CSCW/CSCL Stint Prototype

Innovative Additions to Google Docs using AXURE

By:

Genevieve Cox

Gloria Butcher

Rachele Wagstaffe

Ayanna Phillips-Stewart

Nyeisha George-Minott

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfilment of

EDID 6509 Needs Assessment for Learning and Performance

Date of submission: June 24th, 2017

University: University of the West Indies (UWI) Open Campus

E-tutor : Dr. Dickson-Deane

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 3
Problem Definition...................................................................................................................... 4
Problem Scope ............................................................................................................................ 4
Technical Review .................................................................................................................... 4
Design Requirements .................................................................................................................. 5
Design Description .................................................................................................................. 5
Overview ............................................................................................................................. 5
Detailed Description............................................................................................................. 6
Use ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 7
Prototype............................................................................................................................. 7
Screenshots of the new edit feature to prototype ................................................................ 8
Testing and Results: Prototype Iterations .................................................................................... 9
Iteration 1: .............................................................................................................................. 9
Iteration 2: .............................................................................................................................. 9
Evaluation .............................................................................................................................10
Google Docs Prototype Design/Development Testing Results .......................................................10
References .................................................................................................................................12
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................14
CSCW Instructional Map .......................................................................................................14
Decision Table ........................................................................................................................15
Executive Summary

Google offers a suite of web-based collaborative applications under the name Google

Docs. While these applications are not as complex or comprehensive as the leading desktop

counterparts, they have other advantages over traditional software (Strickland, 2008). Google

Docs is the web-based editing program that allows users to create, share and edit documents

through a secure networked system. This CSCW tool utilizes features as Google Sheets and

Google Slides that allow users to create spreadsheets and presentations (Computer Hope, 2017).

This problem solving activity came out of an assigned task to choose a CSCW environment to be

prototyped by the group. Despite the fact that Google Docs has features such as word count, the

ability to download in any format and a dictionary, there is a notable deficiency. A collaborative

group working in Google Docs would not be able to have a poll or vote on key decisions which

may occur during the decision making process while editing. The objective of this project was to

prototype an edit feature which would allow multiple users to vote up or down on any editing

decisions in this collaborative space.

Problem Definition
Problem Scope
A collaborative group working in Google Docs would not be able to have a poll or vote

on key decisions which may occur during the decision making process for tasks when working

on an assigned project.

Technical Review
Medsker (2013), cited in (course website, 2017) notes that changes in society and

technology constantly alter the way we need to apply the principles, although the principles of

problem solving in learning remains the same. In the collaborative supportive learning

environment, as experienced by the Lifelong Brain Boosters, individual cognition was shared

through suggestions and contributions that are collated and mediated in the group setting. While

collaborative learning takes place (Stahl, 2013), group members were scaffolded to reach their

zone of proximal development in the development of group problem solving processes, using

computers in an ill structured environment.

CSCW approach could be seen as the idea that cognition is an aspect of social practices

as developed by, and engaged in by a community (Stahl, 2011). Deliberations by the group in

the community of practice were guided by various theories in the social learning environment.

Research in CSCW is guided by, and contributes to a diverse collection of theories (Stahl, 2011),

and concepts. Conceptual understanding from activity, anchored, computer assisted

collaborative, constructivist, distributed, elaboration, and social learning theories provided

guidelines for the problem scope. In addition ideas conceptualized from group negotiation,

individual, group and situated cognition; guided the research for, and the development of
principles for generating iterations to promote desired outcomes. Johnsons & Johnson (1984)

cited in Collis (1994) states that positive interdependence relative to goals, tasks, resources and

roles are explored in collaborative and individualistic learning when computer use is integrated

into various experiences. Computer assisted collaborative learning promotes greater quality and

quantity of achievement and greater problem solving.

Activity theory offered the lens through which group members conceptualized who

would perform the what, why, and how, the of prototype development activity...and

provides purposeful collective activities, with the assistance of sophisticated tools (information

systems). (Waycott et al. 2005; Hasan 1999), cited in Hasan and Kazlauskas (2014). To make

our ideas for the prototype meaningful in understanding why and how the desired change

would be iterated, elaboration, theory aided the progressive development of group cognition and

ideas, which were anchored in the situated social learning space. of the prototype design and

development (Reigeluth, 1979).

Design Requirements

Design Description

Overview
Google Docs has numerous features and functions many of which can be included as

Add-ons. However when suggesting an edit within a document it was noted that members did

not have the ability to vote on that suggestion. Thus, it is proposed that the inclusion of the

Suggestion Poll feature to Google Docs would be a valuable feature. Users would now be able to
collaborate on a Google Docs document and vote in favor of a suggested change with an upvote

or vote against the change with a downvote.

Detailed Description
The environments developed by other group members were found to be inappropriate for

catering to the needs of completion of the assigned task. To construct our individual

contributions in a CSCW environment, Google Docs was chosen. Google Docs allows the

creation, editing and formatting of documents in a collaborative work, environment using the

computer. One finding of CSCW is that it is sometimes easier and better to augment technical

mechanisms with social mechanisms to control, regulate, or encourage behavior (Sproull, &

Kiesler, 1991), cited in Ackerman (2000). A difficulty experienced by the Lifelong Brain

Boosters Group while using Google Docs is that changes rendered to a document by a group

members may not always meet the approval of all members who are tasked to edit the document.

The development of a feature to ameliorate this problem was explored by the group for

adding enhanced functionality to the software. The group discovered by analysis, that the norms

for using a CSCW system are often actively negotiated among users. These norms of use are also

subject to re-negotiation as observed by (Strauss, 1991). The design of the proposed prototype

will provide a communication mechanism to users that allow increased user flexibility and

decision making in sharing as users in the collaborative workspace of Google Docs. The

prototype development for iterations 1 and 2 may be accessed below, or on Lifelong Brain

Boosters Wiki workspace at:

https://lifelongbrainboosters.wikispaces.com/CSCW+Prototype+Iteration+2
Use
This proposed prototype can be utilized by collaborative groups in an online work environment
to:
Increase collaboration, flexibility and decision making among users

Encourage democratic decision making

Enable seamless management of workflow by way of voting mechanism

Evaluation

Prototype
The prototype was designed to have the look and feel of the groups collaborative work

online. The development of prototype using AXURE for a CSCW work environment was done

with two iterations. The links for the initial and final design iterations were submitted to the

groups Wiki collaborative work space.

Screenshots of the new edit feature to prototype
Testing and Results: Prototype Iterations

Iteration 1:
Google Docs

Add voting as part of collaboration to add suggestion option

Upvote and Downvote buttons were added to the suggest edits option.

Here is the link to the Prototype: http://9lcnbd.axshare.com

Iteration 2:

Google Docs

Rename the Suggest Edits Suggestion Poll

Upvote button changes to green when the mouse hovers over it; Number of upvotes are shown.

Downvotes will not show in the prototype because of redundancy.

Here is the link to the Prototype: http://wvazeg.axshare.com

 Evaluation
The CSCW tool was tested by three members after its development.

Google Docs Prototype Design/Development Testing Results

References

Ackerman, M. S. (2000). The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social

requirements and technical feasibility. Human-computer interaction, 15(2), 179-203.

Retrieved June, 22 2017 from:

http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~ackerm/pub/00a10/hci.final.pdf

Collis, B. A. (1994). Cooperative learning and CSCW: research perspectives for internetworked

educational environments. Retrieved June, 22 2017 from:

http://doc.utwente.nl/27278/1/K27278__.PDF

Computer Hope, (2017). Google Docs. Retrieved from:

https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/g/google-Docs.htm

Hasan, H., Kazlauskas A. (2014) Activity theory. Who is doing what, why, and how?

University of Wollongong Research Online. Retrieved June 24th 2017 from:

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1405&context=buspapers

Reigeluth, C. M. (1979). In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration

theory. Journal of Instructional Development, 2 (3), 8-15.

Stahl, G. (2011). Theories of cognition in CSCW. In ECSCW 2011: Proceedings of the 12th

European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 24-28 September

 2011, Aarhus Denmark (pp. 193-212). Springer London. Retrieved June 22 2017

from: http://gerrystahl.net/pub/ecscw2011.pdf

Stahl, G. (2013a). Learning across levels. International Journal of Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning, 8 (1), 112.

Strauss, A. (1991). Creating Sociological Awareness: Collective Images and Symbolic

Representations. New Brunswick: Transaction

Strickland, J. (2008). How Google Docs Works. Retrieved from:

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/google-Docs.htm

Tech Target. (2017). Google docs. Retrieved from.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Google-Docs

Waycott, J, Jones, A & Scanlon, E. (2005). PDAs as lifelong learning tools: An AT based

Analysis, Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 107-130.
Appendices

CSCW Instructional Map

Problem: Theory/Mode Design Decision Design Results

Ill-structured Computer DD1 DR1: Representative prototype
Problem Supported Collaborative Generate Prototype to enhance model demonstrating proposed
Goals: Learning theory collaborative features in Google docs changes and improvements to
Innovative Group/Individual Cognition Google docs
Additions to Distributed Cognition
Google Activity theory
docs Elaboration Theory
Social Learning/
Situated Cognition

Procedural Exploring problem analysis, Group Cognitive DD2: Organize learning experiences DR2: Selecting appropriate
Knowledge: evaluation and reflection on Constructivism to critically deduce problem strategies for design ideas in a
Hands on approaches to problem approaches. CSCW group cognitivist
experience with solving Contribution of individual strategic environment
AXURE and points to aid cognition in situated
Google docs Modeling cognitive collaborative space

Activity

Scaffolding DD3: : Provide cognitive modelling DR3: Collaborative and

on co-constructed ideas of collective attainment of zone of
improvements in social learning proximal development in group
Articulation environment to make thinking visible cognitive environment

Reflection

Exploration DD4: Provide scaffolding in DR4: Review concepts of

constructing similar concepts and innovation in various contexts of
multiple representations of problem situated cognition
Cognitive Flexibility

Situated Community DD5: Provide suggestions for DR5: Create linkages among
of Practice problem solving in learning space concepts and contexts in
Time issues multiple representations
Efficiency learners
access at their
convenience
Multiple conceptual
improvements

Multiple depictions of DD6: Focus on relevant problem DR6: Multiple

mini real world case states to elaborate models and Finish conceptual individual
problems solving problem through progressive understanding reciprocated by
group process of discussion distributed cognition
Multiple Perspectives
on problems

Elaboration Implementation Decision: Progressive elaboration of detailed

verbalization of conceptual understanding through reflection and
discussion

Elaboration Theory
Just in Time Learning
Decision Table
Decision Group Member Decision Process Number of # of people Implementation
Decision on Design
iterations Team

Innovative Ayanna Collaboration and Two Five Decision was

Additions to Genevieve research in CSCW implemented
Google docs Gloria, networked after reciprocal
in Nyeisha environment discussions
Collaborative Rachele through possible
Learning/Work brainstorming for approaches and
Environment appropriate fixes to Google
through online technological docs
application innovative upgrade
using AXURE to Google docs

Collaborative Ayanna Research on one Five Constraints

Supported Genevieve theories supporting identified in the
Computer Gloria, collaborative resource
Learning Nyeisha learning including software
Rachele Activity theory, necessitated re-
Individual/ social cognition, thinking
group distributive prototype
Cognition cognition, group design
cognition. implementation
Social Decision based on Alternative
Constructivist identified needs suggestions for
Learning and tools available approaching the
in Google. obstacles to
Elaboration Ongoing collaborative
theory discussions with work on
regard to problem prototype
characteristics and because of
Activity available resources uncollaborative
Theory that align with the nature of
concepts and AXURE
 context of the resulted in
groups assignment of
conceptualization task to one
of the problem. individual

Collaborative All Analyzed one Five Decision was

Constructivist members collaborative based implemented
Based mapping and after group
Learning adapted to group negotiation and
learning needs and repeated
tools available discussions on
problem
deduction