![]() These large-scale studies were not only field studies, but also involve experimental ma- nipulations that allow for controlled examination of what differences in Connector features will make a difference for future users of the system. At this face-to-face meeting, teammates took a group picture to prove that they met at the requested location (see Figure 1). In the second task, participants were asked to arrange a face-to-face meeting. This task required collaboration and information exchange between participants because team members each had a different set of clues that collectively complete the process of elimination to identify their team’s Mystery Person, but did not require a face-to-face meeting. In the first task, participants had to contact at least half of their teammates for help solving a Mystery Person task. There were two experimental tasks in this study one featured coordination and one featured collaboration. The other three experimental conditions consisted of either only the 1:1 Connector feature, only the 1:N Connector feature, or both the 1:1 and 1:N Connector features. The control condition consisted of team members completing the tasks through typical mobile communication. We varied two dimensions, directly informed by the two Connector features, 1:1 Connector feature and 1:N Connector feature. In a between-subjects 2 (feature 1 or no feature 1) x 2 (feature 2 or no feature 2) design, we had four conditions in this study with two teams per condition. ![]() Experimental conditions were randomly assigned. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |