Task Analysis and the design of face to face computer supported collaborative learning activities

M.F. Capponi mcapponi@ing.puc.cl, M. Nussbaum mn@ing.puc.cl, M.E. Lagos mrlagos@ing.puc.cl,

Department of Computer Science, P. Universidad Católica de Chile

Abstract. This paper shows how Task Analysis can be a powerful tool for the design of collaborative applications supported by wirelessly interconnected handhelds. We define a methodology for the design of collaborative activities. It basically consists in defining an objective, selecting the corresponding set of tasks, then applying it to a specific topic and finally defining the possible face to face interactions that could happen during the execution of the activity. We show with an example how such a methodology is applied for a collaborative learning activity that first makes the student work individually and then work as a whole group in the classroom mediated by the teacher and the wirelessly in-terconnected handhelds. Finally we define an observation guideline that comes from the possible set of face to face interactions that could happen between ac-tors during the activity execution that assists the system validation.

Keywords Task Analysis, face to face Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

1. Introduction

Collaborative Learning (CL) environments have shown benefits in the achievement of learning objectives, social aims, positive interdependence and motivation, acquir-ing student new skills, ideas and knowledge by working together [6]. CL, however has shown to have coordination, communication, organization and synchronization problems, which can be solved with face to face computer supported collaborative learning [5]. In this environments students work each with a handheld machine wire-lessly interconnected [4].

Face to Face collaboration involves two dimensions: the human nature of commu-nication [1] and the activities carried out in the shared workspace [2]. In the second dimension, we can distinguish the team work (making it happen collaboratively) and the task work (doing the actual job) [3]. Both the team and the task work have to be understood as interconnecting elements with the actors of the activity. Task Analysis allows us to decompose in basic building blocks the team and the task work, which can later be used in the design of a face to face computer supported collaborative learning activity. This analysis helps us also to extract an observation guideline of the interactions we can observe during the activity and provides a concrete representation of the actions taken towards user goals and the logical relationship between those ac-tions [7].

Considering that people accomplish goals by executing tasks, a task model can re-veal much about the way in which tasks need to be organized [8], to predict when and how the actors will interact and what they are going to do. Therefore, it indicates us what to observe to understand the underlying social and communication model. In this way for collaborative activities, we can study what interventions are necessary to change the social and communication behavior between actors to achieve a specific aim.

In this paper, we show a methodology for Task Analysis with an Interaction Model for the design of an effective human-human and human-computer relation that in-volves the team and the task work for a collaborative classroom, through the use of wirelessly interconnected handhelds. We also show how we can extract an observa-tion guideline from the same analysis, for the system validation.

2. Task Analysis

Our Mediation Model assumes interaction to be the basic unit that occurs among various actors that work collaboratively in a classroom, each supported with a wire-lessly connected handheld or PDA (Personal Digital Assistant). The roles of the dif-ferent actors in the established dynamic will have to be elucidated and the require-ments for implementing a given mediation model in the classroom will then be determined.

To define how and between whom information flows in a classroom technologi-cally mediated by mobile devices connected to a wireless network with students that work collaboratively, we define the Interaction Model of Figure 1 for the main class-room components [9].

Fig. 1: Interaction Model.

The components of the model shown in Fig. 1 are the following: • Actors: Persons or groups of persons among whom information flows. They are in-

formation emitters and receptors, and include: o Student (S) o Whole Class (WC), comprising the N students in the class o Small Group (SG), a subset of A students in the class, which consists of N/A

groups • Mediators: The entities through which the information flows. Since the information

may be transformed in the process, they are more than just communication chan-nels:

o Personal Digital Assistants (PDA). PDAs act as instruments that support and regulate relations between actors, and provide:

organization of the information a negotiation space coordination between activity states

o Face-to-face relationships (FF). The human medium in which information is exchanged, impacting on the student’s commitment to their responses and their group as well as on the development of mutual understanding between the different actors.

• Actor and mediator: Teacher (T). In addition to sending and receiving information, the teacher is responsible for selecting the curriculum activities to be implemented and for guiding the students toward the achievement of the desired goals. The teacher is also in charge of delivering feedback to the students and filtering the in-formation flowing between them and among the groups, in such a manner that the discussions take the desired course. The interactions in the model, as shown in Figure 1, are centered on the student,

the use of PDAs and a face-to-face relationship (FF) as mediator components for the interactions with the other actors: the teacher (T), the small group he or she belongs to (SG) and his or her class (WC). The teacher also acts as mediator of the interaction and communication between the students (S), the small groups (SG) and the whole group, i.e., the class (WC).

From the model of Figure 1, we can obtain all basic tasks, enumerated in Table 1. These tasks are the key elements for understanding the individual and group-generated learning process. In Figure 1, the arrows connecting the components indi-cate the direction of information flow. While the continuous line indicates that the flow is for both sides, the dashed line indicates that the flow is for one side.

3. Task Analysis Model Design Methodology

In this section we show a methodology based on Task Analysis, shown in Table 2,

that supports the definition of an activity. We illustrate this methodology in the design of a collaborative learning activity to be carried out in a classroom.

1 T PDA S Teacher sends information to student as a question or exer-

cise.

2 T PDA SG Teacher sends information to small group as a question or ex-ercise.

3 T PDA WC Teacher sends information to the class as a question or exer-cise.

4 S PDA T Student sends information to teacher in response to the sent question or exercise.

5 S PDA SG Student sends information to small group to exchange coordi-nation information.

6 S PDA WC Student sends information to the class group to exchange in-formation.

7 S PDA S Student sends information to another student to exchange it.

8 SG PDA SG Small group sends information to another small group to ex-change information.

9 SG PDA S Small group sends information to student to exchange coordi-nation information.

10 SG PDA T Small group sends information to teacher in response to the sent question.

11 SG FF S Small group discusses with student to exchange ideas and ar-rive at agreed response.

12 SG FF T Small group speaks with teacher to request information, an explanation or his/her mediation.

13 T FF S Teacher speaks with student to explain or mediate a specific point.

14 S FF T Student discusses or requests information or help from teacher.

15 T FF SG Teacher speaks with a specific small group, mediating its concerns.

16 S FF SG Student discusses with small group to which he/she belongs to arrive at agreed response.

17 S FF WC Student discusses with whole class to defend his/her response or that of his/her group.

18 S FF S Student shares opinion, ideas, information or talks with an-other student.

19 T FF WC Teacher speaks with whole class to give a general explana-tion.

Table 1. Task Analysis for Collaborative Learning supported by wirelessly interconnected PDAs.

In the first step of the methodology the activity aim is defined. In our example the

whole classroom receives a given problem to solve. First, each student solves it inde-pendently. Then the individual work is sent to the teacher who uses it to work col-laboratively with the whole class to find out the correct answer.

The second step is the definition of the tasks of the activity, performing a Task

Analysis of the Interaction Model of the Figure 1, as a set of possible actions needed

to reach the defined aim. Table 1 shows this set of actions for a Collaborative Learn-ing activity supported by wirelessly interconnected PDAs.

1 Define the activity aim 2 Perform a Task Analysis on the defined general problem 3 Classify the tasks according to the role they play in the activity

4 Define a sequence of tasks taken from the performed Task Analysis, ac-cording to their classification made in the third step

5 Design an instance of this activity using the subset of tasks chosen in the third step

6 Make a list of possible face to face interactions that could happen between actors, not necessary forced by the activity actions

7 Define the system requirements, to validate it

Table 2. Methodology based on Task Analysis that supports the definition of an activity.

In the third step we classify the tasks according to the role they play in the activity.

This classification facilitates the next step of the methodology, where we define the sequence of tasks required for the activity aim. The four obtained classification groups are shown in Table 3.

1 Tasks 1–3 Teacher sends information to the different actors: S, SG and

WC.

2 Tasks 4 – 7 Student sends information to the different actors: S, T, SG and WC.

3 Tasks 8 – 10 Small group sends information to the different actors: S, T, SG and WC.

4 Tasks 11 – 19 Face to Face mediation between the different actors

Table 3. Classification of the tasks obtained in the Task Analysis, Table 1, according to their role in the activity.

In the fourth step, we select a sequence of tasks taken from the performed Task

Analysis, according to their classification made in the third step, describing with them the whole problem. In the example, all the students receive a different individual part (T PDA WC) they have to solve independently. They have to write an attribute they think is related with the concept received. In this way each student is responsible of his/her own work. Then the individual work response is sent from every student to the teacher (S PDA T). S/he sends the responses s/he thinks are relevant to every student to perform a collaborative work with the whole class, (T PDA S) to find together, by a voting mechanism (S PDA T) the right concept. Through the teach-ers’ machine a student is randomly selected (T PDA S) to justify his/her answer in front of the whole class, so a collaborative class discussion is built (S FF WC, T FF WC). Taking into account the discussion, the teacher may eliminate the at-tribute, continuing the previous dynamics until the whole class finds the right solu-tion.

In the fifth step an instance of this activity is designed with a specific topic using the subset of selected tasks of the fourth step. In the example, we design an activity for high school physics, specifically for teaching sound waves. The activity aim is that students relate different attributes as transmission, vibration, frequency, etc, with the physical concept of sound waves.

We are going to show how the activity was designed. First, we show the individual work and then, the collaborative work, each with the users PDAs' corresponding screens (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4).

The whole design consists of eight parts, two of them belong to individual work and the others, to collaborative work.

A.- Individual Work

1) T PDA WC: The teacher selects a topic and a related concept (Figure 2a). The student receives the corresponding instruction (Figure 2b). The possible tasks that could happen during this part of the activity are the three tasks shown in the third column in Table 4.

2) S PDA T: All the students receive the same concept and write an attribute they think is related with it and sends it to the teacher, e.g., Figures 2c, d, e, shows the screens of three different students. The possible tasks that could happen during this part of the activity are the four tasks shown in the third column in Table 4.

Fig. 2. Individual Work.

B.- Class Work 3) T PDA S: The teacher selects a subset of the received answers and sends it to

the students (Figure 3a). In the student’s screens appears the information sent by the teacher, e.g., Figures 3 b, c, d, shows the screen of three students. As in part two, the possible tasks that could happen during this part of the activity are the four tasks shown in the third column in Table 4.

Fig. 3. Class Work – Voting.

4) S PDA T: The students vote to eliminate an attribute she/he thinks that does

not correspond (Figures 3 b, c, d). Then, the students (Figures 4b, c, d) see on their screens the percentages of the voting result, so they all know the most voted attrib-ute to be eliminated. The teacher (Figure 4a) sees the same voting results but has the faculty to made one student, at random (Figure 4c), justify his/her answer, pressing the justification button. As in part two and three, the possible tasks that could happen during this part of the activity are the four tasks shown in the third column in Table 4.

5) T PDA S: The teacher asks the system to randomly select one of the students that chose the most voted alternative so that the corresponding student justifies it (Figure 4a). The selected student is informed by an audible signal and by a colored background in his/her screen (Figure 4c), while the other student’s screen remains the same (Figures 4b, d). The possible tasks that could happen during this part of the activity are the task shown in the third column in Table 4.

6) S FF WC: The selected student has to justify his/her vote in front of the class. The possible tasks that could happen during this part of the activity are the three tasks shown in the third column in Table 4.

7) T FF WC, S FF WC Begins an in class discussion mediated by the teacher. The possible tasks that could happen during this part of the activity are the three tasks shown in the third column in Table 4.

Fig. 4. Class Work - Discussion.

8) T PDA S: If the class realizes that the most voted concept does not corre-spond, the teacher can eliminate it and repeat the cycle (4), (5), (6) and (7), without the already analyzed concept. As in part two, three and four, the possible tasks that could happen during this part of the activity are the four tasks shown in the third column in Table 4.

As a sixth step, we make a list of possible face to face interactions that could hap-

pen between actors during the activity execution, not necessary forced by the activity actions.

Table 4 shows all tasks used in the design of the activity and the result of the sixth step, i.e., the chosen tasks that the activity course forces to happen and the possible face to face interactions or tasks that could happen between actors.

n° Chosen tasks Possible tasks that could happen during the activity 1 T PDA WC T FF S, T FF WC, S FF S, S FF T 2 S PDA T T FF S, T FF WC, S FF S, S FF T 3 T PDA S T FF S, T FF WC, S FF S, S FF T 4 S PDA T T FF S, T FF WC, S FF S, S FF T 5 T PDA S T FF S, S FF S 6 S FF WC T FF S, S FF S, S FF T

7 T FF WC, S FF WC S FF S, S FF T

8 T PDA S T FF S, T FF WC, S FF S, S FF T

Table 4. Tasks involved in each part of the activity design.

Finally, the seventh step is about defining the system requirements, so we can vali-

date it. In the fifth step we define the tasks we should observe derived from the activ-ity design. In the sixth step, we include the possible tasks we should observe during the activity. Taking into account the possible face to face interactions of both set of tasks, an observation guideline can be made to direct the observer on what s/he has to observe depending on his/her research objective. This allows to verify during the exe-cution of the application, if the interactions generated during the activity execution correspond on how the actors had to relate according to the system specification.

4. Conclusions

In this work we have shown the use of Task Analysis for the design of collabora-tive learning activities supported by wirelessly interconnected handhelds that takes into account all possible interactions, between humans, and humans and computers. Through the use of the basic building blocks, resulting of the Interaction Model, we propose a methodology for the design of an activity. This methodology allows us to choose between different possible actions, the social interactions we want to achieve and the way the information flows between the actors to reach the learning objective of the activity we are designing.

Defining tasks, or subsets of them, oriented to some specific objective, we can identify the methods involved and their role in the activity. This facilitates the whole design process, development, and later validation of the system. It also allows us to make an observation guideline to direct the observer on what has to be seen depend-ing on his/her research objective, to verify, during the activity course, if the interac-

tions correspond to the system specification. In this way for collaborative activities, we can study what interventions are necessary to change the social and communica-tion behavior between actors to achieve a specific aim.

5. References

[1] Fussell, S., Kraut, R., Siegel, J., Brennan, S. Workshop: Relationships among speech, vi-sion, and action in collaborative physical tasks, CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human fac-tors in computing system, April 2002.

[2] Johnson, H., and Hyde, J. Towards Modeling Individual and Collaborative Construction of Jigsaws Using Task Knowledge Structures (TKS), ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2003. pp 339-387.

[3] Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S. Task analysis for groupware usability evalua-tion: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Transac-tions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) Volume 10 , Issue 4 (December 2003) pp 281 – 311

[4] Roschelle, J., Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M. Mobile Computer Supported Collaborative Learn-ing (mCSCL): What adds “mobility to CSCL?, Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Taiwan, July 2005.

[5] Zurita, G., Nussbaum, M., Sharples, M., Encouraging face-to-face collaborative learning through the use of handheld computers in the classroom.Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2795, September 2003. pp. 193-208.

[6] Zurita, G., Nussbaum, (2005). M. Dynamic Grouping in Collaborative Learning Supported by Wireless Handhelds, Accepted for publication "Educational Technology & Society".

[7] Jon Stuart, Richard Penn, (2004). TaskArquitect: Taking the Work out of Task Analysis. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 86.

[8] Yousef Daabaj, (2002). An Evaluation of the Usability of Human Computer Interaction Methods in Support of the Development of Interactive Systems. 35th Annual Hawaii Interna-tional Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’02)-Volume 5

[9] Lagos, M., Nussbaum, M., Capponi M., (2005). A Mediation Model for Large Group Col-laborative Teaching.