Abstract:This study investigated the effects of two types of audio channels upon the effectiveness of task-based interactions in a video-mediated context (VMC). Forty undergraduates completed a collaborative task (The Map Task) using either a full or half-duplex audio channel. Their performance was compared to face-to-face interactions, taken from the Human Communication Research Centre corpus of Map Task Dialogues. Effects of varying the audio channel were explored by comparing task performance, patterns of speech, an… Show more
“…Conversational turns take place more rapidly and utterances are more compact. Thus researchers often rely on measures of communication efficiency to detect the effects of different communication settings [12,13]. We expected to observe similar trends in our experimental setting, with teams becoming more efficient in their communication as common ground increased.…”
Section: Communication Structurementioning
confidence: 64%
“…On average the duration of a turn decreased from 3.3 to 2.7 seconds (t-test: t 11 =5.6, p<.001), and the average number of words per turn dropped from 10 to 7.8 (t-test: t 11 =5.2, p<0.001). These results suggest that speakers became more efficient in delivering their utterances [e.g., 13,12].…”
Section: Communication Structurementioning
confidence: 98%
“…We adapted the Conversation Game Analysis method for our coding process (see [12,15] for prior uses of the method in CMC research). This scheme is used to characterize the communicative functions of dialogue acts (what the speaker is attempting to achieve) rather than their linguistic form or meaning.…”
We study the development of common ground in an emergency management planning task. Twelve three-person multi-role teams performed the task with a paper prototype in a controlled setting; each team completed three versions of the task. We use converging measures to document the development of common ground in the teams and present an in-depth analysis of the characteristics of the common ground development process. Our findings indicate that in complex collaborative work, process common ground increases, thus diminishing the need for acts like information querying or strategy discussions about how to organize the collaborative activities. However, content common ground is created and tested throughout the three runs; in fact dialogue acts used to clarify this content increase over time. Discussion of the implications of these findings for the theory of common ground and the design of collaborative systems follows.
“…Conversational turns take place more rapidly and utterances are more compact. Thus researchers often rely on measures of communication efficiency to detect the effects of different communication settings [12,13]. We expected to observe similar trends in our experimental setting, with teams becoming more efficient in their communication as common ground increased.…”
Section: Communication Structurementioning
confidence: 64%
“…On average the duration of a turn decreased from 3.3 to 2.7 seconds (t-test: t 11 =5.6, p<.001), and the average number of words per turn dropped from 10 to 7.8 (t-test: t 11 =5.2, p<0.001). These results suggest that speakers became more efficient in delivering their utterances [e.g., 13,12].…”
Section: Communication Structurementioning
confidence: 98%
“…We adapted the Conversation Game Analysis method for our coding process (see [12,15] for prior uses of the method in CMC research). This scheme is used to characterize the communicative functions of dialogue acts (what the speaker is attempting to achieve) rather than their linguistic form or meaning.…”
We study the development of common ground in an emergency management planning task. Twelve three-person multi-role teams performed the task with a paper prototype in a controlled setting; each team completed three versions of the task. We use converging measures to document the development of common ground in the teams and present an in-depth analysis of the characteristics of the common ground development process. Our findings indicate that in complex collaborative work, process common ground increases, thus diminishing the need for acts like information querying or strategy discussions about how to organize the collaborative activities. However, content common ground is created and tested throughout the three runs; in fact dialogue acts used to clarify this content increase over time. Discussion of the implications of these findings for the theory of common ground and the design of collaborative systems follows.
“…Numerous studies have focused on determining how different aspects of videoconferencing environments affect task results and the feelings of the participants, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Some widely accepted results are:…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Basic videoconferencing capabilities were provided by MBone Tools 5 . Robust Audio Tool (RAT) was used for audio transmission and playback.…”
Abstract-Videoconferencing has emerged as a popular method of remote communication. The design of a videoconferencing environment strongly influences the communication efficiency and user satisfaction. Various studies on perceived effects of videoconferencing environments and their parameters have been done, however, they primarily focused on dyadic conversation. This paper describes an exploratory study on the effects on remote groups communication. Beginning with the standard environment, a videoconferencing design has been developed iteratively according to information obtained from the experimental group. Two new videoconferencing environment designs are introduced to suit the group conversation needs better and bring the group videoconference closer to face-to-face communication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.