Group Mirrors for Co-located Collaboration

Existing group mirrors are mostly designed to support collaborative activities, such as sup- porting problem solving or knowledge sharing tasks. However, other use cases are possible, too. Ogawa et al. (2012) present a system called TABLETALKENHANCER, which is similar

to some of the systems described in this section, but is designed specifically for mealtime communication, which is more a communicative than a collaborative situation. In the fol- lowing, group mirrors focusing on collaborative tasks are outlined in more detail.

DiMicco et al. (2004) created one of the first group mirror systems designed to facilitate co- located group work. Based on a first prototype (see DiMicco, 2004; DiMicco and Bender, 2004) that displays key words of a group’s conversation, the authors focused on a subtler and

Figure 2.3: SECONDMESSENGER. This system of DiMicco and Hollenbach (2006) includes several visualizations that display speaking times: HISTOGRAM(left), FAN(second from left), BOUNCINGBALLS(middle), GROUPCIRCLE(second from right) and a TIMELINE(right).

less information-rich interface. The main goal of their ambient visualization is to facilitate higher quality decision making by helping groups to include more diverse viewpoints in a discussion. Their system, called SECOND MESSENGER, shows speaking times and turns

on a peripheral wall display. Each group member wears a microphone that captures who is speaking for how long. This information is then visualized in form of a histogram. The individual bars of the bar chart are colored differently and numbered in ascending order. As one of the authors’ goals is to imply a standard of the desirable group behavior, the height of the bars is labeled with “under”, “participating” and “over”. Each participant is represented by one bar. To help participants remember their representation, the numbers are placed in front of them on a table. At the top of the display, colored dots denote who has spoken in the last 30 seconds.

In their behavioral study (see also DiMicco et al., 2007) the authors compared groups in- volved in an information sharing task using this display with a baseline without group mirror visualization. They could show that “over-participators” decreased their participation with the aid of the group mirror. In general, participants thought that they contributed more than it was actually the case. The authors assume that this is one reason why “under-participators” did not increase their participation.

In a newer version of the SECONDMESSENGER(see Figure 2.3), DiMicco and Hollenbach

(2006) add other visualizations such as a FAN, which in contrast to the histogram version

summarizes speaking times over all participants and indicates an overall deviation from the optimal state. In the BOUNCING BALLSvisualization, group members are represented by

colored balls, which move to the top or bottom while the ball’s vertical position mirrors the amount of participation. This visualization exists in an identifiable version in which individual group members can be recognized by different colors and an anonymous version in which all balls are monochrome. The GROUP CIRCLE visualization represents group

members with circles that grow and shrink dependent on participation levels. Overlapping speech can be displayed by clicking on a circle that then turns into a pie chart. The pie slices show, who spoke simultaneously with the respective person. Finally, the TIMELINE

visualization is a version envisaged as a replay of the discussion. On the left, circles represent participants similar to the GROUPCIRCLEvisualization. Next to the circles, speaking times

are displayed with vertical bars.

Several studies with these visualizations indicate that the SECOND MESSENGERcan serve

2 Feedback

Figure 2.4: Related work on group mirrors. Top row from left to right: group mirror by Terken and Sturm (2010), the CONVERSATIONCLOCKby Bergstrom (2006) and the REFLECT table by Bachour et al. (2010). Lower row: The MEETINGMEDIATORby Kim et al. (2008), the metaphoric group mirror by Streng et al. (2009) and the system by Schiavo et al. (2014).

group dynamics (DiMicco et al., 2006). DiMicco and Bender (2007) and DiMicco et al. (2007) also compared different combinations of lab and natural group settings and different visualizations shown in real-time and as a replay. They conclude that redundant feedback was harmful for the perception of feedback and that group members should be trained on the social purpose of the visualization. Moreover, participants found detailed feedback shown as a replay as most informative and useful.

Sturm et al. (2005), Kulyk et al. (2006) and Terken and Sturm (2010) present a system that additionally to feedback on speaking times includes information about gaze behavior of the group members (see Figure 2.4, top left). Each group member sees three circles that are projected on the table in front of them: one showing the speaking time, one showing the amount of visual attention received while speaking and one reflecting the attention received as a listener from other speakers. The current speaker additionally is notified of the current speaking time and the attention through lighter-colored rings surrounding the corresponding circle. Results of a study using a Wizard of Oz approach provide preliminary evidence that overall, speaking times increased, participants were more satisfied with group processes and visual attention was shared amongst listeners more evenly.

In a larger study, Sturm et al. (2007) used a fully functional system instead of the Wizard of Oz approach. Results confirm that groups participated in a more balanced way with feedback than without. Compared to the results of DiMicco and Bender (2007), not only “over-participators” reduced their speaking times, but also “under-participators” spoke more. As in the first study, a tendency of more evenly distributed visual focus of attention could be observed. However, in contrast to the conclusions of DiMicco and Bender (2007), the

authors report that participants had concerns about the system distracting them from the discussion.

Bergstrom and Karahalios (2007a) present a similar approach to the SECONDMESSENGER

(see also Karahalios and Bergstrom, 2006). Their system CONVERSATION CLOCK uses a

visualization in form of concentric rings to display speaking times and turns (see Figure 2.4, top middle). In contrast to the SECOND MESSENGER, the visualization additionally shows

the loudness of speech in form of the length of rectangular bars. These are colored differently for each group member and show up on a circular timeline when the corresponding person is speaking. Silent phases are indicated by small dots, overlapping speech by multicolored bars. A history of the past conversation is shown in form of concentric rings that move to the center when a new circle is completed.

In a study, Bergstrom and Karahalios (2007c) shed light on the question of how people per- ceive themselves and others with and without feedback through a group mirror visualization. They observed that participants were particularly interested in their own interactions, but that they are also more aware of other group members’ interactions. Similarly to the results of the studies of DiMicco and Bender (2007), the presence of the CONVERSATION CLOCK

prompted above average speakers to decrease the length of their contributions. Below aver- age speakers however increased the number of speaking turns. While DiMicco and Bender (2007) conclude that the SECOND MESSENGER did not seriously distract group members

or made them socially uncomfortable, Bergstrom and Karahalios (2007c) report that several participants perceived the visualization as distracting and tended to shift their gaze from the other participants to the group mirror on the table.

Building on this line of research, Bergstrom and Karahalios (2007b) present a tool called CONVERSATION VOTES that enables group members to cast anonymous votes on discus-

sions. The visualization is similar to the CONVERSATION CLOCK, as it displays speaking

times and turns using colored bars. In contrast to the CONVERSATION CLOCK, the length

of the bars does not reflect the amplitude, but displays the amount of votes that were casted at a particular moment of the conversation. Additionally, dots at the end of the bars mark the exact time of a vote. Votes are made anonymously via physical buttons. While in a first version, group members could give positive feedback leading to larger bars as well as negative feedback leading to smaller bars, Bergstrom and Karahalios (2009) removed the negative feedback button in the iterative design process since the decreasing bars irritated participants.

In a study, Bergstrom and Karahalios (2009) point out that opening a back-channel during a discussion increases the awareness of own and others’ contributions and, similarly to the before mentioned systems, facilitates balanced participation. Especially active and unsatis- fied voters participate more and thereby strive for more diverse opinions to be included in the discussion.

To investigate the influence of visual feedback on group processes, Bergstrom and Kara- halios (2012) conducted a study in which they purposefully distorted the feedback of the CONVERSATION CLOCK. Initially, they considered four distortion strategies: raising the

2 Feedback

speed by altering the sampling rate, increasing the amplitude indicating louder speech, de- creasing the brightness of everyone apart from one group member, and color replacement, meaning that the speech is assigned to someone else. Building on a prestudy, the authors decided to use ‘speed’ as distortion strategy for their main study. They were able to show that people trust the visualization more than their own perception and reacted to the dis- torted group mirror similarly as to the undistorted one. This indicates that accuracy of the visualization has a minor impact on group processes and leaves reasons for discussions and evaluations about which factors actually have an impact on groups.

A system designed to balance participation in the learning context is the REFLECT table by

Bachour et al. (2008) (see Figure 2.4, top right). The table shows colored LEDs that represent the amount of speech of the group members. In a user study, Bachour et al. (2010) compare their system with a baseline. In contrast to the before mentioned studies, the baseline is not a situation without any feedback, but a condition in which the LEDs represent the time spent on certain topics. This leads to a comparison of a speaker-based condition to a topic- based condition. Results show that with speaker-based feedback, participation levels are more balanced, however, only for group members who believed that balanced participation is important. Interestingly, for extreme participants (extreme “over-” or “under-participators”), topic-based feedback even had a reverse effect, meaning that “over-participators” tended to contribute more and “under-participators” less. These results add to the assumption of Bergstrom and Karahalios (2012), who claimed that the accuracy of feedback has a minor impact on group processes. The results of Bachour et al. (2010), however, suggest that at least not any kind of visualization of group related information can lead to more balanced participation.

The MEETING MEDIATOR, developed by Kim et al. (2008) and Kim and Pentland (2009)

captures information about the group and group members via so-called “sociometric badges” (see Figure 2.4, bottom left). These include social signals such as enthusiasm, interest, per- suasiveness and nervous energy, body movements such as gestures, body movement mimicry or rhythmic patterns, or proximity of attendees. This information is displayed on mobile phones in an aggregated way. Each group member is represented by a colored rectangle on the screen. A circle is connected to the rectangles via lines. The position of the circle denotes balance of participation, line-thickness reveals speaking times. In their study, the authors compared groups that were supported with feedback to groups without feedback both in co-located and distributed situations. In summary, results indicate that groups are more polite and collaborative with support of the group mirror. Furthermore, introducing the MEETING MEDIATOR reduced differences between co-located and remote situations,

especially by distributing the energy of dominant persons among the whole group.

Streng et al. (2009) present an evaluation of different types of visualizations for group mir- rors. They compared the more common approach of using an abstract visualization in form of a diagram with the novel approach of metaphoric visualizations (see Figure 2.4, bottom middle). In that system, group members that have the role of reviewers of a specific collab- oration script are represented with trees that flourish or fade dependent on the performance of group members. The weather represents the participant with the role of the analyzer, that

is, good weather means high quality argumentation. This aspect is the second novelty of this system. Compared to previous work on group mirrors, this system provides feedback on qualitative aspects rather than on quantitative measurable information such as speaking times. The results of the study show that metaphoric feedback is more popular and leads to better self-regulation than the corresponding diagrammatic version.

Brandon et al. (2011) enable group members to interact with the group mirror directly. They developed a system with private displays and with a public display. Group members can draw their own avatars, which are then shown on the displays, surrounded by white circles. These circles grow dependent on the speaking time and connecting lines between the avatars appear representing the turn-taking behavior. The interactive part lies in a functionality that allows participants to change the positioning of their avatar on the screen. Moving it near another person’s avatar means consensus with their expressed opinion.

Schiavo et al. (2014) took another step in the direction of how different visual designs can affect the impact of group mirrors. They compared a subtle version with an overt one. The subtle visualization displays on whom was looked the least in a discussion, using colored bubbles (see Figure 2.4, bottom right). These bubbles change their color dependent on which person is currently attended the least and move in his or her direction. The overt version uses text messages that are displayed to the group members to convey this information. Results of their quasi-experiment indicate that subtle directives are more effective than overt ones, however, only if participants understand how they come about. In a second study, Schiavo et al. (2016) added a shared display to the setup. They investigated the influence of social traits in more detail. Results show that participants with a low extroversion score tend to prefer the overt directives while group members with low consciousness trait scores perceive the subtle version as more influential.

A recent approach by Yoshida et al. (2016) uses physical buttons that allow group members of a brainstorming to provide positive feedback. When pressing a button, a sound is played. The main intent of this tool is to decrease negative effects related to evaluation apprehension. In a field study, they could show that the systems increases awareness of positive feedback through sound and the way and frequency the buttons are pressed.

Other recent approaches aim at making the employment of group mirror systems easier by using tablets to mirror speaking times and gaze behavior (see Adachi et al., 2014, 2015). This setup does not require additional software or hardware, since tablets can serve both as sensors and as visualization devices.

In conclusion, previous studies on group mirrors could show that displaying feedback about participation levels can effectively lead to more balanced contributions. Dependent on the specific group mirror visualization, the authors report about different constraints. Some studies have shown an effect only for “over-participators”, other studies detected this effect for group members alone who believed that balanced participation was important for the task at hand. While some results indicate that the group mirror was well accepted by the participants, others were perceived as distracting from the conversation. While the accuracy of the feedback seems to be less crucial, feedback solely on the topic could not obtain the

2 Feedback

same effects as feedback about social aspects. First results on the type of the visualizations speak for subtle visualizations that move away from diagrammatic forms.

Group mirrors for co-located collaboration are especially relevant in the scope of the current thesis. However, a variety of feedback systems supporting lectures or remote collaboration are also important and serve as inspiration and basis for several of the group mirrors that are presented in this thesis. Subsequently, I will review an excerpt of these systems.