1
Controlled Evaluation Study (2000-2001) Evaluating the nanoManipulator Collaboratory CISMM: Computer Integrated Systems for Microscopy and Manipulation Project Leads: Diane H. Sonnenwald* and Mary C. Whitton Investigator: Kelly Maglaughlin * Now at Goteborg University & University College Borås, Sweden http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/nano/ November 2003 Research Question: How effectively do scientific collaboratories support natural science research across distances? Funding for this project was provided by NIH National Center for Research Resources Telephone for Audio Conferencing nanoManipulator Screen Video-conferencing and shared applications Camera for Video Conferencing Phantom ™ for force feedback Internet2 connection Graduate student Lu Peng (left) in Martin Guthold’s lab at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC uses the nanoManipulator collaboratory with Biomedical Engineering student Celin Sunny (below) in the Roger Cubicciotti’s NanoMedica lab at NJIT in Newark, NJ. Their work is funded by an NIH NCI STIR award. To help NIH understand the effectiveness of scientific collaboratories, we developed and evaluated the nanoManipulator Collaboratory System, a tool that supports scientific collaboration, in particular, scientific experimentation, over distances. Scientists from five laboratories participated in a long-term, or longitudinal, evaluation of the system. We observed and interviewed collaborating scientists periodically for up to three years. In addition to feedback on the nM Collaboratory itself, the scientists’ comments are providing insights regarding the scientific process, the types of changes that can occur in a collaboration over time, and the need for tools supporting more than just the data gathering, analysis, and reporting stages of collaboration. Preliminary Results (analysis is ongoing as of Fall 2003) • Use of collaboratory system increased scientific knowledge, particularly for remote scientists. • Use of collaboratory led to new ideas and funding opportunities for further research. • Closed, proprietary interfaces to new scientific instruments (specifically, new AFMs) constrained applicability of system as it could not be ported to new devices. • Collaboratory system fostered team building among groups remote from one another. • Understanding scientific sample preparation across distances is problematic. Long-term Evaluation Study (2001-2003) Twenty-two pairs of students performed two science labs. They worked once face- to-face and once remotely. Results • Some participants preferred working face- to-face; others preferred working separately. • Participants identified barriers to using the system both face-to-face and remotely. • Participants readily developed work- arounds • Lab grades, a measure of the quality of the science performed, did not differ significantly between conditions (a null result). The screen shot (below) shows two important features of the nanoManipulator Collaboratory: a cursor that shows the remote collaborator’s focus of attention and operating mode, and controls that allow scientists to easily switch between working together and working privately and copy data between shared and private space. Remote User’s Cursor (circled ) Controls for Private or Shared Work Mode Significant Tool Features
