Upload
margaux-georges
View
104
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LES OUTILS D’AWARENESS POUR LA COLLABORATION ET L’APPRENTISSAGE
Gaëlle Molinari, Formation universitaire à distance Suisse (UniDistance)Sem@actu2010, TECFA, Genève, 16 février 2011
1
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)
2
3
Collaborative learning
A : Quels sont les objets qui agissent sur la pierre(?) --il lit--
B : Ca veut dire quoi agir(?)A: Ben qui font qui(:::) --ils rient--B : Tu voisA : Ben j’sais pas comment expliquer mais
bon qui agissent(:::)B : Qui qui qui tient(?)
Partners work together on the same task
• A continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995)• The peers’ attempt to make sense of situations and of each other (intersubjective meaning-making) (Suthers, 2006)
Collaboration is a coordinated, synchronous
activity
4
Collaborative learning: Three paradigms (Dillenbourg et al., 1996)
“Effect” paradigm Empirical results
Is collaborative learning more efficient than learning alone?
Contradictory results within which the positive outcomes largely dominate
Collaboration is in itself neither efficient nor
inefficient
Source / Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. See http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.10.pdf
5
Collaborative learning: Three paradigms (Dillenbourg et al., 1996)
“Conditions” paradigm Empirical results
Under which conditions is collaborative learning efficient?
Group composition• Small groups function better• Some difference of viewpoints is required to trigger interactions
Task features• Some tasks are inherently distributed• Some tasks are straightforward• Some tasks do not need any planning• Some tasks cannot be shared
Communication media (social affordances of technology; Suthers, 2006)
• In computer-mediated collaboration, coordination requires extra effort• Asynchronous better for reflection and longer time periods; synchronous better for higher social presence
6
Collaborative learning: Three paradigms (Dillenbourg et al., 1996)
“Interactions” paradigm Which interactions occur under which conditions?What effects do these interactions have?
Learning++
• Providing explanations
• Asking questions• Conflict elaboration
and resolution• Knowledge
negotiation
A : Quels sont les objets qui agissent sur la pierre(?) --il lit--
B : Ca veut dire quoi agir(?)A: Ben qui font qui(:::) --ils rient--B : Tu voisA : Ben j’sais pas comment expliquer mais
bon qui agissent(:::)B : Qui qui qui tient(?)
Productive (germane)
interactions
7
Structuring and regulating interactions (Dillenbourg, 2002)
Learning++
• Providing explanations
• Asking questions• Conflict elaboration
and resolution• Knowledge
negotiation
Structure interaction
Preventive
Regulate interaction
Reactive
Collaborative scripts
Awareness tools
?
8
Group Awareness for CSCL
REFLECT (Bashour, EPFL-CRAFT)
9
Awareness: Definitions
Awareness Consciousness
Connaissance immédiate et implicite de la réalité de la situation et de la manière
dont on est dans la situation
Conscience (dite de recul) qui passe par la mise en
mots de ce qui vient juste de se passer l’instant d’avant
Processus de contact (perception, attention, moteur)
1. Sensoriel (que sens-tu?)2. Emotivo-affectif (que ressens-tu?)3. Cognitif (que sais-tu?)4. Moteur (que fais-tu?)
Processus de réflexion (langage, métacognition,
régulation)
Gestalt-thérapie
Expérience-synthèse activité réceptive, sans effort, non-contrôlée
Expérience-ingrédients activité compétente à
comprendre de manière discriminante
?Rupture par rapport au
niveau d’awareness habituel
Test your awareness
10
La compréhension des activités des autres qui fournissent un contexte à sa propre activité. Ce contexte permet d’assurer que les actions
individuelles soient situées dans l’activité globale du groupe (Dourish & Bellotti, 1992)
Réguler son activité
Partenaire A Partenaire B
Rendre visible son activité
Percevoir et comprendre l’activité du partenaire
Se coordonner et collaborer
Lieu de travail
Contexte
Réguler son activité
Group awareness: Definitions
11
Gutwin, Stark, & Greenberg (1995). Support for Workspace Awareness in Educational Groupware
Types of awareness information used in a collaborative experience
12
Perception-action cycle (Gutwin et al., 1999): How awareness information is gathered/used
13
Computer-mediated (CM) communication is restricted to verbal
communication
No non-verbal cues Vision
Audition Tactile
Olfaction
No social context cues Geographic
Organizational Situational
A lack of awareness information in CM environments
14
Effect 1 Impediment of social interaction
Effect 2 Grounding problems
Effect 3 Problems with coordinating conversations
Effect 4 Hampers impression formation
Effect 5 Hampers group forming and group dynamics- Feelings of dislike- Uncertainty about messages- Uncertainty about the others- Increase communication anxiety- Turn-taking difficulties
Amplified because episodes of exchanging socio-emotional content is
limited (no facilities for off-task contexts)
From Kreijns et al. (2003). Group Awareness Widgets
A lack of awareness information in CM environments: Effects
15
Awareness Tools (AT) to compensate the lack of awareness information in CM environments
Presence
Location
AT are mainly used to “recreate the conditions and clues that allow people to keep up a sense of a
workspace awareness” (Greenberg et al., 1996)
16
Providing awareness raises two problems (Sohlenkamp, 1999 in Nova, 2002)
1) Privacy violations• A vital tension between privacy and visibility (Erickson
& Kellog, 2000)
2) User disruptions• User disruption is also important since information
overload is a growing problem (Nova, 2000)
Designing effective awareness tools requires designers to “understand what information to provide, determine how the knowledge will be gathered and determine when and where the knowledge will be used” (Gutwin & Greenberg, 2002, p.
439) in Sangin (2009)
17
Criteria Definition
1. Content Which information is displayed
2. Time span Acquiring or maintaining awareness information• Information about the present• Historical perspective
3. Mode How the user obtains awareness information• Passive: Information is permanently displayed• Active: Information is displayed upon request• Reactive: Partner A provides Partner B with information
4. Recipient • One partner• The team• Everybody
5. Perceptual output Visual information, sound, etc.
5 criteria used to define awareness tools (Nova, 2002)
18
Lists of awareness tools
Nova, 2002 Romero, 2010
19
GroupKit: Widgets for Workspace Awareness (Gutwin et al., 1995)
Same task, same view
Same task, different views
What You See is What I See (WYSWIS)The AT condition groups were
faster and more efficient in completing the task. They also
used less spoken words and their level of satisfaction was higher (Gutwin & Greenberg, 2002)
20
CATCHBOB, Mutual Location Awareness (MLA) Tool, Nova et al., 2007
No effect of the MLA tool on task performance. Detrimental effect on communication and on recall of the partners’ past positions. Teams without MLA made more annotations on the map while permanent MLA has
an underwhelming effect
21
Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions (Buder, in press)
AT in CSCW
Awareness is defined ex negativo: AT as prosthesis tools used to recreate the gold standard of face-to-face environments
Awareness is limited to observable phenomena (presence, activities)
AT in CSCL
AT as augmentation tools that can mediate and expand social and cognitive processes during collaborative learning
Awareness is focused on cognitive and social categories that are not directly observable (knowledge, attitude, etc.)
1990 2005
A systematic exploration of the underlying mechanisms that impact the
relationship between awareness and learning (Buder, in press)
22
Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions (Buder, in press)
DISPLAYING (see also Schmidt, 2002)
Issue 1 Explicit (ratings) vs. implicit feedback• Deliberate, intentional and conscious displaying activity by learners• Tools automatically generate awareness information
Issue 2 Dynamic vs. repeated vs. static display• Awareness information is constantly updated• Static information is gained either before group interaction or in repeated display cycles during collaboration
Issue 3 Voluntary vs. enforced display activitiese.g., participants could only gain access to awareness information when they had completed their own ratings (Phielix et al., in press)
Issue 4 Closed vs. open display format
Questions associated with displaying activities (process of making something aware)
23
Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions (Buder, in press)
MONITORING (see also Schmidt, 2002)
Issue 1 Obtrusive vs. non-obtrusive monitoringExtraneous cognitive load associated with splitting attention between own display and partner display
Issue 2 Interpersonal comparability of performancesAbility and ease with which to compare own display and partner display
Issue 3 Normative pressure vs. evaluation apprehensionNormative function of group awareness tools : How to deal with evaluation apprehension
Issue 4 Guidance and directivity of toolsCorrelation between the effectiveness of tools for learning and the degree of behavioral adaptation that they bring about
Questions associated with monitoring activities (process of becoming aware of information)
24
Phielix et al. (in press) Janssen et al. (in press)
Students who used the participation tool longer discussed more about the way their
group was collaborating. No effect on group performance
Awareness stimulated by the peer feedback and reflection tools enhances group-
process satisfaction and social performance
25
Dehler et al. (in press) Sangin, Molinari et al. (in press)
Subjective knowledge AT (self-assessments) Objective knowledge AT (partner’s pretest scores )
More collaborative elaboration was found in high compared to low outcome dyads in the group knowledge awareness condition
26
The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)
Mutual modelingMutual modeling BeliefsBeliefs DesiresDesires IntentionsIntentions EmotionsEmotions KnowledgeKnowledge
Empirical investigations of mutual knowledge modeling on the outcomes and processes of
collaborative learning
27
The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)
What does my partner know/understand ?
Audience design Speech adjustment
to the interlocutor
Egocentric biasFalse consensus effect
overestimation + suboptimal grounding
28
The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)
Dyadiccollaboration
Remotesetting
Vocal communication
Shared interface
Dual Eye-Tracking (DUET)
29
MM Exp 1: Sangin, Molinari et al. (in press) MM Exp 2: Molinari, Sangin et al. (2009)
Electric Text Ionic Text
Jigsaw Script Complementary
Knowledge
Knowledge Awareness Tool (KAT)
Self map
Partner mapCollab map
30
The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)
intro k.v. individuallearning
Individual concept mapping
collaborativeconcept mapping
post-testquestionnair
ek.e.t
timeline0 min 90 min
11 22 33 44 55 66
MM Exp 2: SCRIPT
Jigsaw Script Complementary
Knowledge
intro k.v. individuallearning
pre-testquestionnaire
collaborativeconcept mapping
post-testquestionnair
ek.e.t
timeline0 min 90 min
11 22 33 44 55 66
MM Exp 1: KAT)
Knowledge Awareness Tool
31
The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)
With the help of the following scale, please estimate your own knowledge with respect to the content of module1 (resting potential)
very low low rather low medium rather high high very high
With the help of the following scale, please estimate the knowledge of your partner with respect to the content of module1 (resting potential)
very low low rather low medium rather high high very high
Knowledge Estimation Test Mutual Modeling Accuracy (MMA)
32
MM Exp 1 : KAT MM Exp 2 : SCRIPT
Learning outcome • Higher learning gain in the “with KAT” condition than in the “without KAT” condition
• No difference in learning outcome between the “Same knowledge” (SK) and “Complementary knowledge” (CK) conditions
Mutual Modeling Accuracy • Higher MMA in the “with KAT” condition than in the “without KAT” condition
• Higher MMA in the SK condition than in the CK condition
Relation learning – MMA • Positive relation • No significant relation
Verbal interaction • KAT reduces the focus on task completion• Positive effect of KAT on elaborative talk
• Ongoing analysis
The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)
33
Fixations oculaires
Gaze-on-KATVerbal interaction
The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)
Info-providing
Info-seeking Contradiction Knowledge
ModelingCollaboration management
KAT reference Other
A : KAT-viewer 22.4% 4.7% 2.8% 12.2% 23.4% 14% 0.6%
B : Viewer’s peer 33.1% 2.1% 0.7% 15.5% 18.3% 10.6% 19.7%
Co-learners look at the KAT mainly to assess the quality of their peer’s contributions
MM Exp 1: KAT
34
The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)
MM Exp 2: SCRIPT
Self map
Partner mapCollab map
• Participants focused twice longer on their own individual map in the “Complementary knowledge” (CK) condition than in the “Same knowledge” (SK) condition• Participants produced more eye-gaze transitions from their individual own map to their collaborative map (and vice-versa) in the CK condition than in the SK condition
• Learning performance was negatively related to (1) fixation time on own map, and (2) “own map – collaborative map” eye-gaze transitions• Mutual modelling accuracy (MMA) was negatively related to “own map – collaborative map” eye-gaze transitions
35
• Etude plus systématique (see Buder, in press) – Des mécanismes sous-tendant la relation entre awareness et apprentissage– Des conditions dans lesquelles les AT soutiennent l’apprentissage collaboratif
• D’autres types d’informations à prendre en compte (registre émotivo-affectif)• Distinction plus claire entre awareness et consciousness
– Des outils pour aider la prise d’informations– Des outils pour aider la réflexion (métacognition)
• Incertitude et performance (AT et traitement actif)
Group awareness for collaboration and learning: Conclusions (en construction…)
(Buder, in press)
…
36
Semactu2010 : Activité collaborative autour des group awareness tools
Rédiger une synthèse (maximum 10 pages) du thème présenté ‘outils de group awareness pour la collaboration et l’apprentissage’. Cette synthèse se
nourrira de ce qui a été discuté pendant le séminaire, des ressources conseillées par l’intervenante et de recherches bibliographiques personnelles.
Par ailleurs, sur la base des lectures, il s’agira de proposer un outil d’awareness original pour faciliter la collaboration et l’apprentissage dans un
contexte à distance. L’outil d’awareness que vous proposerez peut reposer sur des outils existants (ceux par exemple présentés lors du séminaire ou dans les
lectures) et en proposer des améliorations et/ou des extensions. Vous ferez cette proposition en la justifiant, notamment sur un plan théorique.
37
• Constitution des groupes• T1 : Synthèse de la présentation
– Réaliser une carte conceptuelle collaborative (webspiration) (13h30 – 14h)– Présenter oralement aux autres groupes (14h – 14h30)
• T2 : Définir la problématique de recherche– Définir le processus à soutenir pendant l’apprentissage collaboratif + justifier (14h30 –
15h30)– Présenter oralement aux autres groupes (15h30 – 16h00)
• T3 : Opérationnaliser la problématique de recherche– Réfléchir aux spécificités de l’outil d’awareness à créer pour soutenir le processus visé +
justifier (16h00 – 17h00) – Présenter oralement aux autres groupes (17h00 – 17h30)
• T4 : Définir la méthodologie d’analyse– Définir la méthode à utiliser pour tester l’effet de l’outil sur le processus visé (population,
matériel et mesures, procédure)– Présenter oralement aux autres groupes
Semactu2010 : Activité collaborative autour des group awareness tools
A distance