Cpsc 547 - Project 3
Webgrid - Written Report
Part I: Exploration
After using webgrid extensively I have come to the conclusion that it has both positive and negative qualities. At first it was a little tricky to use, but as I became accustomed to it quickly became easier to use. My initial difficulties with webgrid were grounded in my basic lack of understanding of the terms such as elements and constructs. I was having difficulties in understanding the difference between the two. Moreover, this was compounded with the fact that at the initial screen I
was perplexed by the initial prompt for two elements and two constructs. After closer scrutiny I noticed that the first entry box was prompting for an element and the second for elements the and below for a construct and then again constructs. It was only when I asked another student what was wanted here that he explained to me that these four entry box's were asking for a different name to give the words element(s) and construct(s). After this was explained to me I had no other major difficulties until I requested to display the princom chart and kept getting the display chart. After some time I realized that I needed to reload the page. Except for these few setbacks I found webgrid quite simple to use. In terms of my topic choice of the participation in basketball, I chose this topic, not because I thought it would be a good topic but actually because I thought it would be a more difficult topic to attain a good grid for. I must admit it was not easy thinking up all eleven
elements and ten constructs for such a staright forward and obvious topic, yet I was surprised that webgrid actually did come up with very accurate results regarding my thinking on this topic.
Click here to go to a saved
version of this grid.
Click here to see snapshot of
the elements and constructs used.
Click here to see snapshot of
the PrinCom analysis.
Click here to see snapshot of
the FOCUS analysis.
Part II: Elicitation of constructs on participation in the sport of basketball
Webgrid does show its validity in that it does match my mental model of the topic quite closely. It is interesting to note that although it does portray my mental model quite well it will probably not convince others with a different model to change their way of thinking. This is due to the fact that I see this mental grid as being correct because I associate the elements to the groupings in an intuitive fashion yet someone else might not see this groupings as valid hence undermining the whole basis of the webgrid method. All in all the prinCom grouped elements very well in my mind.
Once again the FOCUS grouped elements and constructs very well and in an even more intuitive method than the prinCom. Grouping such as University scholarships, improving skills and drive to win were nicely grouped together. It was also quite interesting to see that webgrid grouped people less likely to play by the rules to playing outdoor basketball as opposed to indoor basketball. Finally stress release, self esteem and health and fitness were also well grouped together.
After comparing my grids with Graham's I notice somewhat of a correlation, yet we did disagree in some areas. It is interesting to observe his mental model and the obvious differences of opinion. The webgrid tool has shown its effectivness in portraying to me Graham's mental model on the topic of the participation in basketball. For example Graham also related amateurism with lack of playing by the rules.
Click here to see snapshot of
the elements and constructs we used.
My stuff:
Click here to go to a saved
version of this grid.
Click here to see snapshot of
the elements and constructs used.
Click here to see snapshot of
the PrinCom analysis.
Click here to see snapshot of
the FOCUS analysis.
Graham's stuff:
Click here to go to a saved
version of graham's grid.
Click here to see snapshot of
the elements and constructs used.
Click here to see snapshot of
the PrinCom analysis of graham's grid.
Click here to see snapshot of
the FOCUS analysis of graham's grid.
Part III: Elicitation of constructs on Intelligent Agent design
I found eliciting constructs on my part of the Intelligent Agent presentation topic was quite simple and straight forward. Also, because my knowledge was quite extensive in the areas I discussed in the class presentation I could very easily find differences among the elements. Once again webgrid did match my expectations quite closely. I was quite impressed by the prinCon's ability to show close relationships such as the elements of emotion and simulating human relationships and the constructs such the believability of the agent in a clear easy to understand depiction. As for the FOCUS it did not group the elements and constructs as well as I would have liked but it could be due to the fact that the topic is very open to interpretation and semantics. Possibly with more data and less specific cases the focus would have been more informative. Some nice grouping were made, although, such as emotions and simulating human relationships. This leads me to conclude that webgrid is very dependent on the topic of choice and how well it is represented by the elements and constructs.
Click here to go to a saved
version of the grid.
Click here to see snapshot of
the elements and constructs used.
Click here to see snapshot of
the PrinCom analysis.
Click here to see snapshot of
the FOCUS analysis.
Email Address
You can mail any comments or suggestions to
dattner@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
