In INFO 515, the class was split into groups. The groups were to give a presentation about an assigned topic. My group’s topic was “social norms” on the Internet.
The personnel of the group varied in knowledge, experience, and skills. Many members had different majors. There were even a few members of the group who were not college students, but administrators. And everyone had different outlooks and ideas about social norms on the Internet. My group consisted of 12 people, so it was a medium sized group. The task was to deliver a presentation to the rest of the class about social norms. This was a performance goal, as the quality was more important than the quantity. We wanted to supply an informative and entertaining presentation to the class about social norms on the internet. My group communicated through both face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. We took advantage of several tools, such as e-mail, PowerPoint, the Internet, and YouTube.
Immediately after class my group would meet face-to-face to discuss the project. Then everyone would go home and we would communicate from different places through e-mails. Because of this, my group’s interaction process was more complex. There were definitely effects of proximity present in the group. One example was action contributed. When the group was in the same place, I feel that people contributed more. It was easier to present your ideas and get immediate feedback. When the group was in different places and communicated through e-mail, I feel there were fewer contributions. There were only a few e-mail responses. Not as many ideas were introduced to the group. I think this is because the group interacted better when we were in the same place. As Kiesler & Cummings explain, “close proximity among people is associated with numerous emotional, cognitive, and behavioral changes that affect the work process for the better” (57). When we were e-mailing each other, not everyone’s questions were getting answered and we didn’t get as much feedback from the group. It also seemed like there was less participation. But when we were in the same place, we could get immediate feedback, throw out more ideas, and have a more effective meeting.
In the end, the group was able to complete the task. Our presentation went very well. I also believe that all the member’s needs were met. There weren’t too many issues. It is because of this that I think my group would have no problem working together again.
Posts
It is interesting, yet according to communication research not surprising, that people were more likely to interact and contribute in a FtF environment rather than CMC. A percentage of people are intimidated by a FtF interaction; it comes with a higher cost since the person will potentially receive both good and bad comments/responses to their actions immediately. I do understand why less people contributed during CMC interactions, though. While although it is easy to propose ideas from your computer where you won’t be criticized to your face, it is also easy to sit back and rely on other group mates to ‘pick up the slack.’ I presume that this is especially true in a group so large.
ReplyDelete