In a recent article, McBeath and Webb (1995) have argued that today's communities have to deal with reducing the feeling of distance between persons:
"The warmth suggested by the term 'community' is at root importantly signifying the desire to have a sense of shared space, orderly and respectful of personal space which allows us a delimited freedom, but not a space in which the spaces between ourselves and others are so wide that no-one feels responsibility to be concernful about anyone else, other than being concerned about one's feeling that one should be concerned, but not feeling sufficiently obligated to help out. In other words knowing a moral rule about how one ought to act, and not doing so."
The MOO (MultiUser Object Oriented) environment could allow the community to overcome the feeling of distance that stands in the way of productive collaborative research. The most important feature offered by this environment is the sharing of a virtual common space for distributed communities.
MOOs are a type of MUD (Multi User Dimensions/Dungeons), widely used on the Internet for socialising and interactive role-playing games. They allow many users to log in at the same time, and interact with the software and among themselves. Currently, MOO technology is being used for many purposes: games but also private or professional communication, socialisation and collaborative working. The MOOs became a virtual places on the network where people can meet and collaborate on various projects. Technically speaking, a MOO is a network-accessible, multi-user, programmable, interactive system. When a user connects to a MOO he connects as a character with the help of a specialized telnet-based client program. The primary task of the program is to send/receive interactions between the server and the user. The MOO server exists on one machine on the network, while the client is typically run by the users on their own machines. Having connected as a character, participants then give on-line commands that are parsed and interpreted by the MOO server as appropriate. Such commands may cause changes in the 'virtual reality', such as the location of the user. In the MOO architecture, everything is represented by objects. Each person, each room, each thing is considered as an object that can be looked at, examined and manipulated. The MOO keeps a database of objects in memory and this means that once created, objects are still available at each session.
A MOO world can be extended both by 'building' and by programming. Building means the creation and customisation of new objects starting with some prototypical object. The internal programming language is quite powerful. It has been used to add an impressive set of objects for professional use (such as an internal WWW client, generic classrooms, in-MOO information systems ). Note that it is possible to transport objects between different MOO servers (provided that permission is given).
The starting conditions for interacting on a MOO are to be identified by the server as a character. Each participant must supply a password to login to the MOO as that character. Once the connection has been opened, all the commands that one typed are perceived to come from one's character. When the connection is closed, the state of one's character (location, possessions, etc.) may be preserved by the server.
The MOO server typically presents a virtual space organised into rooms. A room, in the MOO sense, corresponds to a place where characters or objects may be located. Once connected to a MOO server, one could type (characters following the > symbol are those typed in, the rest comes from the system), for instance:
>look
And the response might be:
Common room
You find yourself in the common room of the International Educational Technologies Center. This is a place where people from different communities can meet and exchange ideas. So enrich yourself :) Colin is here.
Obvious Exits: RH (to Reception Hall), Lib (to Library), Cafet (to Cafeteria), EARLI (to EARLI-Sig5), IFIP (to ....IFIP-WC3), LHM (to LHM), VMDL (to VMDL), PNR33 (to PRN33), STAF (to STAF), and Audit (to auditorium).
The primary means of communication within a MOO is by talking to other people who are located in the same room. An example transcript might look like:
David says, "hi. I'm still getting used to this stuff :-)"
>"hi david
You say, "hi david"
David says, "I remembered reading all this nifty social commands like knocking and something that was supposed to take you to where someone else was, but couldn't figure it out when I needed it :)"
>"it comes with some time"
You say, "it comes with some time"
David says, "Anyway, I'm trying to get up to speed on the moo, and hoping you could help maybe."
>"yes, what's your question?"
You say, "yes, what's your question?"
It is possible to talk privately to a person using a whisper command, or to talk to someone who is not in the same room by using a page command. Many other commands exist, and may be created as needed. An example is CB (Citizen Band) channels which can be used by all people working on one or several projects.
In addition to the synchronous component of MOO communication, there are email and news facilities. Once a 'character' is registered and even if he/she is not logged into the MOO, it is possible to send email messages, and new messages are mentioned at the beginning of each MOO session. People can also subscribe to lists where messages meant for everybody or for specific groups are posted. Characters can use an answering machine that records intended synchronous messages when absent. Various kinds of manipulable 'information objects' such as books, notice-boards, tutorial rooms, posters are available as other asynchronous communication tools.
One interesting aspect of MOOs is that they offer a spatial metaphor to the participants. One may talk and interact easily with people in the same virtual room, and may use other means to communicate with people in other locations. Spatial concepts make use of our capabilities to understand quite complex relationships between objects and ideas. MOO systems describe a very rich space based on the city metaphor. Spatial representations are used frequently to convey one or more attributes of the information objects to the user: sorting, grouping and so forth. When users move, use or create objects in space they communicate some relationship either to the system, to some other user or to themselves.
The primary advantage of space is that there is more room to put objects in and that the whole space is not always 'in front of the user'. Objects can be moved closer or farther away and the metaphors of the room, the house or the city provide container metaphors for objects that are easy to understand. This type of space is therefore useful to organize larger collections of objects. The main advantage of spatial user interfaces based on the real life metaphor is in the ability to communicate a spatial relationship easily to another user. Indeed people are used to navigate real life spatial environments based on very vague descriptions and facts. They are also generally used to memorise relationships of objects in spatial terms. People might communicate about the location of documents even more naturally and we will see how this feature is relevant when the MOO server is coupled with a WWW interface and hypertext links. Thus spatial concepts are a natural way to organize information and communication about spatial properties is a typical task for human. Spatial metaphor is thus not only relevant for human communication (you join somebody to have a talk or you organize a meeting in a specific room) but also for objects organization and in our concerns, objects can be records of previous meetings, black boards, information notes, posters, slides and so on.
A MOO can be an effective way to hold pre-arranged meetings for people who can't be in the same physical location. It could then become a means of communication for distributed communities of research who may be characterised as being unable to have face-to- face meetings without careful preparation and much travelling. Using a MOO in this way is not as time-effective as a face-to-face meeting (if journey time is not considered), but is less expensive and at least as useful as having a conference telephone call. Transcripts (recorded from either their point of view or by using registration artifacts) of the meetings can be saved and emailed to people who weren't present. In many cases this features compensations the relative slowness of keyboard discussion. However, MOO communication is not just typed text as the text is revisable and traceable, two features that have distinctive advantages over voice communication.
A MOO is relevant as a coordination mechanism. People tend to announce on the MOO what they are doing in real life. Phrases like "Jim checks the tapes", or "I'm hungry, who's interested in lunch?" are commonly seen. Furthermore characters are called 'idle' when they do not respond to activities. This normally happens because the user has stopped paying attention for some reason.
A MOO may be used as brain-storming or problem-solving mechanism. When the conversation is about a small issue, such as some detail of organization, or how to fix some user's problem, solutions can be reached in a few minutes on the MOO. Traditionally, in research communities, these conversations happen through far slower email.
It is common for someone on the MOO to have a real-life interruption, be it a phone call, an office visitor, or simply being too busy to pay any attention. Thus people tend to become inactive suddenly. This doesn't create a communications problem: whenever they resume, the buffer is there, containing the earlier conversation, and it can be continued without difficulty.
When many people are in a room, the conversations can get confused and intertwined. One quickly learns to pay attention to the conversation one is involved in, and to partially ignore the others. The use of recipient indications (such as "Sandrine [to David]: I agree with you") solves a lot of these problems. This is, again, something that one adapts to very quickly.
The MOO requires some time to learn. There are about 10 commands that everyone must learn initially (say, page, look, examine, who, whisper, emote, and so on). Learning to administer a MOO is more difficult and to add innovative extensions even more so. Administration involves creating or disabling guest characters, building the initial world (e.g. a virtual campus) and transporting needed objects and communication features from other MOOs. The initial Lambda MOO database is not quite sophisticated enough for professional use. Note however that specialized MOO databases for education and research will be soon available (e.g. from Diversity University). Learning the internal MOO programming language in order to enhance or augment the set of available objects and procedures takes even more time (like learning any new programming language) but this is something that can be done incrementally.
To summarise, one can say that MOOs have several features that make them a useful communication tool for research communities:
¨ MOOs are interactive in real-time. When one says something, all the intended recipients see it immediately. They can answer in the amount of time it takes to type their answer.
¨ MOOs have multi-channel communication features. One can communicated to different people over different channels (e.g. one can hold an intensive discussion in a room, listen to the chatter on a CB channel, and exchange pages with people in other location.
¨ MOOs can be used as non-intrusive cooperation tool, unlike phone calls, one can deal with a request when available.
¨ MOOs also have asynchronous features. It has internal email and news facilities. Furthermore, many messages can be written as virtual notes or on bulletin boards.
¨ MOOs are multi-user capable. A large number of people can interact with each other at once.
¨ MOOs are a networked service. Clients and servers simply need to be on the same network in order to connect to each other.
¨ MOOs are extensible. MOO servers contain an embedded programming language that may be used to extend the database of server objects and to create new commands. If a tool is to be adapted to new uses, it must be flexible.
¨ MOOs are exclusive. Only people who have been given characters on the MOO are allowed to connect to it. This is a crucial feature. In most of MOOs, guests are allowed to visit but their communication and navigation features are limited compared to the ones of registered characters and some objects may have a restricted access to guests.
¨ MOOs, in conjunction with most clients, have a history mechanism. Even though the interaction on a MOO happens in real-time, it can be stored in a file by a client that is connected or recorded by virtual tools especially programmed for this purpose.
The World Wide Web (WWW) is a distributed hypermedia system that runs over the Internet. In a hypertext, if more information is needed about a particular subject mentioned, there is 'click for more' function. WWW documents can be linked to other documents written by different authors, in various locations. To access WWW, it is necessary to run a browser program. The browser reads documents, and can fetch documents from other sources. Information providers set up hypermedia servers from which browsers can get documents. In addition, the browsers can access files by FTP, NNTP (the Internet news protocol), gopher and an ever-increasing range of other methods. Finally, the browsers permit searches of documents and databases as well as a 'fill-out form' interfaces for accessing any kind of external programs running on an Internet server.
Current research involves integrating MOOs with audio, video, and shared programs. One advance has been made through the integration of WWW display to the MOO servers. The MOO then becomes a sequencer for devices already available via WWW (sound files, videos, on-line texts and various programs) and, through its spatial metaphor, one could actually talk with the people who are in the same room on the MOO and read the same WWW page containing the same links to the same documents. Applications can be shared by anyone looking at the same page (thus being in the same room), and changes could be made and seen by everyone. These tools have proved to be enormously useful when working on long documents or using images to illustrate various forms of idea.
As mentioned above, the WOO environment integrates two internet services: World Wide Web (WWW) and multi-user Object Oriented Environments (MOO) creating the WOO label. The corresponding transaction protocol provides a means for MOO servers to serve HTML documents to WWW clients such as Netscape, and provides clients with the multi-user and rich programming features of MOO combined with the rich content of the entire WWW. Anyone with a character on a WOO can publish his/her own WWW home page to the entire world, but also create dynamic objects that serve information on the WWW in a adaptive and flexible way.
Because the World-Wide Web can be considered as a knowledge integrator, a distributed hypertext, an interface to any kind of remote program, an interface to certain local programs, and an interface to various communication tools (ftp, gopher, e-mail and news groups), it has very quickly become one of the most important frame of the Internet. Although it provides a great deal of support for publishing information and navigating through it, it does not provide as much support for Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW), where users can collectively write, annotate, and explore documents. This is why its advantages are so enhanced when it is associated with a MOO.
Currently, WWW-MOO integration works best in the WWW -> MOO direction, i.e. using the WWW for navigation, inspection and manipulation of MOO objects. For synchronous communication it is much more productive to use a regular MOO client. The current HTTP (WWW server protocol) does not allow the preservation of state and therefore to maintain continued connection to a MOO server, e.g. since WWW pages have to be loaded by a user operation a WOO page will not automatically update itself when the state of the MOO has changed. This situation however, may change in the near future when more sophisticated WWW clients (i.e. Netscape synchronous communication plug-ins) will be available.
A few years ago, Mason (1990) defined Computer Mediated Communication as a 'set of possibilities which exist when computers and telecommunications networks are used as tools in the communications process: to compose, store, deliver and process communication'. Several facilities then characterised CMCs:
¨ electronic mail, allowing messages to be sent to electronic letter-boxes for named individuals and which are accessed when the named user logs on;
¨ computer-conferencing, which allows messaging to be shared 'openly' by all members of a conference;
¨ access to remote database, such as bibliographic sources, sets of abstracts, etc.
Actually, it seems clear that a WOO environment offers all this and much more. Nonetheless, closer examination shows that there are differences.
Electronic mail is used to send a document to any number of recipients. It is, for the most part, reliable, and is used ubiquitously so that it has become effective through force of habit, if nothing else. It can either be interruptive or not, depending on the receiver's preference. While email communication can be so fast as to be nearly real-time, it does not normally convey the feeling of a real-life conversation. It is possible to keep a history of email messages. Email is probably the most widely used of communications tool in research communities. Electronic mail is available within the MOO (the MOOMail system), but it is still more practical when used independently. For instance, it is easy to create folders on traditional email systems while it is less straightforward on MOOMail system. However, the MOOMail system can automatically send the messages to the registered email address where they can be moved to the appropriate folders. So the MOO should not be seen as a replacement for the email facilities, rather to be a complement.
Computer conferencing can be replaced in the MOO using the mail-recipient lists device which can be created and moderated. Lists can be public or they can be restricted to a specific group of MOO users. In the first case, it corresponds to a News system or to the mailing lists available on Internet and in the second case, it compares with a computer conference although the interface is far more basic. MOOs bring a new dimension to the word computer conference. Indeed, as Mason understood it a few years ago, computer conferencing consisted of messages shared by a group of people and sometimes moderated by one administrator. The conference took place in an asynchronous mode which may not be the best environment to hold a conference for several obvious reasons. Within the MOO, a conference can be held in real time, interactions can occur and images can be shown or directly in the MOO or through the WWW interface. Then the WOO environment becomes a valuable medium in which to hold a computer conference.
Remote databases can also be accessed in the MOO itself and, from WWW interface, all the facilities that are on offer. In the MOO databases are constructed by administrators. As an example, the BioMOO offers a database of people, with their real- name, their e-mail address, their research interests, etc. WWW offers various kinds of databases based on several kind of research systems. Depending on the interface, Boolean operators can be used, and a search can often to structured through a form. WWW links offer remote database access and these are still available in WOOs. In addition, data and HTML pages can be served dependent on the history and the profile of the authenticated MOO character.
News (or USENET news) is a system that allows a document to be spooled on a machine for some time, where many people can access it. News can be shared across many machines or limited to one site. It is a way to communicate with many people about various topics in a non time-critical manner. News is a way to send announcements that many people should see. Multi-party discussions can work relatively well in News, but can take time, and have a tendency to diverge into irrelevant topics. News is normally accessed by the readers if and when they choose to read it, not when the News is first available.
UNIX Talk is useful for short conversations between two people though it has an inflexible and basic interface. Enhanced versions of it allow conversations between any number of people. It approaches real-time connection, allowing one to see the typos made by the other person! However, Talk can be annoying primarily because it can be obtrusive (drat, which window is that beep coming from?) and there is a confusion between Talk protocols on various operating systems.
Compared to email and News, the primary disadvantages of a MOO are that it must be actively administered and that the user must initiate the connection. Compared to UNIX talk, the MOO remains a communication tool that is not as interruptive although messages appearing on the MOO window can be a distraction if one is working on something different. The following table attempts a resumé of the main differences between the communication characteristics mentioned above:
asynchronous synchronous archivable unobtrusive multi-user exclusive
E-mail X X X
News X X X X
E-conferences X X X X X
Talk X
MOOs X X X X X X
Curtis (1992) suggests that "social behaviour on MOOs is in some ways a direct mirror of behaviour in real life, with mechanisms being drawn nearly unchanged from real-life, and in some ways very new and different". As MOO communication appears to occur in a synchronous mode for the main part, it is indeed interesting to compare it to real life communication. As Carlstrom (1992) explained it, some differences can be seen:
There is no spacing of players in a MOO room: all are simply there. Proximity may, however, be implied by use of emote commands or use of furniture or other objects ('Lilly sits on the sofa'). Classrooms are good examples. These are specific rooms which have tables, desks, and blackboard. People can sit around tables and the current communication cannot be heard from one table to another. For example, if Paul sits at the red table, he can talk to Lilly who is sitting at the same table but he cannot talk directly to Pierre who is sitting at the blue table. When Daniel who is sitting at the teacher's desk is speaking aloud, everybody in the classroom can hear him.
This carries comparatively little meaning on the MOO. Unlike speech sounds, typed messages take a measurable time to reach the receiver. Usually the delay is small enough not to cause communication problems, but longer delays arise intermittently, caused by a slowing of the system due to heavy traffic. It is understood that MOO lag may increase at any time, and that individual players may be experiencing lag on their systems that the others do not see. Also, messages appear only when the player press return at the end of an intervention and a long message will cause a longer pause while the player types. The features of a slower 'speed of sound', variable lag time, and the fact that messages are shown only in their entirety, not heard as they are spoken mean that a lack of immediate response to a comment or question is not taken as meaningful until it lasts for several utterances.
For the same reasons listed for silence, strict turn-taking is impossible to control and so does not exist. Similarly, interruption is generally an undefinable concept. Several conversations tend to be going on at once in a room (even if only two people are there!) and utterances belonging to the various subjects overlap and intermingle. The conditions described above make this likely to occur, and it is surprisingly unproblematic because all messages appear on the screen and do not interfere with each other out as they would in speech. Also, a person who is confused by a seemingly contextless remark can look back up the screen for its earlier referent. This form of communication is slightly less ephemeral than sound, and spacing and timing are less important than in normal speech.
One disadvantage of a text-only environment, however, is that events which do not interfere with vocal-aural communication do interfere during MOO communication. For instance, a programmed object that performs actions frequently is just as 'noisy' (in terms of taking up screen space and reading attention) as a character talking, and if there is too much going on, speech messages may be missed in the confusion, or scroll off the screen too quickly to be read.
The TECFAMOO (*) is a text-based virtual reality. It is a Virtual Space for educational technology, education, research and life at TECFA. The TECFAMOO project started as a small informal project in the autumn of 1994. Currently MOO technology is being used as CMC tool for teaching and research. Since April 1995, the TECFAMOO has an experimental World-Wide Web interface giving increased benefits from both technologies. TECFAMOO purposes are mainly:
¨ virtual meeting spaces for researchers and other professional communities
¨ an environment for distance teaching
¨ experimental Research for Virtual Classes
and there are plans to invest in the following other areas:
¨ collaborative work;
¨ collaborative information systems (retrieval based on spatial organization and hypermedia production);
¨ learning environments (e.g. simulation);
¨ social and political issues in virtual worlds.
In order to set up a virtual environment for research communities, a virtual International Educational Technology Centre (IETC) dedicated to receive researchers in educational technologies has been created on the TECFAMOO server. Private and public rooms have been built in order to accommodate visitors who can enter the library, the common room and the cafeteria without being affecting the interaction of regular users. Private rooms belong to international communities of researchers and, people are asked do not distract them. The public rooms are administered by a specific person who is in charge of them. The Library is the most important room to administrate and it has many structured links to on-line documents through the corresponding WWW pages. Access to on-line publications, on-line magazines, on-line bibliographies, interesting available WWW pages and archives of MOO important interactions sessions are available and this is one of the major conditions to the creation of a 'living' virtual research centre.
A MOO was set up at TECFA for the European Science Foundation's - Learning in Human and Machine - Task Force 5 (collaborative learning) Group. The purpose was to form a link between a recent face-to-face workshop and another which was to take place in four months time. This community was chosen for the following reasons:
¨ there was already regular use of computer mediated communications;
¨ Internet access was possible as most of people were working in European Universities;
¨ there was an organisational need to assist the forthcoming face-to-face workshop;
¨ there were just a small number of researchers (ten or so);
¨ it was a mature community (having had several face-to-face meetings before the MOO sessions);
¨ the person leading Task Force 5 is based in TECFA.
Thus the community was chosen so as to limit the problems related to technology, new relationships within a community, lack of concrete need and too distant or indirect organisation. The first meeting date was selected through traditional email interactions and the agenda for discussion on the MOO was established in this way also. The experiences of this group are discussed later.
Although most of the participants were using the MOO for the first time, the results of the first LHM meeting illustrated successful participation, social cohesion and quality of interactions. Indeed, knowing that changes initiated by innovations give rise to a reflexive anxiety, all participants seemed to be at ease with the text-based virtual reality and the spatial metaphor and post-meeting remarks reported on the positive side of MOO communication. In about 2 hours (including the delay caused by some technical problems of one participant), the face-to-face meeting that had to be organised, was indeed organised. At the end of the MOO session, all participants seemed to know what they and their colleagues had to prepare.
Unlike face-to-face or videoconference interactions, the MOO communication is not strongly structured and several people can indeed 'talk' at the same time. Nevertheless, and although participants are not seen by each other, the process of communication can be regulated by navigation and action or emotion verbs in addition to the moderator regulation. Navigation and emotional vocabulary can be compared to non-verbal communication in a face-to-face context.
Within the MOO the meeting situation is not really different to any other taking place in a synchronous mode. It can be described in the same terms as the ones used by Lacoste (1992) when she described the general process of a videoconference meeting. As in any kind of meeting, a videoconference meeting is predetermined by an agenda and a chairperson controls the turn-talking of interventions.
A videoconference meeting often starts by a pre-meeting where the participants meet each other. The movement from private talks to a collective meeting passes through several states:
¨ the creation of one interlocutory hub;
¨ the formal beginning of the meeting and ensuring that there are no technical problems;
¨ an agenda.
To end a videoconference meeting Lacoste discerned four stages:
¨ pre-end of the meeting;
¨ schedule of the next meeting;
¨ end of the meeting;
¨ postmeeting.
Although these stages cannot be well delimited, the following discussion examples illustrate the similarity between MOO and videoconference meetings.
At the meeting place, some information has been written on a virtual board to prepare the session:
>rh
Reception Hall
You enter a large and nice hall. You can see old paintings on the walls but some people are clearing them, they want to put new ones, modern art...
There is an information board in this hall on which you feel you could find interesting information for a newcomer. Type 'look board' to view the posted titles, type 'read <number> on board' to read the message.
You see Information Board and How to send MOO mail here.
Obvious Exits: Out (to International Educational Technology Center), C (to Common room), Lib (to Library), and Cafet (to Cafeteria).
>look board
A big information board where messages are kept. Type 'read <number> on <board>. For more information on usage type @examine board.
Currently posted notices:
1< Welcome to EduTech (Sandrine).
2. LHM meeting (Sandrine).
3. Sitges Plans (Pierre).
A sign says: 'Public Posting Allowed.'
>read 2 on board
<<LHM meeting>> [Sandrine-6/19/95 20:33 MET]
Welcome to the LHM taskforce 5 meeting. If you want to say something to everybody in this room start with quote (e.g. >"hello there). If you want to speak to one person in particular, use 'page' (e.g. >page Jane hello, happy to be here). Thanks, enjoy here ;)
<< end >>
>read 3 on board
<<Sitges Plans>> [Pierre-6/20/95 11:53 MET]
Please remember that in Sitges, we decided to have 3 working groups. The 'brits' (Karen, Kim, Claire & Mike) were supposed to review methods and tools (in a large sense) for ANALYZING collaborative interactions.
Group 2 (Ulrich, Pierre, Calle, Rolf & Engelbert) intended to review computational models of collaborative problem solving.
Group 3 (Lone, Joze, Bob & Stevan) planned to review tools for supporting communication during collaborative learning.
That's our starting point. The question is: do we try to stick to that or do we set more modest goals for our next workshop?
Pierre
<< end >>
This introduction shows that a MOO communication can be effective for meeting management. People can place themselves as meeting moderator or simple participant. They can provide facilitating tools like an information board or slide projector. Motivation can also be announced by short enthusiastic messages like "Pierre, hurray!!" and this is not as easy for asynchronous communication mode where this kind of messages is rather considered as noisy. MOO communication is also very simple when one wishes to indicate the beginning of the meeting and to present the agenda.
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "Annita is a Ph.D.student from Oslo University. She has been in Aalborg since February. We are writing a paper together for the Aix-seminar."
Kim Issroff asks "what is the paper about?"
Pierre asks "yes, what is this paper about ?"
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "the title of the paper is: Problem orientation as a method, and as a fundamenet for computer mediated collaborative distance learning. "
Pierre asks "what is 'problem orientation'?"
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "we are using a method called Soft Dialectics which is based on dialectical analysis and Soft System methodology (Checkland)"
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "Problem orientation is work method and a fundamental principle for critical pedagogy."
Pierre does not understand
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "Our work again: We are using Soft Dialectics to structure our discussion on collaborative learning at distance here at Aalborg University. "
Daniel says to Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk [Guest], "anything of that on a www server by any chance ?"
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "Yes, of course we can...when it is finished"
Daniel says to Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk [Guest], "it is useful to have it there before, so people could comment, unless it is secret or really in its VERY beginning stage"
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "If you are interested: we will be happy to mail you information about Soft Dialectics and abour problem oriented project"
This first discussion illustrates an interactive presentation. One character (representing two people) is presenting its work as part of the discussed problem contribution. Other characters ask questions as soon as they feel a need for it and by the end of this discussion, practical information is exchanged between the different characters (about the location of the paper related to the work, etc.) so that all the meeting participants can switch to another part of the current problem. This discussion shows that MOO communication is well adapted to interactive presentation of work, etc. Although in this case, the discussion was unprepared and short, other examples show that even prepared and formal presentations are well supported by a MOO session when some basic communication protocols are used for participants' interaction with the speaker.
Pierre asks "Ok, I think the best strategy we can have for Aix is that we try to discuss things that we do anyway, and preferably which is connected to the goals that were allocated to the three subgroups. Let's for instance talk about the subgroup 3 since it included Lone, Bob, Joze who are here (and Stevan who is not). Its goal was to review tools for supporting collaborative learning. Would Lone's paper fit to that goal?"
Pierre asks "Did Joze and Bob plan to do something about that goal during Joze's visit in Lancaster?"
Pierre says "Actually, despite the fact that I am in the subgroup 2, we had here to review various groupware, more precisely whiteboards (plus audio) that we need for the BOOTNAP project. We tested ShowMe, Belvedere, Kansas and are trying now LBL, Collage and Groupkit. We could make a synthesis about that..."
joze says "We are using LBL video, audio and wb tools in COST 14 project and we have some experiences with these and similar tools"
Pierre asks "How does it work?"
Bob says "I have no problem about looking at tools, but I would be worried if we didn't start with some real needs, contexts, and aims of the collaboration."
Pierre asks "Learning isn't a goal?"
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "Hello again, during our analysis we have indetified some interesting phenomenon to be explored more deeply. Some of them are: Commitment is a critical aspect in various forms in Computer mediated collaborative learning (at distance). Articulation work (See Kjeld Schmidt and Liam Bannon) is another interesting phenomenon. There are som other aspects, e.g. what consitutes the virtual room and the interplay between the organisational elements and the design of the artefact (functionality and aestetics)."
Bob says "learning is a goal in intentional situations. In our case as researchers, yes we are learning all the time but much of it is contextual and not necessarily directly intentional."
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk exclaims "To Pierre: For us, learning IS the goal!"
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "Our interests are intentional learning. However, the principle s"
Bob says "a key dimension here is motivation; one might link this closely to the nature of the problem. Is this a real problem with which we can directly associate (say as part of our day-to-day work) or does it seem artificial - like an exercise. Unlike Pierre, I hate jogging but given a real challenge to get up a hill (which motivates me) then I will make the effort (and enjoy it)."
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Annita Fjuk says "According to group 3, I think it is important that this survey includes in-depth studies of exemplary use-situations (out of labs!)"
Bob says "I agree with Lone (et al) about naturalistic settings."
Pierre asks "Do you remember this chapter that we wrote when preparing the ESF proposal. We described task features which impact on the effects of collaborative learning (e.g. the importance of regulation, the conceptual opnesss, etc.). Could you use these criteria in your analysis Bob ?"
Bob says "thanks Pierre, I would need to revisit that document"
The second discussion differs from the first one in the sense that more participants are talking together and that it is more a working discussion than a presentation. Aspects of this discussion are a bit more philosophical (Leaning isn't a goal? - For us, learning IS the goal!) and at the same time more practical (Do you remember this chapter that we wrote [...]?). One can say that this discussion looks quite like a face-to-face session with several levels of communication and several elements discussed at the same time.
Pierre says "Right, the other TF5 members who could not make this time asked me to set up another MOO session. I suggest to set up a second session at a fix time, by the end of this month, and then to choose some hour in the week at which you will now that you can find people in the LHM room.""
joze asks "Bob: can we make much more progress? I wonder if Pierre could review the interactions and do a sythesis of Actions prior to Aix. Or do you wish to meet again this way with (possibly) other actors?"
Kim Issroff says "I think another meeting is a good idea - and perhaps we could try to arrange smaller meetings in just our groups"
Pierre says "Ok. Here is my suggestion. For the next meeting, we'll meet in the LHM room but I'll ask Sandrine to create three rooms for each subgroup. I noticed that some of you left for the library when we were not discussing your own subgroup!."
Daniel says "I think it would be a good idea for those who felt productive here to come more often... you can build your offices here (ask sandrine), also you can use this as non-intrusive tool for collaboration (e.g. I always have the MOO open and do 10 other things at the same time)"
Pierre says "So, we could start with a joint meeting in the LHM room and then go in the specific rooms."
Karen says "'I think offices would be a useful idea.....it would certainly be an"
Kim Issroff says "I'd like to have it open all the time but I think that only works if you know several people who are likely to be around, but that comes with time. The reason I went to the library was that nothing seemed to be happening and I thought I'd use the time to look around"
Pierre agrees with Karen
Sandrine says "I will be pleased to guide you through this moo at any time"
Daniel exclaims "sorry I have to leave, see you sometimes and don't hesitate to contact us for more MOOing !!"
This closing session returns to organisational issues and future plans in must the same way as the end of a face-to-face meeting.
The whole session was recorded through a VCR-like MOO object and sent to every participant by email a few days later. Virtual tapes were archived in the Library and can be referred to at any time.
In summary, the transcripts illustrate some of the following ways in which the MOO communication system can be used:
¨ an interactive presentation (paper or project presentation - one character is presenting and others are asking questions);
¨ informal discussion during a working session (several characters discuss at the same time and at different communication levels);
¨ organisational details (several characters discuss at the same time about project organisation);
¨ collaborative work (two or more characters are working -writing, building, programming- on the same object at the same time).
To conclude this part of the report, one can say that the WOO environment seems to be valuable for communities of researchers to use as a communication system, and as a collaborative work place. This environment can be considered as a communication system with all the usual metaphors of mail, phone, answer phone, etc., but people can also be more imaginative and create new modes of communication allowed by the extensive property of the MOO.
Initially, people get seduced by the synchronous aspect of communication. It seems to bring them a new sense of belonging to a community. Soon, they can build their own working environment (virtual offices, notepad, books, etc.) and feel they can have some control of the MOO database from the inside.
Regarding the various MOO experiments studied (only one has been included in some detail here), it appears that some communication rules can be more effective than others. Indeed, a MOO meeting taking place with about 5 persons is far more effective and enjoyable than a meeting of 20 or more. This is partly due to the text-based feature of the MOO server but nevertheless rules can be invented to support large meetings. MOO interaction is more effective when there is a clear communication goal, like a problem to solve, a face-to-face meeting to organise or writing a collaborative paper for instance. Indeed, the MediaMOO description of an endless conference reception could be frustrating after a while if no conference has be organised one can talk about.
At this very moment, the MOO and more especially the WOO environments are communication system tools but their main advantage over other CMC products is that all can be remodelled on the basis of current user's needs. MOOs are a first instance of "Cyberspace integrators". A lot of conceptual problems of how to organize 'virtual environments for research and education' can now be addressed even in purely text-based MOOs. In the near future, new graphical MOO/WWW clients should make MOOing easier and add or improve MOO integration with other Internet services.
To summarize, MOO and WOO environment are adequate for many collaborative tasks (as mentioned earlier) but seem inadequate for:
¨ discussion within large groups;
¨ presentation of long and complex papers or research results;
¨ the solution of non-text-based problems
Carlstrom, E-L (1992) Better Living Through Language: The Communicative Implications of a Text-Only Virtual Environment, May 1992.
Curtis, P. (1992) Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Realities.
McBeath, G. & Webb, S. (1995) Cities, Subjectivity and Cyberspace.
Lacoste, M. (1992) Fonctionnement de la parole en collectif et médiatisation, in La communication plurielle, l'interaction dans les teleconferences.
Mason, R. (1990) Computer Conferencing in Distance Education, in Media and Technology in European Distance Education.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Addison-Wesley.
Evard, R. (1993) Collaborative Networked Communication: MUDs as Systems Tools in Proceedings of the Seventh Systems Administration Conference (LISA VII), November 1993. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/remy/documents/cncmast.html"