Syllabus
WEEK DATE READINGS DELIVERABLES & NOTES
Week 1 1/4

Topic: Introduction to Computer-Mediated Communication

In class, pairs sign up to lead discussion starting 1/13.

Distribute and collect group information sheets.
  1/6

Topic: Introduction to Computer-Mediated Communication

  1. Crispin Thurlow, Laura Lengel, and Alice Tomic. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication Media and Society, pages 1-34

Project groups are assigned.

Discuss group project topics in class.
Week 2 1/11

Topic: Introduction to Computer-Mediated Communication

  1. Crispin Thurlow, Laura Lengel, and Alice Tomic. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication Media and Society, pages 35-68
  2. Barry Wellman. (2004). “The three ages of internet studies: ten, five and zero years ago.” New Media and Society 6 (1) [note: use UW library proxy to access]

Group: Turn in 1/2 page group project topic.

 
  1/13

Topic: Intro to Central Themes in CMC

  1. Crispin Thurlow, Laura Lengel, and Alice Tomic. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication Media and Society, pages 81-117

 

Group: Turn in draft interview protocol.

Discussion Leaders: Kate M., Linda B.
Week 3 1/18

Read ahead for 1/20.

 Holiday. No Class.
  1/20

Topic: Older CMC Environments

Readings:

  1. Susan Herring, Computer Mediated Discourse
  2. Erin Bradner, Wendy Kellog, Thomas Erickson, “The Adoption and Use of ‘Babble’” A Field Study of Chat in the Workplace [PDF]”

Interview protocols returned.

Group: Turn in literature review. APA bibligraphic style. 2 or 3 paragraph summary of each article.

Discussion Leaders: Eric N., Toni F.
Week 4 1/25

Topic: Virtual Communities. Reading:

  1. Malhotra et al., Evolution of a Virtual Community

 

Discussion Leaders: Katie D., Angela S.
  1/27

Topic: Blogs and Wikis

  1. Bonnie Nardi et al. Why we blog.
  2. Travis Kriplean, Ivan Beschastnikh, David McDonald (2008) Articulations of WikiWork: Uncovering Valued Work in Wikipedia Through Barnstars.
 Discussion Leaders: Heidi S., Melinda M.
Week 5 2/1

Topic: IM and Texting

  1. Rebecca Grinter, Leysia Palen, and M. Eldridge (2006). Chatting with teenagers: Considering the place of chat technologies in teen life

Individuals: 1st interview done and transcribed, turn in transcription with protocol.

Discussion Leaders: Josh B., Paul R.
  2/3

Topic: Social Media

  1. danah boyd (2007). "Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life."

 

Discussion Leaders: Silvia A., Laura S.
Week 6 2/8

Topic: Privacy

  1. Palen and Dourish Unpacking Privacy in a Networked World

No Class. CSCW Conference.
  2/10

Topic: CSCW 1

  1. Bradner and Mark (2002). “Why distance matters: Effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception.”
  2. Mark Ackerman (2000) The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The Gap between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility

Interview transcripts returned to mailboxes.

Discussion Leaders: Mike W., Linda H.
Week 7 2/15

No readings due. Read ahead for 2/17.

 Holiday. No Class.
  2/17

Topic: CMC and Games

  1. Ducheneaut and Moore. (2004). “The social side of gaming: a study of interaction patterns in a massively multiplayer online game.”
  2. Flanagan et.al. (2005). Values at play: Design tradeoffs in socially-oriented game design

Individuals: 2nd Interview and transcript due.

Discussion Leaders: James H., Tyler S.
Week 8 2/22

Topic: Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 1

  1. Tomas Erickson and Wendy Kellog, “Social Translucence: An Approach to Designing Systems that Support Social Processes [PDF]”

None

Discussion Leaders: Kennen P., Irini S.
  2/24

Topic: CSCW: Place, Space and Mobility

  1. Paul Dourish (2006) "Re-Space-ing Place: 'Place' and 'Space' Ten Years On"
  2. Emily Troshynski, Charlotte Lee, and Paul Dourish (2008) "Accountabilities of Presence: Reframing Location-Based Systems"

Transcripts returned.

Discussion Leaders: Pallavi D., Sudha B.
Week 9 3/1

Topic: CSCW: Coordination and Articulation Work

  1. Thomas Erickson, Cataline M. Danis, Wendy Kellogg, Mary Helander (2008) Assistance: The Work Practices of Human Administrative Assistants and their Implications for IT and Organizations
  2. Elihu Gerson (2007) "Reach, bracket, and the limits of rationalized coordination: Some challenges for CSCW"

None

Discussion Leaders: Alena B., Pausali S.
  3/3

Topic: CSCW and Scientific Collaboration

  1. Matt J. Bietz and Charlotte P. Lee (2009) Collaboration in Metagenomics: Sequence Databases and the Organization of Scientific Work [PDF], European CSCW Conference
 Time at beginning of class to work on final projects.
Week 10 3/8 No readings Project presentations
  3/10

No readings

 Project presentations
  3/15

Final papers due by 10:30am

  

The syllabus is subject to change, please check the website regularly!

Grading

Class Participation: 10%
Interview Protocol: 10%
Literature Review: 10%
Interview Transcript 1: 10%
Interview Transcript 2: 10%
Final Presentation: 10%
Final Papers: 40%

A  4.0-3.9
A-  3.8-3.5
B+ 3.4-3.2
B 3.1-2.9
B- 2.8-2.5 Final course grade must be 2.7 or above for credit towards degree
C+ 2.4-2.2
C 2.1-1.9
C- 1.8-1.5
D+ 1.4-1.2
D 1.1-0.9
D- 0.8-0.7  
E 0.0 No credit earned.

 

 

Policies

Academic Integrity
Students are expected to work independently unless other instructions are given. Consult with the instructor if you think your work plan might constitute plagiarism. You should also acquaint yourself with the HCDE Plagiarism Policy.

Attendance
Students are expected to attend class regularly. Missing a significant number of classes will result in a deducation from the course grade.

Student Rights
Please read the HCDE statement on student rights.

Human Subjects Participation
Students registered in HCDE courses are part of the HCDE Human Subjects Pool. This means that students may be asked to participate in a research study. Participation in research studies is voluntary; students who do not wish to participate will be offered an alternative assignment. Please read the HCDE statement about human subjects.

Student Rights to Privacy: Emailing Assignments and Grades
There are Federal laws that protect every student's right to privacy. One important aspect of your right to privacy is your right not to have the grades I assign and the comments I provide made public. So, for example, grades would never be posted outside my office door. My preference is to email assignments with grades and comments to each student. However, it is conceivable that such emails might be intercepted, enabling someone to view what I have sent you. If you do not want to accept this risk, please let me know, and I will use an alternative means of returning graded assignments to you.