Notes: Krejins et al. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments

Krejins, K., Kirschner, P.A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society. 5 (1). pp 8-22.

an interesting article, despite the insane use of acronyms to describe every fracking term in it…

on social affordances in software design:

Social affordances are properties of CSCL¹ environment that act as social-contextual facilitators relevant for the learner’s social interactions. When they are perceptible, they invite the learner to act in accordance with the perceived affordances, i.e., start a task or non-task related interaction or communication.

on perception and action:

Perception and action are the result of both the intentions of the group member and the social affordance of the CSCL environment. Similarly, intentions and social affordances elicit both perception and action.

on group awareness:

Teleproximity is created through group awareness, the condition in which a group member perceives the presence of the others and where these others can be identified as discernible persons with whom a communication episode can be initiated.

on group awareness widgets (as indicators of teleproximity):

Media-spaces use group awareness as a vehicle to provide teleproximity. The provision of teleproximity in media space currently limits group awareness to information about who are present, where they are, and a global indication of what they are doing. In other words, one can see that someone is working at the computer or having a discussion with a colleague but remains uninformed about the subject of the discussion or the kind of activity that is being done and how that activity is related to the (probably also unknown) task.

on commonality and group context: (could relate to tags, threads, etc…)

Commonality is a container term for anything that refers to a mutually shared thing, activity, use, idea, background, interest, status, and so forth. A common term can be used to give group awareness a context. The use of more than one commonality allows us to have different kinds of group awareness at the same time. Each kind of group awareness is limited to those members who are engaged with the underlying commonality.