Comments

-->

Kunthika Macharoensak – Theme 1 Knowledge

I read about your article in your previous posting and I'm curious about what your group thought about the 4C guidelines during the seminar? Did you talk anything about what you thought about the accuracy of the mapping of social networks onto this model?

Sandra Alvarez Hindskog – Theme 2

I also find your article interesting and it is a very current topic to discuss. I'm curious about what kind of online communities the researchers tried their model on? Maybe the level of participation is different depending on what community is looked at?

Fernanda Curcio – Theme 2: Theory

Fernanda, I like this post of yours. I remember this theme being one of the hardest once for me to grasp and fully understand, and so I find your analysis of the theory concept to be helpful. I wish we had had more time to actually discuss differences of how theory is used and defined in our different fields since a lot of students in this class don’t come from an engineering background. It's interesting that you did your thesis in social communication and I believe that I as an engineer major could learn a lot about methods and theory approaches from your field.

Miriam Gauffin – Theme 3

"We used mixed research when writing our bachelor thesis and should have read more about how to do use it". I found that this was the case for a lot of people while doing their bachelor thesis. Even though I didn't write mine at KTH i still feel that we didn't have enough background knowledge about these things going into the project. Maybe this course should be given either at the same time as the thesis or the semester before.

Nicole Deandres – Reflection on Theme 3

"I have taken online classes since high school and throughout my undergraduate studies and I have enjoyed them immensely". Part of my bachelor thesis was on the topic back-channel systems in a physical classroom and how these could also be used in online courses (since they are getting more and more popular in our digital society) and so I'm really curious about what you more specifically enjoyed with them, because I haven't attended as many online courses that I can determine this myself.

Sepehr Amoor Pour - Theme 4

”This article sounded really interesting and different from a lot of the articles that we have read in the class. It would be interesting to not only try and reconstruct the study but to also look at other big audience events and see if the conclusion (a heavily scripted crowd) is the same for these events as well.”

Fredrik Rosengren – Theme 4

“The article that you read sounds really interesting and animation/visualization/graphics are my interest subjects as well. It's a good thing that they had master students evaluating the proposals that the Ph.D. students suggested, but I'm also curious to know if the software that they are developing (and testing) is suppose to be used by "normal" people and not only computer science students. If this is the case maybe it would had been good if they also tried the system on non- computer science students.”

Cheatana Rithy - Pre-Theme 4: Qualitative Research Method

As Diana mentioned in her comment I'm also wondering about what effect on the study the subjective opinion of the participants played in the results. I'm also curious about how many people participated in the study?

Marina Blinovska – Theme 5

I have a question regarding the paper that you read. You mentioned that they had a hypothesis about the results ("that touch screens contribute to the improvement of the usability of an e-reading device and the sensitivity of a touch screen has a positive influence on the usability") but I'm curious to know what conclusion they got from the study, and also what they compared it to – non-touch screens?

Beau Brown Armstrong – Theme 5: Pre-Seminar

I like your description of the importance of prototypes in design technology research. However, I feel that your description: "The role played by this prototype as well as Dr. Li's are universally important in this field of research by providing the foundation of further study of previously theoretical ideas enacted through the prototype" isn't only applicable for design research but all kinds of prototypes in other research areas as well, would you agree?

Chen Wang - Design research: Pillows as Adaptive Interfaces in Ambient Environments

Hi Chen,
The article sounds really creative and the technology innovative. I briefly read through it since you didn't put so much about the technology of the pillow in your post. There are even more applications for a pillow. Check out the "PillowTalk" - project which is developed at the MIT media lab. http://obm.media.mit.edu/

Responses on other peoples postings on my blog:

Theme 1

Stefan 30 oktober 2012 07:37

IEEE publishes many journals, and also conference proceedings, of high quality, especially in more technical areas. The impact factor is quite high, at least for being a media technology journal. It is interesting that you publish "important" and "seminal" research... :) Did you feel that the content of the journal met these ambitions?

The paper seems interesting as a background/overview. Often, it is argued that research papers should have been written in a systematic way and that they should be trustworthy (reliable) (that the reader should be able to trust the conclusions etc.). Did you feel that the authors had evidence to back up their claims?

Susanne Forchheimer 30 oktober 2012 16:34

The comment about the journal as being "important" and "seminal" is something that they've put in their description themselves. However from the little experience that I have with the journal I find it very interesting and up to date with important research.

Concerning the specific paper that read the conclusion wasn't so much a specific "result" of some sort of study but more a reasoning conclusion regarding the topic and why the topic is interesting to look at and why, and this I think that the authors backed up quite well.

Theme 2

Diana Imamgaiazova 2 november 2012 12:02

Susanne,
I like your example with Fanta, it was really demonstrative.

I was also quite curious about your article, so I've glanced through it. I hope you meant this article, just to be sure: http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~ct/pub_files/Aigner08TimeVis.pdf

I wonder why you believe that EP theory is used there, not theory for action and design, since it is an empirical study with a great practical value/recommendations?

I'm not much competent in the visual analysis field so it is interesting to hear how you engineering student assess the paper.
 

Susanne Forchheimer 6 november 2012 13:52

Diana, If you go back in my text you can see that i did chose action and design theory according to Gregor's model, since I did find this theory type to be closest to what the article was discussing.

By the way, what is your major?

Theme 5

G ee 29 november 2012 08:00

do you agree with haibo li that it is that easy to develop a great idea? You just have to follow the "masterplan" and that's all? I think it is always difficult to put the big word "idea" in a box, I mean especially in the fast internet world it sometimes only takes a thought to create something new with a lot of value. What do you think, do you agree with haibo li?

Susanne Forchheimer 29 november 2012 08:36

I don't think that Haibo meant that it's easy to come up with a "great idea" just concrete methods on how to approach the task of coming up with one. I remember that he talked about a great idea s a "billion dollar idea" - and those don't come around that often, I guess not even for him ;). I do however agree with him that there are different steps to help in the way, like evaluating an idea and determine the feasibility etc.

Reflections on Theme 5 – Design Research

The topic for this week was design research in the subject of media technology. Haibo Li our new professor held a lecture on the topic from an engineering perspective. He explained strategic ways to approach the different stages from idea to prototype. The most important step according to Haibo was to distinguish whether an idea is a bad, good or great idea. By asking the right questions and know how to define the problem in the beginning of a research project a lot of time can be saved in the end. Haibo had his on statement on this matter:

“Spend most of the time defining the problem and less time solving it, then you become great” – Haibo Li

This might seem trivial and obvious but it’s actually really difficult, the human mind is often looked and we have preconceptions about what we think is right. This makes it hard to think outside the box and approach problems in an objective way.

Haibo explained some concrete and important methods on how to evaluate an idea, in the field of engineering. Using technology and mathematics to determine if the idea is feasible is the first easiest step. By doing this in the beginning it’s much easier to know whether it’s a good idea or not. Secondly it’s important to ask yourself if it’s a breakthrough technology and finally if it’s a winning business idea. If these steps are all met you have a great idea. There are also three attributes that you should look for when evaluating the idea, these are effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction.

He summarized his lecture in nine words that were really useful to have in mind:

“Do the right things and do the things right” - Haibo

At the seminar we continued our discussion concerning design research, and compared different design research methods that we’d come across in our articles. During the seminar it became obvious that design research is a broad subject that can concern many different topics. We therefore narrowed it down a little bit to make it more graspable and focused mainly on design science research. Based on our own article each one of us made a visualization of the design research cycle.

Below is one example of how a design research cycle could look like.

Havner, H. (2007) “A three cycle view of design science research”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19 (2): pp. 87-92

Theme 5

This week’s assignment consisted of two design research papers. The first one was co-written by Haibo Li, our new Media technology professor, in 2008 – ”Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration.” and the second one was a choice of our own. 

In the first paper the authors present a new way of assimilating football games on mobile devices. They use a mockup to conduct a user study where they test and evaluate their product. By conducting a user study to test out their system they can detect problems and issues at an early stage, which is really important when developing a product. In this case the product has a commercial value as well, this makes the user study even more important. It’s also necessary to think about what kind of people are involved in the user study and that they fit the target group the product is aiming for. 

When developing a new product, as in this case, it’s also important to ask questions whether the product is actually realizable and feasible. Using a proof of concept prototype could do this. The purpose of a proof of concept prototype is to verify that the idea, concept or theory is useful. The prototype is not intended to serve as an early version of the final product but can rather be quite small and may not even be complete. In the user study conducted in the paper the prototype is in one way a proof of concept prototype since they get feedback from the users regarding the usefulness of the product. By using this evaluation method they can verify whether their product is useful and has a customer base. 

The second article that I read was an article written by my bachelor thesis advisor Karrie Karahalios – ”Social Mirrors as Social Signals: Transforming Audio into Graphics” and was published in IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (impact factor: 1.411). The reason why I chose this article is because I find that it describes a design research project quite well.

A social mirror is a visualization using three specific properties. The visualization is shown from a third person perspective, showing changes in real-time and making patterns and trends visible in group conversations. The aim of the paper is to:

-       Visualize content creation within groups over time.

-       Create a better topic classifier for human conversation using human-computer dialogue.

In the paper the researchers present the results of a set of user studies that were conducted. Having a user group trying out the system helps in future research concerning how conversation visualizations can play a part in creative thinking, brainstorming, idea formation etc. To investigate what signals and cues are important in communication visualization the researchers base their knowledge on the social– signaling theory.

What I learned about design research from this paper was that even though you might have a hypothesis about the results of a design technology there might also be other results and applications for the product that weren’t considered to begin with.

Reflections on Theme 4 - Qualitative Methods

This week started off with a seminar regarding qualitative methods and was then followed by a lecture in “Qualitative methods based on concepting, tinkering and critique” by Ylva Ferneaus, whom was also one of the writers of the article that we read this week.

During the seminar we mainly discussed the qualitative methods that were used in the article that we chose by ourselves. The most common method, amongst the articles that were chosen by the people in my group, was conducting interviews or having focus groups, but other methods such as observation, experimental and content analysis were also quite common.  We also had a small discussion about the differences between content analysis and data analysis and why it’s important to separate the two.

As mentioned above we also had a lecture by Ylva Ferneaus who is a researcher in human-machine interaction. The first half of the lecture she talked more deeply about her article, and her background as a researcher. She explained the importance of semiotics in her work and why signs and symbols are interesting.

Since I had some troubles really grasping the article this was very helpful in understanding what the paper was actually about in a deeper sense. However, I still don’t really feel that I completely understand the motivation and purpose of the paper. It’s for sure an interesting topic but what are the expected results and goals with this type of product?

During the second half of the lecture we did have more of a dialog where we discussed some questions relevant to the paper. Some of the questions that we discussed were:

·      What was qualitative with the method (was there even a method)?

·      Was there any kind of empirical data?

·      Would statistics help in improving the article?

·      Is there a problem that no user study was conducted?

In this case we got to be more critical towards the papers approach and methods that were used. This at least helped me bit on the way of fully understanding the purpose and goal of the paper.

Theme 4

 The article that I chose for this week’s assignment is ”Knowledge and networks: An experimental test of how network knowledge affects coordination” by Daniel Enemark, Mathew D. McCubbins, Nicholas Weller.

The motivation for the paper lies in a previous argument that adding connections to a network or changing the structure of existing connections in a network can support successful coordination. However, changing connections or network structure can also have negative effects and there is therefor a need to search for an alternative way to add connections when dealing with network coordination problems.

The article presents experimental evidence that a network doesn’t have to change structure to increase people’s knowledge and coordination, but that people quickly can coordinate over networks when they have the opportunity to observe the full network; a more complete view over the network leads to faster coordination.

By using an experimental method they are able to test how the design of a network affects the coordination and performance. Their study is built on two main theories – graph theory and game theory. One issue that is brought up is when performing experimental tasks there are obstacles to generalizability which means that no matter of how many tasks they run, they can’t be sure to demonstrate that the effects are universal. However, by using two different coordination forms and a broad range of network structures the range of environment helps in improving the generalization.

For this particular study the use of a experimental method is really helpful since the authors wants to observe how people interact and coordinate within certain networks. One thing that they didn’t consider in their study is the knowledge of different network structure that the subjects already possess. This may have an impact on the outcome of the study.

Qualitative methods are helpful when looking at certain behaviors, and in this case how people interact with a system. By only collecting data regarding how people for example think that they would act (a more quantitative method) would not only be less detailed but could also provide wrong information about what is really going on in the situation. What people think that they do and what they actually do are two completely different things.

For this week we also read the article “Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses” by Fernaeus, Y and Jacobsson, M. The article presents ActDress which is a form of physical programming using physical markings to be attached directly to a digital artifact. Examples could be using physical labels, clothing or other accessories for controlling physically embodied systems.

The motivation and purpose of the ActDress concept is to provide the end-user with their own control and programming language when it comes to electronic devices.

A question that I would like to discuss for next time is whether qualitative or quantitative methods are becoming more important in our digitalized world?

Reflections on Theme 3 – Quantitative Methods

This week’s topic was about quantitative methods, more specifically what’s included within the concept and when to use it. We had a guest lecturer, Martha Cleveland-Innes, whom we also read an article by - “Emotional presence, learning and the online learning environment”. Martha brought up some really good points about quantitative methods in her lecture, since she has a background as a quantitative researcher her insight into the method was highly defined and well grounded.

Some of the key points during her presentation were: when to use a quantitative method, what the difference is between using a quantitative and a qualitative method and what questions should be asked when deciding what method to use. She also discussed when to use a “mixed method” which was also the topic of our second article for the week - “Mixed Research and Online Learning: Strategies for Improvement”. Martha also pointed out that since we are now living in a technical and digitalized world with more and more data it’s even more important to look into different options of what method to use when doing research. Not only sticking to what’s most convenient for the researcher and what the researcher is used to but to be creative and come use methods that fits the purpose of the study.

She also talked about using deductive and inductive principles when approaching a research area. Often it’s common that people think that one or the other is the best principle but Martha argues that they are both important and that it’s actually an iterative process between the two principles. Deductive means that you start with a more general principle and then go towards more specific goals, whilst the inductive principles starts by looking at the specific details and then goes on towards a more general view. 

We also had a lab exercise with Ester Appelgren, unfortunately the software crashed a lot in the previous group so we never conducted the actual lab. We did however get an introduction of the software that we were suppose to use for analyzing quantitative datasets.

Theme 3

-->

The articles for this week’s theme are connected to research and research quality on online learning environments. Since the rise of the digital age this topic has been highly discussed but the research regarding the matter has been pore and with low quality. With poorly conducted studies there has been a need to use mixed research to fully address the problems and issues related to the matter.

The first article "Emotional presence, learning and the online learning environment" by Martha Cleveland-Innes consists of two main phases which are separated by two main questions. The first questions is whether there is an emotion connected to an online learning environment, and the second phase consists of the reconsideration of the role of emotion in the conceptual model of online learning.

Emotions are an important factor for students’ success in the learning process in an online teaching environment. Research in negative and positive emotions indicate that people that experience stress and anger tend to make more inappropriate decisions than positive emotions.

The article presents the results of a quantitative user study which main target audience were graduate students participating in online courses. The first phase of the study resulted in a more deep understanding of when emotions play a part in online learning environments. The second phase showed that the expressed language in discussion forums lay far beyond the expression of social presence.

The second article “Mixed Research and Online Learning: Strategies for Improvement” by Patrick R. Lowenthal brings up the issues and complexities that arises with research on online learning communities. The article argues that the quantitative data set that has been collected in previous studies on online learning sites can hardly answer all research questions. Often the results have been directly compared to face-to-face learning environments and not looking deeply enough into the dynamics of online learning communities. The non-diversity in research methods has lead to a one-way understanding of the online media, while missing the important nuances that actually do exist.

The article therefor focuses on explaining the importance of using a mixed research processes to fully understand the complexity of online learning issues. The paper also defines and gives a background of what is included in the concept of mixed research and mixed research methods.

Mixed research consists of using both quantitative and qualitative approaches while conducting a study of some sort. Believers in this research argue that this is the best method to better understand the research problem. But formulating the right mixed research questions is hard, since the questions should not only be quantitatively or qualitatively formulated, and so the paper presents some guidelines for how this is done.

While reading these texts I learned differences in using quantitative and qualitative methods in research. I was pretty confident about what they meant before hand but now I have a better understanding of when to use them (at least when it comes to studies regarding online learning environment).