Having facilitated a precept discussion in COS 436: Human-Computer Interaction, I was able to reflect on what it means not just to thoroughly read a research paper, but also to guide my peers through a structured discussion based on common threads reflecting their thoughts and insights. COS 436 explores how technology and design shape human behavior and counts towards computer science degree progress as a fulfillment of the breadth category. Engagement with foundational research papers in the field and a semester-long research project are the core components of the course. Each week, students are responsible for writing discussion posts on assigned research papers and take turns facilitating precept discussions.
The precept discussion I led was on the article Hollan and Stornetta’s Beyond Being There, a classic in human-computer interaction. The paper critiques how telecommunication systems have historically tried to imitate face-to-face communication. The authors argue that such imitation will always fall short, because when in-person interaction is possible, people will usually choose it. Instead, they propose that designers should focus on communication needs and how different media and mechanisms can meet those needs in ways that “go beyond” what face-to-face interaction affords.
The authors give us a framework of Needs → Media → Mechanisms, which helped structure my facilitation. Needs are the underlying requirements of communication, media is the channel, and mechanisms are the specific ways needs are met. Their central claim is that successful technologies are not those that feel closest to in-person interaction, but those that people would use even when in-person is an option.
Since my classmates had already read the paper and were knowledgeable about its arguments, my goal wasn’t to summarize, but to highlight the most compelling tensions in the text and draw on their posted reflections. I carefully read through their comments and noticed several recurring themes:
- Anonymity: Does it create comfort or undermine authenticity?
- Information and Cues: If face-to-face interaction provides context through body language or posters on a wall, should digital systems try to replicate or expand those signals?
- Needs vs Wants: Should communication tools prioritize efficiency or preserve the joy of interaction?
- Affordances: Are features like archiving and asynchrony improving collaboration, connection, or both?
- Informal Communication: Can digital platforms design for casual, serendipitous interactions without forcing them?
I built my facilitation around these five themes, selecting direct quotes from classmates for each one to display during the discussion. This gave the conversation a collaborative feel, since students could see their own words guiding the direction of the precept.
I began with a brief overview of the thesis in the paper and then raised each theme in turn. For example, when I was discussing anonymity, I presented a classmate’s quote commenting on how anonymity on the internet can provide individuals with a feeling of security, allowing them to be more open. Then, I asked the question: If comfort is reached in the initial stages, does that lead to actual connection, or does it short-circuit the trust-building process?
On the topic of another theme, I asked: If we collectively pick up context from an individual’s room, demeanor, or attire in person, what do we do when computer systems either strip those cues away or overdeliver them with features like status monitoring and activity tracking? Do denser cues lead to greater authenticity?
By integrating the author’s model with what my classmates had to say, the discussion quickly moved past summary and into actual discussion. Since everyone had already read the paper, I didn’t need to convince anyone of its importance; instead, my job was to surface tensions and ask open-ended questions that invited us to be more critical of the paper and its applications.
I found this facilitation to be very different from giving a presentation. Instead of communicating information, my role was to create the conditions for compelling dialogue. That meant preparing substituting questions, listening carefully, and following up on statements to lead the discussion further. I realized that facilitation is a research ability, and one that requires looking at evidence, synthesizing perspectives, and inviting others to co-construct knowledge.
This experience made me think differently about research papers. Rather than thinking of them as static texts to be interpreted, I realized that they are starting points for ongoing conversation. In the case of Beyond Being There, Needs → Media → Mechanisms not only gave us a framework to understand the arguments presented in the paper, but also an analytical perspective with which to examine the tools we use on a daily basis.
Overall, facilitating a COS 436 precept discussion taught me that asking the right questions to probe in-depth discussion is just as important as conducting the research itself. I hope you enjoyed reading about my experience facilitating a discussion in COS 436, and good luck on midterms!
— Shannon Yeow, Engineering Correspondent
