La lectura dramática como insumo para el profesor de teatro escolar

A common way to support co-located collaborative creativity is to use large displays. This has been realized, for example, with the tools CLEARBOARD (Ishii et al., 1993), POST

BRAINSTORM (Guimbretière et al., 2001), IDEAPLAYGROUND (Perteneder et al., 2012)

or the TRAINS OF THOUGHT system (Jaco et al., 2014). Other systems combine different

types of displays. One of the first systems supporting co-located collaborative creativity and a predecessor of many other collaborative environments combining different input and out- put devices is i-LAND (Streitz et al., 1999). It is composed of an interactive table and wall and chairs with built-in private displays. Other examples are TEAM STORM (Hailpern et al., 2007) or a system by Hilliges et al. (2007), which I will describe more detailed in this section. Systems combining displays with tangible items use for instance physical Post-it notes on a large wall display (e.g., THE DESIGNER’S OUTPOST by Klemmer et al., 2001)

or by combining pen-and-paper methods with an interactive display (e.g., the MEMTABLE

by Hunter et al., 2011; or IDEAVISby Geyer et al., 2012).

Below, I will first describe an example for an interactive creativity support system using a combination of different display types by Hilliges et al. (2007) in more detail. Afterwards, I will review systems that introduce features that resemble group mirror systems as they reflect group processes to the group.

Figure 3.2: Related work on brainstorming support. From left to right: The brainstorming system by Hilliges et al. (2007), FIRESTORMby Clayphan et al. (2011) and TEAMSTORMby Hailpern et al. (2007).

An environment specifically designed to support brainstorming consisting of an interactive table and a wall has been implemented by Hilliges et al. (2007). They developed a system that supports the convergent phase of brainstorming by using an interactive tabletop display and the divergent phase by using a wall display (see Figure 3.2, left). They use a variant of the classical brainstorming calledbrainwriting(Geschka, 1978; VanGundy, 1988) - a technique in which ideas are written on small pieces of paper and placed in the middle of the table before writing down further ideas. With a set of gestures, group members can create, edit and move ideas on virtual Post-it notes, which are represented both on the table and on the wall, enabling externalization of ideas, linking of ideas and building territoriality on the surfaces. Results of a study comparing their system to traditional brainstorming show that the quality and number of ideas was similar in both conditions. Combined with the advantages of storing ideas and processes and an observed tendency of a higher perceived quality of ideas, the authors could demonstrate the opportunities of socio-technological systems.

Hilliges et al. (2007) derive a number of design considerations for socio-technological en- vironments for collaboration and creativity. These are pseudo-physicality, implemented in form of virtual Post-it notes in the presented tool,meta-physicality, meaning that virtual ob- jects have a distinct and explainable behavior, even if it deviates from the “natural” behavior of such objects, seamless social transitions, meaning that transitions between collaborative and individual work are facilitated, and finally, visibility of social interaction, which is re- alized through the visibility of input actions through body language, and also through the constantly updated output representations in the system of Hilliges et al. (2007).

Another example of a tabletop based tool is FIRESTORM(Clayphan et al., 2011). The authors

also designed a system with the goal to support fast and concurrent idea generation, with all ideas being visible on a tabletop display (see Figure 3.2, middle). However, in contrast to the tool of Hilliges et al. (2007), they do not promote orientations or territory building, with the idea in mind that group members should be able to move around the table easily and that everyone should feel free to touch any of the displayed ideas. Therefore, ideas are shown in form of a spiral during the divergent phase (in this paper, as often in the context of brainstorming, the divergent phase is called storming phase and the convergent phase

3 Application Areas

norming phase). Similar to the tool of Hilliges et al. (2007), the system also supports the norming phase. Ideas can be grouped using a “lasso” gesture. One novel feature is attained through visualizing who created which idea. This is at the same time a typical method of group mirrors to increase awareness of group processes. In this case, group members are represented with different colors. The group can effortlessly estimate, who contributed how much. In the norming phase, it is additionally visible, who contributed how much to a certain category. In a study, Clayphan et al. (2011) compared brainstorming with FIRESTORM to

brainstorming with a whiteboard. Their results indicate that the color-coded ideas visible for everyone on the tabletop facilitated awareness and reduced free-riding.

Based on the observations with FIRESTORM, the system SCRIPTSTORM (Clayphan et al.,

2014) was developed to investigate whether scripted collaboration can enhance the effec- tiveness of tabletop brainstorming. “Scripts structure the collaborative learning process by constraining interactions, defining a sequence of activities and specifying individual roles”

(Dillenbourg and Jermann, 2007). In addition to the phases ofstormingandnorming, are- flection phase was introduced. In all phases, the scripting functions can flexibly be turned off or on. In the ideageneration phase, the color coding that was already implemented in FIRESTORMcan be enabled or disabled leading to an identifiable or anonymous mode. In the

idea categorization phase, categories can also be color-coded to identify the author. Other scripts can be activated to select leaders or to choose the way of creating categories. The

reflection stageprovides groups the opportunity to review their processes and the outcome. Group members have the possibility to view statistics about number of ideas, categories, links and touches in the user statistics widget. Furthermore, groups can recapitulate the scripting options they chose for each stage in theitem stage choices widget. Theideas and categories widgetshows the final categorization together with the time spent in each stage. Finally, thetimeline widgetshows any points in the history.

The feature of color-coding ideas dependent on the originator has also been implemented in an earlier system calledTEAM STORM, focusing on supporting teams of designers (Hailpern et al., 2007). In this system, group members are equipped with private devices from which they can share selected designs on a wall display (see Figure 3.2, right).

These examples show that features of group mirrors such as feedback about the number of ideas or the interaction of group members have already been integrated into some systems designed for collaborative creativity. First results reveal the potential of feedback on group processes in brainstorming scenarios, though other challenges emerged.