Distributed group support systems: Social dynamics and design dilemmas

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne; Dufner, Donna; Holmes, Michael E.; Poole, Scott

doi:10.1080/10919399109540155

Cited by 55 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Online interaction does not evolve towards higher levels of discussion without proper grounding, monitoring, modeling, coaching, or contributing on the part of the instructor, particularly at the onset of instruction (Brandon & Hollingshead, 1999;Hiltz, Dufner, Holmes, & Poole, 1991). It is also important to create a "joint problem space" (Teasley & Roschelle, 1993) and establishing jointly agreed upon goals (Chan, Burtis, & Bereiter, 1997).…”

Section: Scaffolding and Group Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 97%

Technology in Support of Collaborative Learning

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the research conducted in the last 20 years on the application of technology in support of collaborative learning in higher education. The review focuses primarily on studies that use Internet-based technologies and social interaction analysis. The review provides six sets of observations/recommendations regarding methodology, empirical evidence, and research gaps and issues that may help focus future research in this emerging field of study.

show abstract

Section: Scaffolding and Group Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 97%

Technology in Support of Collaborative Learning

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, GDSSs have media richness and coordination problems (See Dufner, Hiltz, and Turoff 1994;Hiltz et al 1991;Horten and Biolsi 1993;Daft, Lengel, and Trevino 1987) that need correcting before any of the expected benefits can be realized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…From previous research we know (Hiltz et al 1991;Dufner 1989;Dufner, Hiltz, and Turoff 1994) that the traditional methods for reducing uncertainty such as asking questions and receiving answers (Daft, Lengel, and Trevino 1987) do not seem to work well for distributed group support systems (DGSS). Even though EIES 2 groups could ask questions and receive answers without special tools, the difficulty with evaluating and organizing the information in a manner which reduced uncertainty overshadowed the value of the information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Because the hardware, software, and interaction are geographically and temporally dispersed, we refer to it as a Distributed Group Support System (DGSS). Structuring work processes, defining goals, integrating ideas, and coordinating the group decision process is very difficult for an asynchronous group (Dufner, Hiltz, and Turoff 1994;Hiltz et al 1991;Kraemer and King 1988). Many communications channels which could be used to help the group structure work processes are not available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We know that most people prefer to communicate face-to-face rather than via an electronic medium (Daft, Lengel, and Trevino 1987) and that they will ignore an electronic medium (Watson, DeSanctis, and Poole 1988;Dufner 1989;Hiltz et al 1991) when they can communicate face-to-face. Our research groups were required to rely on the written, asynchronous communications medium alone for all information, and at the same time they were confronted with having to reach consensus on a task (Watson 1987) which was designed to create conflict and for which there was no "correct" answer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distributed group support: The effects of voting Tools on group perceptions of media richness

et al. 1995

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Decision groups distributed both temporally and geographically encounter a multitude of coordination problems. This experiment used a set of GDSS Tools called "List" and "Vote," and alternative interaction management procedures, as mechanisms for coordinating distributed groups using a computer conferencing system and for structuring group processes. The study examined media richness using a modification of the adjective-pairs developed by Zmud, Lind, and Young (1990). The Tools significantly improved subjective perceptions of media richness. The attempted manipulation of the presence or absence of sequential procedures for the most part was not effective in creating significant differences in group perception of media richness.

show abstract