Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1106,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1106, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For 3 years, the authors of this article and several other colleagues have worked with 11 nonprofit community groups to help them take greater control of their information technology in terms of technology acceptance, adoption, and literacy through a research project. As part of this project, the authors explored informal learning methods that the groups could benefit from and practiced them with the community representatives who played key roles in the daily life of the organizations. In the present article, the authors reflect on the developmental trajectories observed for two individuals, each from a different nonprofit organization, with respect to information technology efficacy and ability. The authors analyze these trajectories as a sequence of the following four technology-related roles-technology consumers, technology planners, technology doers, and technology sustainers. The authors describe these roles, the methods used to promote informal learning, and implications for other researchers studying informal learning in communities.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1254,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1254, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we describe a study aimed at evaluating and improving the quality of online deliberation. We consider the rationales used by participants in deletion discussions on Wikipedia in terms of the literature on democratic and online deliberation and collaborative information quality. Our findings suggest that most participants in these discussions were concerned with the notability and credibility of the topics presented for deletion, and that most presented rationales rooted in established site policies. We found that factors like article topic and unanimity (or lack thereof) were among the factors that tended to affect the outcome of the debate. Our results also suggested that the blackout of the site in response to the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) law affected the decisions of deletion debates that occurred close to the event. We conclude by suggesting implications of this study for broader considerations of online information quality and democratic deliberation.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3966,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Offering one's perspective and justifying it has become a common practice in online text-based communications, just as it is in typical, face-to-face communication. Compared to the face-to-face communications, it can be particularly more challenging for users to understand and evaluate another's perspective in online communications. On the other hand, the availability of the communication record in online communications offers a potential to leverage computational techniques to automatically detect user opinions and rationales. One promising approach to automatically detect the rationales is to detect the common discourse relations in rationale texts. However, no empirical work has been done with regard to which discourse relations are commonly present in the users' rationales in online communications. To fill this gap, we annotated the discourse relations in the text segments that contain the rationales (N?=?527 text segments). These text segments are obtained from five datasets that consist of five online posts and the first 100 comments. We identified 10 discourse relations that are commonly present in this sample. Our finding marks an important contribution to this rationale detection approach. We encourage more empirical work, preferably with a larger sample, to examine the generalizability of our findings.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4184,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4184, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Prior research has discovered that groups tend to discuss shared information while failing to discuss unique information in decision-making processes. In our study, we conducted a lab experiment to examine the effect of prediscussion note-taking on this phenomenon. The experiment used a murder-mystery hidden profile task. In all, 192 undergraduate students were recruited and randomly assigned into 48 four-person groups with gender being the matching variable (i.e., each group consisted of four same-gender participants). During the decision-making processes, some groups were asked to take notes while reading task materials and had their notes available in the following group discussion, while the other groups were not given this opportunity. Our analysis results suggest that (a) the presence of an information piece in group members' notes positively correlates with its appearance in the subsequent discussion and note-taking positively affects the group's information repetition rate; (b) group decision quality positively correlates with the group's information sampling rate and negatively correlates with the group's information sampling/repetition bias; and (c) gender has no statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship between note-taking and information sharing. These results imply that prediscussion note-taking could facilitate information sharing but could not alleviate the biased information pooling in hidden profile tasks.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=1329,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1329, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Prior studies have shown that articulating and sharing rationales in traditional small-group activities contribute to the maintenance of common ground, members' knowledge awareness, and contribution awareness. It is likely that the importance of articulating and sharing rationales will be increasingly acknowledged in online crowdsourcing because in such a context, large-scale participation is expected with participants often not knowing each other and being flexible about their participation status (e.g., participants may join after the activity has started and leave before it completes), and thus more grounding efforts/support are expected. To better understand the role of shared rationales in online crowdsourcing, three experiments were conducted investigating whether and how rationale awareness affects the ideation crowdsourcing task and idea-evaluation crowdsourcing task based on the findings about the rationale awareness effects in small-group idea-generation activities. The results suggest that one's awareness of previous workers' rationales in the current task can slightly improve the average quality of generated ideas in an iterative approach. In addition, one's evaluation of an idea could be positively or negatively affected by the idea's rationale depending on the quality of the rationales. The results also suggest that showing previous workers' rationales in the ideation task may not be an effective approach for improving the best quality of generated ideas.

Type

a