Figure 6.23 shows the level of participation of each student in the 12 trials conducted (expressed as a percentage of the group as a whole). Apart from group 5 (G5), the participation levels, which were estimated based on the time the pen was being dragged on the table, could be considered acceptable in that no group member overly dominates (i.e. over 50%) or no member substantially under participates (i.e. less than 10%). However three of these trials deserve further discussion.
Figure 6.23: An estimate of the participation level of each student based on the time the pen was being dragged on the table (each member’s participation as a proportion of the group as a whole).
Group 1, trial 4 (G1T4): The four participation figures of group 1 indicate that student 1 (S1) did play an important role in the first three trials, yet Figure 6.23 shows a participation percentage of 19% in the fourth trial. In fact, for most of the session S1’s level of participation was even lower (and the pie chart was as, a result, doubled in size). Having observed that S1 was not participating (it was not clear in this case if it was the pie chart that drew attention to this because it was not explicitly referred to), one of the students (S2) created a group, pushed the keyboard closer to S1 and rotated the keyboard and the group name dialog box towards him, so S1 entered the group name. Later on, S1 created a note, but S2 again pushed the keyboard closer to S1 and rotated the keyboard and the note towards him, which caused S1 to type in the note. In later discussions with the teacher I found that unfortunately S1 was upset in this instance because he had to leave the physical education class to attend the trial. Nevertheless, the other students kept asking him to participate which increased his percentage to 19%. This behaviour to regulate the participation levels on behalf of the students reflects development in the students’ metacognitive regulation skills.
Group 5 (G5): For this group, S1 was a free rider. He did not participate in the session at all apart from isolated comments or actions. When the introduction dialog for stage two appeared showing the participation pie chart for the past stage at the top, and when S2 read the phrase “it is a group activity and everyone should participate”, S2 referred to S1 by name and said in a sarcastic tone “Yeah S1”. Later in the same stage, S2 pointed to the pie chart, which had doubled in size because of the low participation level of S1, and said “You’ve hardly done anything” (Figure 6.11 shows the enlarged pie chart). Although S1 still did not participate, these two cases demonstrate how the pie chart and the instructions given by the application made the students aware of each other’s participation levels.
Group 6 (G6): This group demonstrated a clear example of leadership with S2 leading the ses- sion right from the beginning. Nevertheless, S2 was basically giving the other students instructions on what to do rather than doing things himself. Throughout stage 1, it was S3 who was carrying out most of S2’s instructions. This caused the pie chart to double in size after about 10 minutes with S3 going over 50%, S2 little more than 25% and S1 little less than 25%. When the pie chart doubled in size it attracted S2’s attention, so he pointed to the pie chart and said “What we’ll do is, right, that we will try and catch up later because you’ve (referring to S3) got a bit too many. S1, you go until you get even with S3, then I’ll go and make it all even”. When S3 tried to move another slip later, S2 stopped him and asked S1 to do it. S3 however was very active and kept moving slips around which kept his participation percentage high and the pie chart doubled in size in a number of other cases. Each time S2 noticed this, he tried to stop S3 from moving slips and did more work himself as well as frequently asking S1 to participate more. With this group, the participation pie chart, and the fact that it doubled in size when the levels were highly unequal, played an important role in raising the student’s awareness of their participation levels and bring- ing them closer to equity. Figure 6.12 shows how the pie chart was doubled in size at the end of the grouping stage, and back to normal size at the end of the session.
In addition to the pie chart, the design feature of preventing all types of interaction when a group was being named succeeded in attracting all the students’ attention to this action. Using this technique for all important actions, in addition to having confirmation buttons for each student in all important dialogs, helped in overcoming the disadvantage usually associated with parallel input (that students work too independently). Even though allowing parallel interaction is one of the main advantages of tabletop technologies, application designers should still utilize the ability of the technology to support other modes of interaction and aim to strike a balance between parallel, single, and enforced collaboration (Refer to section 7.4 “Support the appropriate modes of group interaction”).