les outils dawareness pour la collaboration et lapprentissage gaëlle molinari, formation...

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

http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.10.pdf

5


“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


“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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4




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


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


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


What does my partner know/understand ?

Audience design Speech adjustment

to the interlocutor

Egocentric biasFalse consensus effect

overestimation + suboptimal grounding

28


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


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


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


33

Fixations oculaires

Gaze-on-KATVerbal interaction


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


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

les outils dawareness pour la collaboration et lapprentissage gaëlle molinari, formation...

Documents