1. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 1. The Virtual Participant Knowledge Management and Electronic Conferencing Project team: Simon Masterton, Stuart Watt

2. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 2. Overview Problems and Goals How does it work? What were we looking for? –The Virtual Participant in action What really happened? –And what the students thought

3. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 3. The Problem Use of Electronic Conferencing growing –Required component of many courses –Distributed student body –Supplement to tutorials This has problems –Not all students use it –It can be expensive –Some students have no other contact –It does not offer enough to students

4. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 4. Goals to re-use the knowledge contained in discussions from previous years; to reduce the load on the tutors from answering common problems; to encourage students to use the technology and participate to provide some support to students which is always available.

5. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 5. The Study 3 years, October 95 - September 98 B882: MBA elective, 850 students Conferencing since 1991 Initial prototype Study - evaluate - revise Second prototype. Improvement

6. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 6. So how does it work? Another ‘Participant’ –Exactly the same access as all students –No special hardware or software required Reads all messages in chosen conferences –Stores contents of every message –Stores ‘History’ of every message Keyword and phrase matching –Stored from all messages in a thread –Considers all possible stories –Threshold for triggering

7. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 7. Example interaction

8. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 8.

9. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 9. What we were looking for VP should match threads with stories –A response is then triggered saying a ‘possible’ match relevant to the current discussion has been found Students will read its messages –The curious will ask it questions –Critics will make comments Tutor follow up –The tutors will post messages giving their own opinions and comments on how useful/less the VP has been

10. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 10. The VP in action Creative Management –Second year MBA elective - conferencing since ‘91 Uncle Bulgaria –Womble Metaphor - Recycling Knowledge Tutors Response –Distraction –Might go mad? –Why Uncle Bulgaria –Every year is different

11. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 11. What really happened Some of them liked it! Tutor follow up –Important VP message followed up by tutor to draw attention to the point raised Students can’t read instructions Name can affect students view

12. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 12. Students Comments Name Presentation Content and Context User Confusion

13. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 13. Re-implementation Second version –Name - Active Archive –Presentation - FirstClass Gateway –Interaction -Private (and public) –Content, Maintenance, Control –Retrieval -Thresholds reduced Further Evaluation Questionnaire/Interview

14. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 14. The Survey (98) AA posted a total of 42 messages AA sent a total of 302 messages 401 students read 1 or more AA message 179 read 9 or more AA messages Surveyed all participants 60 responses - after one week.

15. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 15. Choice Highlights Did you learn anything: 13 responses –Yes, primarily the structure of TMA’s –Yes: e.g. interpretation of KAI score. –Yes - gave some leads for TMA subjects –Have helped to broaden understanding of various topics without wading through drivel –More information / ideas

16. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 16. Choice Highlights Questions –Should continue to be used: 90% agreed –Name: 79% agreed –Put me off: 11% –Reduce discussion: 9% agreed –Relevant: 95% agreed –Direct to participants: 15% agreed

17. The Virtual Participant — 28th June 1999Page 17. And Finally... Four dimensions of acceptance –Anthropomorphic versus Mechanomorphic –Private versus Public –Closed versus Open –Fixed versus Extensible