In class, we have been covering the topic of grounding, which is the interactive process
by which communicators exchange evidence about what they understand over the course of a
conversation. This is essential for proper understanding of a topic; without reaching common
ground, two communicants may not understand fully what the other is talking about and that may
lead to large gaps in their overall communication effort. Likewise, we have also become familiar
with the topic of situational awareness, which (through the situational awareness theory found in
one of our class articles) holds that visual information helps pairs assess the current state of the
task and plan for future action. The goal of this essay is to prove that conversational grounding
and task awareness are two different phenomenon, as illustrated by video examples provided.
The first video example we would like to draw attention to is the last link on the page, the
one entitled ‘DelayDiffDrift1=3501430PM-B6.mpg’. This video was kind of a unique example,
compared with the other ones provided, because the pair of participants in the experiment didn’t
actually complete the entire trial during the span of the video, as they had a lot of trouble
establishing common ground due to the 3-second delay period between when the Worker
updated their screen and when the Helper’s view of the Worker’s screen updated. They have a
large amount of trouble just agreeing on the selection of the first block, even though the Worker
does at one point choose the correct one and drags it to the screen. At this point, the Helper
acknowledges as much, but due to the delay, they’ve seen it three seconds after the Worker had
selected it, and by that time has moved onto a different color in hopes of gaining the helper’s
approval. The Helper is then very ineffective at communicating the idea that she wants the
Worker to go back and re-choose the previous block. This point is where we can see the
differences between conversational grounding and task awareness – task awareness deals with
the visual part of the communication (the fact that they can both see the Worker’s screen, albeit
at different points in time), but it is essential for the grounding to take place in the Helper’s and
Worker’s conversation so that they are better able to communicate which color is which. The
necessary grounding is not taking place, partially due to the delay factor but also due to
ineffective communication, and for this pair to be able to complete their task, they are going to
need a system of identifying blocks to each other so that they can combat the visual delay.
In another example, labeled ‘DelayDiffDrift2-3501330PM-B6.mpg’ conversational
grounding and task awareness make another appearance. In this study, the participants again
struggle early on but eventually do find the right combination of commands. The conversational
grounding was the key here. Taking a small blurb from the video as an example, the helper tells
the worker to pick up the turquois block, however, the worker did not fully understand because
she asked back “is it the white blue one?” This was a clear showing of conversational grounding,
where the two partners were not fully understood until after the worker asked the helper a
question. With conversational grounding being a success now, task awareness comes into effect.
When the worker finally picks up the turquoise block, there is now a bit of confusion on where to
place it on the screen. This portrays the task awareness. The screens however, have a bit of a
delay, but the goal is to put the block in the correct positioning. This shows us the complications
of the visual components that alter the ease of the task at hand. In this video, because the
conversational grounding was successfully completed (even if it took more time than other
groups), the task awareness could then be completed with patience. The difference between the
two phenomenon is that grounding makes sure that the partners are on the same page, while task
awareness demonstrations how partners must deal with new environmental conditions. These
examples show that the two ideas are different, but can also directly affect one another for
project effectiveness.