The Effect of Window State on User Behavior in an On-Line Computer Mediated Conference Terence C. Ahem Texas Tech University Abstract Social learning environments create situations in The goal of this study was to investigate the effect the which schoolwork is perceived not as a "task" or window state and management on the ability of users "chore" but as an opportunity to interact on issues of to maintain coherent interaction within an on-line me­ personal importance. The advantage of authentic inter­ .diated conference. Industry design practice suggests action provides not only individual cognitive develop­ that users should be able have direct control of the ment but also creates an important social environment windowing display system. In order to conform to in­ with far reaching consequences. One of the many ben­ dustry practice the IdeaWeb was redesigned from a efitsof collaborative learningis that it requires students . single window display system to a modeless tiled win­ to challenge, reject or integrate the new information [2] dow display system. It was assumed that a modeless which leads to deeper understanding. In a social windowing system would be preferable because the environment students engage their peers with talk that underlying graphic display system was dynamic. informs, explains, persuades or even entertains. This The results indicate that the students generally process is provides what Stasser and Davis [3) terms opted for a single window display system which is knowledge building and is accomplished when one consistent with much of the previous research. Se­ tests an understanding against the "common authority" quence data from the event logs demonstrate that stu­ and requires access to multiple perspectives other than dents chose to treat the modeless window as static or one's own. modal. It appears that the students were concentrating Even though collaborative learning is viewed as a on the cognitive task of managing the on-going com­ legitimate method for classroom instruction, experts puter mediated discussion. suggest that less than 10 percent of the nations schools This study has important consequences for screen regularly use cooperative learning techniques [4). Im­ and window design not only for developing on-line plementing a change from the traditional classroom to conference systems, but within multimedia systems one that values discourse, therefore, is not a simple that have dense cognitive material. If the cognitive re­ matter. However, networking technology may provide quirements of the main window are high, then a titled a solution to this dilemma. In fact "Technology is a windowing system that requires little user intervention great Trojan Horse... It is a great way to get coopera­ appears to be the design choice. However, if the re­ tive learning in the door" [4, p. 27). By providing the quirement to recall information from window to win­ opportunity for authentic peer interaction, each student dow is low then a single window system display sys­ will development an awareness of authorship and the tem is more appropriate. This would reduce not only need for rhetorical competence. However, most com­ the cognitive but the design and programming over­ puter systems were initially not developed forthe more head as well. dynamic simultaneous multi-channel interaction of group interaction. Typically, "E-mail is a great tool for person-to-person messaging but it fallflat when you 're Keywords - windows, computer -mediated commu­ coordinating a discussion ... Traditional E-mail pack­ nication, small group discussion. ages just weren't designed with work groups in mind: [5]. R. L. Bangert-Drowns [6) suggests that "different 1. Introduction communication interfaces might be suited to different instructional tasks. In situations where students are not Collaborative learning as an instructionalmethod has a just discussing, but collaborating on goal-focused long history. It can be found in the Academy of Plato work... different interfaces might be needed". Levin, to the one room school house of the 19th century. The Kirnand Riel concur and speculate that "once we have positive effectsof the many differentforms of collabo­ a more detailed understanding of the nature of the in- rative learning have been well documented. [l). CSCL '95 Proceedings October 1995 teraction, we will be in a good position to address the much better on the task using the single window dis­ issue of which medium is effective and for what pur­ play. However, as the users became more proficient in pose" [7,p.185]. Consequently, group interaction is the task and more efficient in using the interface, the hampered by the design of the user interface. readers "benefited more from multi-windowing dis­ One area in which the typical social computing plays because these helped them locate the information application breaks down is in its inability to manage they have just read" [14, p. 613]. Further, Aspillaga the development of coherent discourse over time. [15] investigated the effect of window location in con­ McGrath [8] observed that when members can choose junction with the overlapping of graphic information in when to participate an unpredictable lag in feedbackis a language tutorial. She found that a consistent win­ created in contrast to typical face-to-face. In real time dow position had a significant effect on performance interaction an individual has the ability to index multi­ than the overlapping of a graphic illustration. Ben­ ple speakers by tracking who-said-what-to whom­ shoof and Hooper [16] in a study using a CAI tutorial when. The ability to keep track of an ongoing conver­ foundthat high ability students performedsignificantly sation is accomplished through the use of turn-taking better in the single window treatment than all other rules where one participant takes control of the floor students.. They suggest that the single window display and continues until they relinquish it to another which may have helped the students to process information results in an orderly "distribution of talk among the more deeply. They caution however, that these results various members" [9, p 296]. This indexing mecha­ may be due to the superior cognitive skills of the high nism allows an individual to cogently and appropri­ ability students who were able to overcome the higher ately respond to a variety of different speakers at dif­ processing memory requirements of the single window ferent times [9 p 296]. display. In a more recent study this caution seems to In a typical on-line system, however, individual be well foundedas Benshoof, Graves and Hooper [17] responses are managed linearly making the thread of a report that all students performed significantly better in discourse sequence difficult to follow. This break a tiled multi-window display system because it acted as down in the ability of members to engage in a coherent supplementary memory aid in support of the main interaction leads to "individual reasoning, not collec­ window. tive reasoning" [10, p.149] However, by merging the Modern windowing systems allow for not only the pragmatic needs of interaction with a conventionalized positioning of windows such as overlapping and tiling graphical representation participants in a collaborative but also different window states. The primary state for learning system are be able to locally manage turns. most applications has the foremost windowactive and This results in sustainable, coherent interaction. is considered the top window. If other windows are The IdeaWeb© addressed this need by merging simultaneously open, they are inactive and are located the pragmatic principles of conversation with a visually behind the main window. To activate a background oriented interface. [11,12]. A salient feature of the window, a user would choose a window by clicking the IdeaWeb is the user display system which requires mouse somewhere within its boundary. This action each group member to map their interactions visually changes the state of the current main window to inac­ thereby enabling group members to quickly determine tive and moves it to the background while bringing the not only to whom a message was intended but also the selected window to the top. Normally, a user could position of that message in an on-going sequence of perform this action at any time. However if the top messages [12] . window is in a modal state, the user must first com­ The intial version of the IdeaWeb used a single plete a task in order to either dismiss, activate or ma­ window display system. However, it was assumed that nipulate another window. On the other hand if the top the visual display system played an important role in window is in a floating, modeless state, moving be­ helping the user to contextualize previous messages. tween windows does not require activation or result in With the current design, the graphic display is ob­ a state change because all windows are active. scured while the user is reading previous messages. Schneiderman [18] suggests that a "general prob­ Consequently, in order to improve performance within lem for computer users is the need to consult multiple the system and to conform with current interface prac­ sources rapidly, while minimally disrupting their con­ tice the IdeaWeb was redesigned in order to implement centration on their task." [18, p. 337]. The IdeaWeb a multiple window system providing the users with was designed to enhance coherence by inhibiting the more control [13]. breakdown of interaction by supporting