October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

The technological aspects of the VisArt scenario comprised three tools, TeamWave Workplace, their own email
system and a web browser. TeamWave Workplace (TW), a groupware tool developed at the GroupLab at the
University of Calgary, was used as the main information and communication technology. One important distinction
between TW and other real-time groupware systems is that TW is based on the metaphor of a place (i.e., a room),
while most others are based on the metaphor of a meeting. A major strength of TW is that it provided a wellintegrated
set of varied collaboration tools with a good blend of real-time (synchronous) and asynchronous
communication tools that enable anytime team collaboration. Furthermore, TW augments both existing user
interaction tools such as email, newsgroups and conferencing, and existing conventional applications such as word
processors and spreadsheets. Another strength of TW’s integrated approach is that spontaneous as well as preplanned
intra-team interactions are supported. From a CSCL theoretical perspective, TW enables collaboration and
supports genuine interdependence between team members. Team members are able to share information, meanings,
thoughts, conceptions and conclusions through their choice of operational tool objects. From a sociocultural
perspective it can be said that these thinking tools (signs) in turn facilitate both team-mate knowledge construction
and collective growth. Furthermore, the thinking tools provide a means for thoughts to be examined changed and
elaborated upon by fellow team members.
TeamWave was used for the IDEELS scenario in DoCTA 1 so we had already determined how to use the tool with
teams and attempted to design a new tool to include in TW. This prove impossible for reasons beyond our control,
thus we changed the design activity to utilise the exiting tools, highlighting the relationship between the
technological and pedagogical aspects. Figure 3 shows the Classroom room that was the starting room for the
students. The tools Calendar, To Do List, Doors (to other rooms), Address Book, URL links, Chat, Awareness Lists
and a File (Visart oppgaver) can be seen.
Implementation of VisArt
The VisArt activity was deployed for 1 month beginning on February 25 th and ending on March 26 th . The students
were given 5 days to download TW, test their accounts and team email addresses. A training-phase (in TW) lasted
for ten days, and the main goal for this activity was for the students to get to know TW, to get to know the other
members of their team, and to also give them some ideas on how to work and collaborate in TW. A three-week
design activity followed. The students collaborated to create a learning room in TW. There were 11 teams and the
topics they chose to design learning rooms for included: endanger species, gothic art, publishing on the internet,
triangles, the big bang, travelling in Denmark, renewable energy sources, between the world wars, polar bears, and
astronomy. Figure 4 shows the 2 rooms that were designed for learning about polar bears.
Evaluation of use of VisArt
The evaluation of the VisArt scenario was carried out on several levels and from several perspectives. The
theoretical, or conceptual approach, to the evaluation of VisArt was rooted in a sociocultural perspective that
emphasises an understanding of language, culture and other aspects of social setting and focus on the use situation.
Ethnographic studies, favouring naturalistic and qualitative research methods were employed. In addition to the
student’s own theoretical reflections (which are important in a sociocultural perspective), VisArt was evaluated as
part of eight Master’s theses, including two activity theory studies of how students (Andreassen, 2000), instructors
and facilitators (Wake, 2002) organise their work. In addition, these ethnographic flavoured studies were augmented
with a usability study of TW (Rysjedal, 2000), looking at the efficiency of TW from a qualitative perspective using
the data logs generated by TW (Meistad 2000, Meistad & Wasson, 2000), performing a formative evaluation of how
to support collaborative design activities, seeing how TW supports coordination, how to design training and
assistance in a collaborative telelearning setting (Underhaug, 2001). Some of the results of these studies are
presented below.
In general, the students were very satisfied with TW. As one student writes in his reflection over TW
“An important side with TeamWave is that one can work both asynchronously and synchronously. … For
example one can use the shared whiteboard synchronously when the users are online at the same time and
write on it together, but it is also possible to use the whiteboard asynchronously when the different users log
7