Sharples, M., Goodlet, J., Beck, E., Wood, C., Easterbrook, S., and Plowman, L. Research issues in the study of computer supported collaborative writing. In Sharples, M. (ed): Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, Springer-Verlag, 1993.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....that collaborative tools should offer for writing. Keywords : CSCW, computer mediated collaborative writing, field study, design 1. Specificity of collaborative writing activities A fair amount of research has been conducted into the ways groups write together ( 1] 2] 8] 10] 18] 20] [37]) Much of this work agrees on the idea that collaborative writing involves phases of writing and communication [1] periods of synchronous activity where the group works together at the same time, and periods of working alone where group members work at different times. The diverse range of ....

....make collaborative writing a particularly interesting domain for CSCW support. Collaborative writing is a very complex and specific collaborative activity that differs from others in that written language is both the group s product and its means for communication between the writers. As Sharples [37] put it this may introduce confusion as to the extended purpose of a communication from a co author. Is the text of a written message intended to form part of a draft document (p. 20) The fact that the collaborative activities are mediated by text, adds an extra twist since comments are ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Sharples, M., Goodlet, J., Beck, E., Wood,C. Easterbrook, S. and Plowman, L. (1993). Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. in Sharples M. (Eds). Computer supported Collaborative writing Springer-Verlag London pp. 1-7.

....[3] identifying the difficulties facing novice writers in collaborative situations. Figure 1: Cover of the magazine, by Ryan Fields, age 12. The above research has provided insight into the collaborative writing process. A number of theories of collaborative writing have been developed [5, 20, 23] to characterize this process. There have also been a number of tools designed to support the collaborative writing process. Most notable among the many systems are GROVE [6] PREP [16] Quilt [10] SASSE [1] and ShrEdit [17] Studies have been conducted into the use of several of these ....

....The activities included writing a poem and a story as a group. Students were exposed to the various mechanisms provided by Aspects, giving them the tools necessary to perform their tasks. The assigned tasks were designed to expose the students to a variety of writing styles and approaches [19, 20, 23]. They started with scribe consultant writing, where a scribe enters text in a document, and one or more consultants provide ideas but do not actually enter them in the document. They were also given tasks involving parallel writing, with writers individually entering text at the same time in ....

Sharples, M., Goodlet, J.S., Beck, E.E., Wood, C.C., Easterbrook, S.M., and Plowman, L. Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. In Sharples, M. (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, Springer-Verlag, 1993, 9-28.

.... together, how people learn to write together, and how computerbased tools can help with the learning and writing processes [1, 13, 17, 22] Other investigators have studied collaborative writing among mature writers [3, 6, 11, 23] A number of theories of collaborative writing have been developed [6, 23, 26] to characterize the writing process. There have also been a number of tools designed to support collaborative writing [1, 7, 12, 18, 20] We learned that experienced writers have biases towards groupware based on the way they write using conventional non groupware tools, and they often resist the ....

Sharples, M., Goodlet, J.S., Beck, E.E., Wood, C.C., Easterbrook, S.M., and Plowman, L. Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. In Sharples, M. (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, Springer-Verlag, 1993, 9-28.

....work is being done simultaneously. The last coordination method is reciprocal, which means that multiple group members are working together at the same time. A groupware system may support a single coordination method or a combination of methods. Another characteristic, closeness of collaboration [8], is very similar to the coordination characteristic. The closeness characteristic attempts to classify groupware by defining a spectrum to measure how closely team member work together. On one end of the spectrum is division of labor, which means that individual group members work independently ....

....means of comparison. A fairly complete picture can be described by looking at how an application handles three areas: communication how ideas are shared between group members, collaboration how data is shared between group members, and coordination how work is shared between group members [8]. 3.3 CASE Tools Software engineering is the practice of using engineering principles to develop 15 software [3] The purpose of CASE tools to help automate this task and aid the software developer. This section looks at CASE tools and their places in the software life cycle. Software ....

Sharples, M, J S Goodlet, E E Beck, C C Wood, S M Easterbrook, and L Plowman, "Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported Collaborative Writing", Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, SpringerVerlag, Germany, 1993, pp. 9-28.

....a new case study I investigated already existing reports of numerous studies on collaborative writing to get a comprehensive summary of issues and needs. These studies can roughly be divided into those suggesting procedures to be followed in order to do or to support collaborative writing #e.g. #Sharples et al. 1993## and those presenting research results based on ethnographic and laboratory case studies of professional writing #e.g. #Beck and Bellotti, 1993; Beck, 1993; Dillon, 1993; Murray and Hewitt, 1994##. Observations of the use of prototype collaborative writing tools #e.g. #Fish et al. 1988; Malcolm ....

....support required are also placed in the second group. The issues that were identi#ed can be classi#ed into the following three major areas: stages of the document writing process; interaction and cooperation; group awareness and information. #Sharples presented a related classi#cation in #Sharples et al. 1993#.# 2.1. Document writing stages The document writing process has many stages. The compilation of the #nal text is only one of them. Other stages are: planning of document content, planning of document structure, reviewing the document. Flower and Hayes developed a model of the cognitive process ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Sharples, M., Goodlet, J. S., Beck, E. E., Wood, C. C., Easterbrook, S. M. and Plowman, L. #1993#: 2: Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported CollaborativeWriting. In Sharples, M. #ed.#, Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. Springer Verlag, Berlin. pp. 9#28.

....database. Valuable experiences and lessons have been learned from collaborative writing and related work with the MUCH system (Chen et al. 1994) However, the nature of collaborative writing and how it can be effectively supported by computing technologies are yet to be fully understood (Sharples, Goodlet, Beck, Wood, Easterbrook, Polwman, 1993). A clear understanding of the structure of interactive behaviours is necessary to gain further insights into the interrelationship between the work and the technology. Modelling Interactive Behaviours in Collaborative Work Modelling interactive behaviours in computer supported collaborative ....

Sharples, M., Goodlet, J., Beck, E., Wood, C., Easterbrook, S., & Polwman, L. (1993). Research issues in the study of computer supported collaborative writing. M. Sharples (Ed.). Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. Springer-Verlag.

....its potential seems wide. In order to reap the benefits of groupware, the technology must fit into the human world. Understanding must be obtained on the match between functions provided and userrequirements expectations. For example, studies in synchronous teamwork, such as collaborative writing [Mitchell95, Olson92, Sharples93], highlighted important features required of the joint authoring software; and in desk top video conferencing systems [Gale92, Ishii90] the effective use of the technology was examined. To deploy the potential of technology and to facilitate innovation, one must understand the symbiotic ....

Sharples M, Goodlet JS, Beck EE, Wood CC, Easterbrook SM and Plowman L, Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. In Sharples, M (ed), Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, SpringerVerlag, 1993. (pp9-28)

....(1991) was to taxonomize the different facets of collaborative writing activity, but her taxonomy is not comprehensive enough and is more like an enumeration of the different collaborative writing strategies than an abstraction of the nature of collaborative writing. Other researchers, such as Sharples et al. 1993) and Ede and Lunsford (1990) enumerate different patterns of collaborative writing. The analysis to be presented in section 2.4 is based on this research. To draw together these different views, instead of simply choosing one of them, I asked the following questions for each: ffl Of what ....

....( Case I in figure 2.4 below) Consider now the 8 cases (2 3 ) where each of the three subtasks, planning, transcribing, and reviewing, are completed using one or the other these strategies. All the patterns of collaborative writing identified by Ede and Lunsford (1990) Posner (1991) and Sharples et al. 1993) can be placed in this categorization, as shown in Figure 2.4. Each characterization has been assigned a key, corresponding to the legend at the bottom of the figure. Planning Transcribing Reviewing A B C G G G Sc, Jnt Rec G G I 5 Sc Rec G I G 1, 2 Sc, SiW, SeW P G I I Sc, SeW P, S I G G I G I I ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Sharples, J.S. Goodlet, E.E. Beck, C.C. Wood, S.M. Easterbrook, and L. Plowman. Research issues in the study of computer supported collaborative writing. In Mike Sharples, editor, Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, pages 9--28. Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1993.

....creation of documents means. Rather than starting a new case study I investigated already existing reports of numerous ethnological field studies, laboratory studies and theoretical abstracts on collaborative writing to get a comprehensive summary (e.g. Beck93a, Beck93b, Dillo93, Murra94] and [Sharp93]) Some results of that investigation will be published in [Koch96] a more detailed description will appear in a later report. If we summarize the results we end up finding one important point: There must not be any constraints to the work of an author. More precisely one can say that any ....

M. Sharples, J. S. Goodlet, E. E. Beck, C. C. Wood, S. M. Easterbrook, and L. Plowman. 2: Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. In M. Sharples, editor, Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, pages 9--28. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1993.

No context found.

Sharples, M., Goodlet, J., Beck, E., Wood, C., Easterbrook, S., and Plowman, L. Research issues in the study of computer supported collaborative writing. In Sharples, M. (ed): Computer Supported Collaborative Writing, Springer-Verlag, 1993.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC