negotiation Strategies.

 

• Methodology and Design

 

Sample:

 

The sample size of this study was 12 participants. This group consisted of research educators, architects, administrators, and technology designers. They were observed during a single two-hour meeting in the KITL room – this was the first time these individuals had used the room as a group. This group's function was to work within the KITL room technology and develop potential uses for an education setting. For this collaborative task they used the technology itself.

 

Procedure of study

 

In the study the participants were given a specific task: to create an exercise for use in the KITL room. From this observations were made using a variety of techniques: video capture and analysis, field observations, and pre/post surveys.

 

Type of Methodology:

 

With our broader focus on the group’s collaboration techniques, and their subsequent moderation by KITL’s novel technology, a qualitative research methodology was chosen that is consistent with established workspace activity analysis techniques as outlined above by Tang and Leifer (1998).

 

Qualitative Observations and Data Collection

 

To begin our data collection for this study we first handed out pre-surveys to all of the participants to understand their backgrounds, and previous experience with collaborative and digital technologies.

Once the session began we began filming the participants using two cameras, each filming the two-hour event from a different vantage point. Tang and Leifer (1998) support video capture as an enabling technology method of observation for gestural and drawn artifacts. This video footage was supported by observations taken by two of the researchers on their laptops.

The session consisted of three distinct phases: 1) an opening presentation by the group coordinator, and introduction by the KITL technology specialist; 2) breaking up the group into two teams, each exploring the technology for practical use within a K-12 educational setting; 3) The groups reconvened to present their developments to all the members.

After the session was completed the participants were given a post-survey to evaluate their own responses to the technology and their interactions within it.

Qualitative analysis of this material followed from reviewing the actions, as evidenced by the three kinds of gathered artifacts, and sorting them into separate functions, finally grouping these as activities. This required reviewing the 4 hours of captured video, in two “video watching parties,” and subsequently tagging key isolated video segments as indicative of the relevant activities. This was enabled through our own field notes (e.g., “tech guy has taken control of board 4:58:19 PM”), results of the surveys administered, and tagging functionality in our video-editing suite (iMovie HD). Through the act of choosing only 5 minutes of the most representative clips from the 240 minutes gathered, a video script was developed. This script built an ethnographic story, tracking the journey of one of the two split research groups through their experience. The development of this video provided a flash point of discussion for the investigation, concretizing many independent observations from each of us, weaving a coherent fabric of the experiences into a story that can be visually retold for the interested researcher.

 

 

 

• Data Analysis and Findings

 

This study is very preliminary in its inception, but there are some preliminary findings which are valuable.

 

Effective time management and organization leads to successful interactions and collaborations.

Data Analysis and Findings:

This study is very preliminary, but there are some findings that are valuable.

Effective time management and organization leads to successful interactions and collaborations.

 

The general practices of any group networking or meeting organization also applies to technology based collaborative networking and meetings. From our research, there were many elements that became important in the functioning of the users of the KITL room. For better analysis of the hypothesis that time management and organizational meeting structure leads to more successful participant interactions and collaborations, the video data can be divided into two main parts. The first half of the video analysis doesn’t change and is static in its social interaction. The initial moments of the video indicates that at the onset of the meeting the time management and direction is vague. The KITL room demands more focus on activity and the layout of the chairs (semi-circle), left a vacuum in the centre of the room, and the participants in the activity become more aware of this empty space within the room, as the first half of the meeting progressed. This is clearly illustrated in video clip time 00:00 sec – 00:30sec. The group leader noted the empty space (from larger video clip); but at that point the collaborative group was already seated and the meeting began.

The structure and allocation of the individuals in the KITL room also had an impact the use of the room and the function of the room. Individuals in the large group circle structure felt almost invisible noted as many of the people had absent expressions (seen in the video) and movement seen within the first half of the video is restless. This is supported by the video analysis where at 45 secs, the group leader mentions that even he is bored of talking.

Perhaps, the group was just settling in and there is literature that supports this. (lit. ref.)

The second half of the meeting switched focus to a small group activity. Within the small group activity, the video analysis shows more visible group actions (such as gestures, nods), and this is due to in part the change in the structure of the room. The vacuum in the center of the room disappears and the smaller group circles promoted more discussion. Members of group are in close proximity to each other and the technology tools are more intimate with the group. As seen in the video clip 01:00-01:50).

Lastly, because the room and organization was unfamiliar to the group members, information about the technology would have been beneficial prior to the meeting. The technology assistant perhaps could have outlined some of the salient features and a very easy step-by-step guideline could be prepared. During several small group interactions, the technology assistant has to confirm the limitations of the technology.

The following video excerpts show this:

53 secs The technology specialist spends a log time explaining what the systems does... but as seen below, missed crucial elements

2:35 Tech is still explaining central elements to the thunderboard system

In analysis of collaborative environments, video data makes explicit management and organization of the meeting. The action, movements and gestures become the central focus of successful meaning, and the text and commentary become secondary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

The general practices of any group networking or meeting organization also applies to technology based collaborative networking and meetings. From our research, there were many elements that became important in the functioning of the users of the KITL room. The initial observation is the time management and direction at the onset of the meeting is vague. The room demands more focus on activity and the layout of the chairs (semi-circle), left a vacuum in the centre of the room, and the participants in the activity become more aware of this empty space within the room, as the first half of the meeting continues. This empty space in the centre of the room was noticed by the group leader at the beginning of the meeting, The structure and allocation of the individuals in the KITL room impacts the use of the room and the function of the room Later when the activity switches to small group activity there is more visible group action (gestures, nods), and this is due to in part the change in the structure of the room.

 

The group leader describes his activities from the past weeks and ideas about 'future classrooms'. The lecture style delivery again was seen as the central theme through our video lens. In analysis of collaborative environments, video data makes explicit action, movements and gestures, the text and commentary become secondary.

 

Lastly, because the room and organization were unfamilar to the group, a prior experience template would have been beneficial. The technology assistant perhaps could outline some of the sailent features and a very easy step by step guideline could be prepared. The lack of familarity slowed down effective decision making and group process.

 

The following table outlines some statements regarding time management and general structure of the group activity:

 

Observations from Video:

 

45 secs Jim mentions that even he is bored of talking... half of the allotted time has been used up and no collaboration has been initiated yet.

4:11 Group runs out of time to complete the task

 

53 secs The technology specialist spends a log time explaining what the systems does... but as seen below, missed crucial elements

2:35 Tech is still explaining central elements to the thunderboard system

3:26

 

4:00 The lack of pre-structuring/teachings of the system's limitations, caused major problems when the group spent much of their time working on an idea that was impossible with the Thunderboard system, and they run out of time.

 

Another observation (from field notes)is that because the goals at onset were not as clearly understood by participants, the individuals within the meeting had uncertainty of their role. This is evident in the lack of participation, lack of gestures or nods from the participants and the restless movement. Roles that individual plays become explicit as the meeting progressed. Video was able to capture this change in structure and behavour organizational shift. Leaders, subleaders, recorders of the groups became evident during the second half of the meeting. This change in roles and structure lead for desired collaborative outcomes to be achieved. It became evident within the video that leaders and subleaders did emerge.

 

(evidence) ... see time stamp....

At this point - need to tie in theoretical framework

 

Users benefit from social rules of engagement that can lead to successful collaborative outcomes.

 

We are defining social rules of engagement as a method that the individuals seek out a particular step by step methodology or procedure during their meeting and social interaction. Roberts Rule of Order in more formal circumstances would address some of the interaction rules within a meeting. However, in an informal setting with new innovative technology, there was a definite need to have some rules that established order for interaction. In particular, the Thunder System requires a step by step guideline in uses because of the limitations. Only one participant can be on the system at a time. The activity was subsequently effected by this.

 

The following responses comment on this frustration of the system (and the need for steps):

 

Mehdi comments from survey -

 

 

When the technology fails, it becomes more important to establish rules of engagment and actual procedural steps for the collaboration to continue.

 

1:10 Tech states that "This is a hard way to use the system" because both groups in the room are "fighting for the same board."

 

Users would more effectively collaborate and community through the use of the Thunder System.

 

For effect collaboration, individuals must feel that their input and their actities are productive. The observations from the video analysis show that as soon as large group became a small group, individuals were able to pursue the activity creation for the KITL room. They individuals begin to see the limitations of the Thunder System.

 

The following excepts refer to this fustration:

 

1:32 The group begins by discussing their ideas together through speech, not relying on the thunderboard to generate ideas, almost ignoring the technology completely

2:10 Begin trying to use Thunderboard system to collaborate but are still heavily connected to physical communication for collaboration... using the thunder system more as a sketch pad than a collaborative tool

3:36 Groups shout to one another to communicate and solve deadlocks in the collaboration system.

4:20 begin to showcase their unsuccessful idea on the thunderboard to everyone else

3:51 Realization that their idea won't work

 

The time element and structure of meeting lead to a rushed integration of the technology. The ideas for the KITL room were shared and discussed but there was an overall recognition of the difficulty of creating activites with the technology.

 

The collaboration was efectively shown through the video as there were more nods, gestures that individuals use. At one point through small group interaction there was movement to show and illustrate diagrams of the use. The tone and encouragement from group members helpful. Through this section the group explored the limitations of the Thunder System.

 

The following excerpt of video shows this:

 

2:22 As they become more engaged they add nods and gestures to add more meaning to their discussion.

 

Video did provide a rich medium for observing communication and technology for this study. The ability to reply the meeting in its entirety has benefits for researcher. The various levels of interaction from superficial in large group and more engaged in smaller group was clearly evident, and supported from our own field notes, and suvery responses. This is very encouraging for monitoring group interaction and the ability to analysize the best ways to address the technology within the room.

 

• Limitations, Implications and Future Challenges

1. Scaffolded elements, organizational structure and time management:

 

It is difficult to establish time management and organizational structure without prior knowledge of the technology and the room limitations. However, cost and time pressures make it unlikely that a group could use the lab to engage in informal technology-mediated meetings. Future success in the KITL room requires pre-planning of activities with the group. This will enable each participant to make effective use of the technology, and allow for more rewarding experiences within the KITL room. To support continuous improvement of lab use, participants should commit to documenting their experiences and discussing them in a follow-up group meeting.

 

2. Videotaping Participants During Collaborative Meetings:

 

Allen (1989) enumerated two issues that must be considered when using video in organizational studies. The first involves the relationship between the researcher and the study participants: researchers must be aware of the peril of introducing video into a workplace and the importance of generating trust. This was not a problem for us. Our participant group is accustomed to this type of research -- many of them conduct video studies themselves -- and were personally familiar with several of the researchers. Additionally, our study did not involve recording any potentially sensitive conversations or locations.

 

In fact, our videotaping of the meeting made the limitations of the technology and the meeting structure more demonstrably explicit. As a result of showing the edited video to other researchers, consensus was reached around the following suggestions. First, outlining the technological tools should be completed prior to the event, either through a pre-meeting or pre-distributed video guides. The agenda of design meetings must take into account the capabilities and affordances of the room, so that participants do not have to start from scratch each time. We encourage meeting facilitators to explicitly assign roles to participants according to the needs of the meeting. For instance, a rotating "pen holder" role would allow smoother interaction with the Thunder Board. Finally, success must be defined and achievable within the time allotted, producing a result of value to non-attendees.

 

3. Video Analysis

 

Allen’s second concern with video as an analysis tool was the immense amount of time and effort required to analyze even a small amount of videotaped footage. Unfortunately, there was nothing we could do to avoid this. We quickly eliminated much of the first hour of video from the analysis because of its monotonous talk-heavy content, but the second hour was rich with interactions between and among the two groups, and could not easily be whittled down. Critical problems in our video analysis included time stamping and rendering time. These constraints will probably be lessened as technology becomes more effective.

 

The insight gained from the footage was worth the effort. Video analysis is highly effective for capturing knowledge transfer through drawings, gestures and group interaction. The richness of these interactions would have been missed by our field notes and surveys.

 

Conclusion

 

Future research in the uses and the social interactions within such a highly technical room is required. The participants need to play and learn - and this requires an open ended timeframe.

 

References:**

 

Allen, C. (1989). The use of video in organizational studies . ACM Press.

 

Day, Eileen (2002, September). Me, My*self and I: Personal and Professional Re-Constructions in Ethnographic Research 59 paragraphs. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research On-line Journal, 3(3). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02day-e.htm

 

Ostergaard, K.J., & Summers, J.D. (2003). A TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF COLLABORATIVE DESIGN. International Conference on Engineering Design.

 

Robert, H.M. (2000). Robert's Rules of Order: Newly Revised. Perseus Books Group.

 

Stefik, M., Bobrow, D.G., Foster, G., Lanning, S., & Tatar, D. (1987). WYSIWIS revised: early experiences with multiuser interfaces . ACM Press.

 

Stefik, M.1., Foster, G., Bobrow, D.G., Kahn, K., Lanning, S., & Suchman, L. (1987). Beyond the chalkboard: computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings. Communications of the ACM, 30(1), 32-47.

 

Tang, J.C., & Leifer, L.J. (1988). A framework for understanding the workspace activity of design teams . , 244-249 .

 

Tatar, D. (1989). Using video-based observation to shape the design of a new technology. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 21(2), 108-111.