Development and Implementation of a Web-enabled CyberCollaboratory for Asynchronous Teams (Web-CCAT) Donna Dufner, Ojoung Kwon, and Rassule Hadidi Department of MIS, University of Illinois at Springfield, Springfield, IL. 62794-9243
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected] Abstract This paper describes the theoretical foundation, architecture, and implementation of Web-CCAT, a CyberCollaboratory for Asynchronous Teams. Through Web-CCAT students have asynchronous access to software tools such as Group Decision Support System (GDSS); Multi-user, Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE); and Multi-user Project Management. Because Web-CCAT is a flexible environment, it can be used for group project assignments incorporated into either a traditional, faceto-face pedagogy or a distance learning pedagogy. The primary objectives for Web-CCAT are to provide our students with the opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of cooperative learning experiences without having to coordinate meetings or come to campus; and to provide a “richer” collaborative environment asynchronously than is possible in a traditional face-toface classroom.
1. Introduction and Historical Foundation The decision to build a Web-enabled, asynchronous, team environment to support group projects is in direct response to the reality facing many of the students at the University of Illinois at Springfield (UIS). Often our students have demanding, full time jobs and family responsibilities in addition to the hours spent pursuing an education. Consequently, even though collaborative learning is seen as beneficial, professors are reluctant to assign group or team projects because of the additional requirements for students to coordinate and attend meetings outside of the classroom. Our objective in building an asynchronous CyberCollaboratory is to provide an alternative to faceto-face meetings; so our students can enjoy the educational benefits of collaborative learning with less need to coordinate and attend meetings. Cooperative or collaborative learning experiences have a long history of
positive outcomes, particularly in the case of older, highly motivated students such as those attending graduate evening classes at UIS where the average student age is approximately 30 years. Previous research shows that students who have the opportunity for collaborative learning experiences develop better analytical skills, evaluate readings more thoughtfully, and feel more of a sense of belonging [4] [25] [34] [38]. Collaborative learning in and of itself is an effective method for promoting learning [23]. From the empirical research we also know that learning is a social process [18], and that group learning is more effective than individual learning [2] [8] [18] [37]. Asynchronous technologies made available through the Internet are an excellent method for offering group learning experiences. Because of the asynchronous nature of the technology, individual group members can use them from the location of their choice such as their home or office, and at the times they prefer. When face-to-face meetings are required, these meetings can be more productive as a result of preliminary work done asynchronously. Students also have more time to reflect and think about their input in a much less pressured environment than is possible in a face-to-face meeting where sub-optimal decisions can be made due to “pressure to closure” [14] [18] [19]. Group support technologies such as conferencing and GDSS, also provide students with the opportunity to learn teamwork methodologies, group decision making, consensus building, and group problem solving, all of which are important skills in today’s leaner, decentralized, team oriented corporate environments [30]. These technologies also enrich the learning experiences of students by providing an opportunity to interact more directly with one another, to learn about new technologies, and to enjoy the interaction of a goal oriented team. In addition to the social benefits of collaborative learning there are clear educational advantages to using asynchronous technologies. Students are reported to perform better using these technologies. The test scores
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
of groups of students using asynchronous technologies such as GDSS, Conferencing, Virtual Classrooms™, and Hypermedia Virtual Classrooms™ were significantly higher than those not using these environments and tools [1] [17] [18] [19] [29] [34]. Our decision to make the Collaboratory Webenabled is a result of the relative ease with which access can be achieved, the cost effectiveness of using the Web as the conduit for access, and the potential “richness” of Web based applications. The Web provides a method for both creating and accessing a “rich” [10] asynchronous environment. Any student can access a Web site using a PC and a standard Web browser. Web access can be purchased for about ten dollars a month through a service provider. The multi-media nature of the Web enables integration of text, audio, animation and video to enhance presentation richness and effectiveness. The benefits of group projects as rich and enjoyable, social, learning experiences are clear [18]. The importance of active learning such as that made possible through the richness of the Web compared to more traditional passive learning has also been emphasized in a number of studies [1] [5] [7]. The Internet and the Web can “…serve as a highly effective foundation for a Collaboratory” [3] by providing a media rich, active learning environment upon which to build.
2. Defining the Architecture The CyberCollaboratory architecture has its functional and theoretical foundation in the work done by Nunamaker and his colleagues at the University of Arizona; by Hiltz and Turoff at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT); and Gallupe, DeSanctis, and Dickson while at the University of Minnesota. Theoretical mechanisms such as process support, process structure, task support, and task structure were addressed using the Arizona, NJIT, and Minnesota models as starting points. An overview of the research and the systems at NJIT, Minnesota, and Arizona is presented in [6]. To design the process support infrastructure (i.e. channels, media, and devices) and the process structures (i.e. sequential or ordered steps, processing supports, filtering, anonymity, etc.) we used the EIES 2 model developed at NJIT [22]. For task support (tools such as GDSS and CASE, and Public versus Private Screen, etc.), and task structure we drew upon the research and design work conducted at NJIT, Minnesota, and Arizona.
3. Collaboratories
Our CyberCollaboratory is a major extension of the definition stated by Wulf, who defined a Collaboratory as “…a center without walls, in which the nation’s researchers can perform their research without regard to geographical location—interacting with colleagues, accessing instrumentation, sharing data and computational resources, and accessing information in digital libraries.” [24]. We are providing “intelligent” and media rich tools that are designed to be Web-enabled, multi-user, tailorable, integrated, and asynchronous. Our CyberCollaboratory is designed to be used as a virtual space for teaching and learning where a teacher can become a facilitator who “structures the learning opportunities” [18] and the students collaborate without regard for geographical or temporal boundaries. The CyberCollaboratory is also an environment enriched with on-line training modules, AI tools, interactive Java applets, and GDSS tools designed to promote student self-learning.
4. A Web-enabled CyberCollaboratory for Asynchronous Teams (Web-CCAT) Web-CCAT can be used asynchronously in client/ server mode through the Web or the campus LAN. For face-to-face, synchronous communication the CyberCollaboratory will be made accessible in any of the computer labs on campus. The CyberCollaboratory software is comprised of Domino 4.5 and Lotus Notes (the groupware), and a variety of software tools that are the Web-CCAT “Tool kit”. Web-CCAT was designed using both commercially available software packages such as Lotus Notes, Domino 4.5, Excelerator II (The CASE tool), and Microsoft Project (the project management tool); and software that has been developed here at UIS such as GDSS-UIS and various, software bridges. The AI/expert system modules and on-line training modules are also being developed as customized software. The decision to use a combination of “off-the-shelf” and “in-house developed” software was based on economic reality and time constraints. We decided to incorporate commercially available software into the software architecture wherever appropriate and cost effective rather than build new, similar products. Figure 1 shows all of the software packages that were either purchased or are under development. Many of the commercially available tools being incorporated into Web-CCAT were designed for singleperson use. We are actually expanding the functionality
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
from single person use to multi-person [36] use. The single person iterative review and revision process is slow and time consuming. By providing a virtual space such as Web-CCAT, where a team can collaboratively use tools and review task progress, increases in productivity are expected. Teamwork can be very “meeting intensive”. Up to 70% of any given day can be consumed by interaction and project coordination in the case of systems analysis and design projects [11]. The time saved as a result of the reduced needs to meet could be spent working on the task of systems design and analysis.
5. Tailorability Configurable from within Lotus Notes, WebCCAT is designed to be adaptively structured [28] to meet the needs of a variety of task groups. The group administrator or facilitator can select the team tools from the Web-CCAT Setup Screen by simply pointing at the desired menu item and clicking the left mouse button. For example, a software design and analysis task might require the use of the GDSS tools, word processing, Email, conferencing, and CASE as shown in figure 2.
Group DSS Electronic Brainstorming, Alternative Evaluation, Voting
Artificial Intelligent Back-end to Microsoft Project
AI Data Segments
Microsoft Project Management Data Segments
Microsoft Project
CyberLab Training Module Internet Access
GDSS Data Segments
Domino Software Bridge for WEB enabled Notes
Lotus Notes Groupware
SQL Server Database Management System
Excelerator II Structured Paradigm
EXCELERATOR Data Segments Structured Methodology EXCELERATOR Data Segments Object-oriented Methodology
Excelerator II Object-Oriented Paradigm CyberCollaboratory Software Architecture key: - - - - software developed in house, _____off the shelf software
Figure 1. Web-CCAT Software Architecture. Source: Dufner and Kwon (1997) [13]
Web-CCAT is launched from within Lotus Notes. The Setup Screen floats on top of the Lotus Notes interface. Once the tools are selected, the environment (Notes and the selected software extensions) is dynamically configured and a customized floating tool
1060-3425/98
bar of applications, the Web-CCAT Master Control for that specific group, is presented. The Master Control toolbar is a drop-down menu that provides access to tools embedded within each environment such as those as shown for the GDSS environment. For example, under the GDSS
$10.00
(C)
1998
IEEE
environment group members have access to the Electronic Brainstorming (EBS), Idea Organizing (IO), Voting, and Alternative Evaluation (AE) tools. [26]
6. The Web-CCAT Toolkit Web-CCAT consists of software extensions to Lotus Notes for group decision support, systems analysis and design, and project management. Each of these applications will be discussed in sections 6.1 through 6.3.
6.1. The GDSS Environment GDSS-UIS provides asynchronous group decision support tools for use by a task group or team. Included are: Electronic Brainstorming (EBS), Idea Organizer (IO); Voting, Alternative Evaluation (ALTEVAL), and Session Management (SM). Each of these applications was developed over the last three years and will be discussed in the following sections.
Figure 2: Web-CCAT Setup Menu and Floating Tool Bar GDSS-UIS is designed to provide each group member with his or her own work area (the Private Screen) viewed locally on the workstation or PC. Using the Private Screen, ideas can be composed and evaluated before being transferred to the Public Screen for group viewing. Each group member has the option of viewing both the Private and the Public Screens at
the same time using a split screen, or either the Private or Public Screen alone. 6.1.1. Electronic Brainstorming (EBS) The EBS screen in figure 3 shows both the Public and the Private Screens. EBS provides a platform for generating and posting related ideas. The
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
Public Screen contains all of the ideas transmitted by the group members. Individual group members may select public or private messages and upload or download them for modification by using the GUI cut and paste options. The original message will be
preserved on the Public Screen. Only the member who posted a message has permission to modify or delete a message.
Figure 3. GDSS-UIS: EBS Private Screen and Public Screen 6.1.2. Idea Organizer (IO) The IO tools shown in figure 4 can be used by a group to organize a list of ideas generated during an EBS session. Ideas can be easily edited, duplicates can be deleted, and similar ideas can be consolidated. When the brainstorming session is complete the database of ideas is opened by GDSS-UIS for use by the IO tool and access is closed to EBS. Groups may use one tool at a time. However, groups may move from tool to tool and back again as they wish. 6.1.3. Voting
There are four voting methods: Vote for One, Vote Yes/No, Rate, and Rank. Vote for One and Voting by Ranking are shown in figures 5 and 6. To vote each member is presented with the list of ideas generated from a previous EBS or IO asynchronous session. The voting method or type is specified by a facilitator or individual group member prior to group voting. In the case of Vote for One the member points at the preferred option and clicks the left mouse button to cast the vote. GDSS-UIS places a check mark in the appropriate box. To rank alternatives, each group member is given a set number of points to allocate to the option(s) most preferred. GDSS-UIS keeps a running total of the number of points allocated as the group member votes.
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
Figure 4. GDSS-UIS: Idea Organizer
Figure 5. GDSS-UIS: Vote for One
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
Figure 6. GDSS-UIS: Voting by Ranking
GDSS-UIS tabulates votes automatically as each member votes. The results of voting can be viewed in graphical form as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7. Voting Results can be displayed in graphical form. 6.1.4. Alternative Evaluation (AE) AE was designed to enable members to create their own evaluation criteria and then use them. In the example shown in figure 8 a group is trying to generate alternative places for a new factory location. The criteria such as land price, transportation, and raw material sources that will be used in making the
decision are listed. The group members have four methods for weighting the criteria. These are, equal weight, direct input of priorities, pairwise comparison, and the ELECTRE [9] method.
Figure 8. Alternative Evaluation
6.2. Asynchronous Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) Tools for Systems Analysis and Design Courses Systems analysis and design courses at UIS generally involve the use of CASE tools and project work. Most projects are completed by students working
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
in isolation. However, in the “real world” systems development is a collaborative activity performed by a design team. The CyberCollaboratory will provide students with the opportunity to collaborate on a systems analysis and design project with less need to coordinate and attend face-to-face meetings. Student design activities become a more genuinely collaborative function. Excelerator II a stable, widely implemented CASE tool was chosen to be used by students taking courses that require systems analysis and design projects. Excelerator II is designed by the manufacturer to be used as a stand-alone product. To view CASE generated graphics using a Web browser and the Internet requires a GUI interface implemented within Notes. A Java interface from within Notes is used to mimic the Excelerator II interface. The graphics created using Excelerator II in client/server LAN mode are retrieved directly from an SQL Server database management system and passed to the GUI interface embedded in Notes. The alternative of passing control to Excelerator II from Notes and back would result in performance problems when coupled with the transmission effects of the Internet. Both Excelerator II and Notes are very large CPU intensive applications
6.3. Project Management and Project Management Advisor (PMA) The project management component of the applications suite consists of the integration of Microsoft Project into the Notes software platform to make Microsoft Project multi-user. The PMA extension is an expert system module that will issue alerts to potential problems, analyze the causes of delay, and provide suggestion for corrective measures. Microsoft Project simply alerts a user to project slippages. The integration of Microsoft Project and PMA into the Web-CCAT environment will enable asynchronous groups to manage their tasks collaboratively. The groupware-project planning combination is expected to facilitate group planning and control.
7. Group Process Coordination Asynchronous group coordination presents technical and social coordination issues, such as the time lag between questions and replies; and irregular participation by some group members. Occasionally, a group splinters into subgroups [14] causing the efforts of the group to lose focus.
Particularly in discussion groups where team members do not stay current with conference comments as a result of irregular participation, a member begins reading and responding to conference comments in a linear fashion, quickly becoming out of phase with the group. This "out of phase syndrome" becomes more acute as the time lengthens between logon sessions. An out of phase member’s contribution can be confusing or even negative for a task group. Past research has shown that a great deal of cognitive dissonance occurs among group members when an out of phase member who logs-in irregularly begins adding commentary to an on-going discussion. In response to these comments which are unexpected, those who have been working in step with their group will often express confusion by asking questions such as, ‘"Didn't we already discuss that?"’ or ‘"I'm confused, where are we?"’ [14]. This effect is similar to what people experience when day dreaming in a face-to-face meeting and subsequently having difficulty picking up the thread of the conversation in a meaningful way [14]. Face-to-face groups find it relatively easy to remind a group member that an issue is no longer on the table and the input is disregarded as noise. Asynchronous groups on the other hand can have difficulty identifying this type of sporadic input as noise and will try unsuccessfully to integrate input from the “sporadically participating” members. The end result can be confusion and often stalled processes. Both facilitation and structure can be used to manage asynchronous coordination problems. WebCCAT will contain mechanisms for coordination such as group Decision Support tools, time stamping, and locking of files. For example, CASE generated diagrams and documents can be made read-only once designs are firm. Project management software can be used to generate reports without modification of the central plan.
8. Conclusions and Future Directions A series of controlled experiments is planned for the academic year 1997-1998. Pilot studies will begin in the fall of 1997. We will be using a modified and extended version of the questionnaires developed at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) [19]. Some of the variables under investigation will include student perceptions of media richness, subjective satisfaction, convenience of access, access to the professor, participation, and ability to apply the material. Groups having access to Web-CCAT will be
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
compared to groups who do not have access to WebCCAT. We are now at the frontier of wide-spread use of two technologies, the Internet and the World Wide Web, for collaborative learning and teamwork. It is a widely held belief that the Internet and its information services such as the World Wide Web are going to have a major impact on collaborative learning and teamwork in areas such as individual performance, access, communication, richness, effective and efficient collaboration, and active and life long learning [12] [15] [16] [18] [33] [34]. The Internet and the Web are telescopes into CyberSpace that will open new vistas in human communication, understanding, and collaboration, changing how we think, feel, and understand the world in which we live.
Acknowledgements The CyberCollaboratory project was partially funded by an ALTHE (Advanced Learning Technologies in Higher Education) grant from the University of Illinois.
References [1] Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 159-174. [2] Alavi, M., Wheeler, B.F., & Valacich, J.S. (1995). Using IT to Reengineer Business Education: An Exploratory Investigation of Collaborative Telelearning. MIS Quarterly, 10(3), 293-312. [3] Barua, A., Chellappa, R., & Whinston, A. B. (1995). Creating a Collaboratory in Cyberspace: Theoretical Foundation and an Implementation. Journal of Organizational Computing, 5 (4), 417-442. [4] Bligh, D.A., (1972). What's the use of lectures. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. [5] Bok, D. (1986). Higher learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [6] Bostrum, Robert P., Watson, Richard T., & Kinney, S. (1992). Computer augmented teamwork a guided tour. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [7] Boyer, E.L. (1987). Toward school-college collaboration. Thought and Action. (3:2), 7-18. [8] Brown, A.L. & Palincsar, A.M. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. in L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing and learning: essays in honor of Robert Gaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 393-451.
[9] Changkong, V. & Haimes, Y. (1983). Multiobjective decision making. New York: North-Holland. [10] Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233. [11] DeMarco, T., & Listner, T. (1987). Peopleware. NewYork: Dorset House. [12] Dennis, A.R., Pootheri, S.K., & Natarajan, V. (1996). TCBWorks: A first generation web groupware system. http://tcbworks.cba.uga.edu/~adennis/tcbw h.htm. [13] Dufner, D.K., & Kwon, O. (1997). A web enabled cybercollaboratory for asynchronous team projects. Proceedings of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) Americas Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, 551-553. [14] Dufner, D.K., Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1994). Distributed group support: A preliminary analysis of the effects of the use of voting tools and sequential procedures. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Systems Sciences, 3, Los Alamitos, Ca.: IEEE Computer Society Press, 114-123. [15] Fellers, J.W., Clifton, A., & Handley, H. (1995). Using the Internet to provide support for distributed interactions. Proceedings of the twenty-eighth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 52-60. [16] Hadidi, R. (1997) Student’s acceptance of technologybased course offerings - an empirical assessment. Proceedings of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) Americas Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, 134-136. [17] Hiltz, S. R., (1995a). Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: Focus on students. Sloan Conference on Asynchronous Learning Networks, Philadelphia. [18] Hiltz, S.R. (1995b). Designing a virtual classroom™. Proceedings of 1995 International Conference on Computer Assisted Instruction, Hsinchu, Taiwan. [19] Hiltz, S.R., (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. [20] Hiltz, S. R., Dufner, D.K, Fjeremestad, J., Kim, Y., Ocher, R., Rana, A., & Turoff, M. (1996). Distributed group decision support systems: Theory development and experimentation in Olsen, G.; Malone, T.; and Smith, J. (Eds.), Coordination Theory and Collaborative Technology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [21] Hiltz, S. R., Dufner, D., Holmes, M.E., & Poole, S.M. (1991). Distributed group support systems: Social dynamics and design dilemmas. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2(1), 135-159. [22] Hiltz, S.R. & Turoff, M. (1992). Virtual meetings: Computer conferencing and distributed group support. In R.P. Bostrom, R.T Watson, & S.T. Kinney (Eds.), Computer
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
Augmented Teamwork A Guided Tour. Van Nostrand Reinhol, New York, 67-85. [23] Kimber, D. (1994). Collaborative learning in management education: Issues, benefits, problems and solutions: A literature review. Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference, New Zealand. [24] Kouzes, R.T., Meyers, J.D, & Wulf, W.A. (1996). Collaboratories doing science on the Internet. Computer, IEEE Computer Society Press, August, 40-46. [25] Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.L. (1979). College Teaching. in Peterson and Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon. [26] Nunamaker, J., Dennis, A., George, J., Martz, W., Valacich, J.; & Vogel, D. (1992). Self-constructed technology. In R.P. Bostrom., R.T Watson, & S.T. Kinney (Eds.), Computer Augmented Teamwork A Guided Tour. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhol, 141-162.
[37] Vygotsky, L.S., (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [38] Wagner, Richard J. et al. (1992). Enhancing teaching effectiveness using experiential techniques: Model development and empirical evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Region of the Academy of Management, St. Charles, IL, April 22-25. [39] Wheeler, B.C., Valacich, J.S., & Alavi, M. (1995). A framework for technology-mediated inter-institutional telelearning relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(1).
Key words: Asynchronous Learning Networks, Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, Web-enabled GDSS, Web-enabled CASE, Multiuser Project Management, Multi-user CASE.
[27] Nunamaker, Jr., J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R., & George, J.F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34 (7), 40-61. [28] Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 5-49. [29] Rana, A.R., Wooster, J., Whitescarver, J., & Hiltz, S.R. (1996). From virtual classroom to hypermedia virtual classroom. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, 832-834. [30] Roach, S.S. (1993). A special economic study: Making technology work (New York: Morgan Stanley, June. [31] Rudenstine, N.L. (1997). The Internet and education: a close fit. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 21, A48. [32] Semich, J.W. (1994).Client / server case: Oxymoron or essential,” Datamation, 40(17), September. [33] Silver, M.S. (1990). Decision support systems: directed and non-directed change. Information Systems Research, 1(1), 47-70. [34] Turoff, M. (1995). Designing a virtual classroom™. Proceedings of 1995 International Conference on Computer Assisted Instruction. Hsinchu, Taiwan. [35] Umar, A. (1997) Object-Oriented Client/Server Internet Environments. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. [36] Vessey, I.; & Sravanapudi, A.J. (1995). CASE tools as collaborative support technologies. CACM, 38(1), January, 83-95.
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
