LES OUTILS DAWARENESS POUR LA COLLABORATION ET LAPPRENTISSAGE Gaëlle Molinari, Formation universitaire à distance Suisse (UniDistance) TECFA,

Présentation au sujet: "LES OUTILS DAWARENESS POUR LA COLLABORATION ET LAPPRENTISSAGE Gaëlle Molinari, Formation universitaire à distance Suisse (UniDistance) TECFA,"— Transcription de la présentation:

1 LES OUTILS DAWARENESS POUR LA COLLABORATION ET LAPPRENTISSAGE Gaëlle Molinari, Formation universitaire à distance Suisse (UniDistance) Sem@actu2010, TECFA, Genève, 16 février 2011 1

2 Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2

3 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 vois A : Ben jsais 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 4 Collaborative learning: Three paradigms (Dillenbourg et al., 1996) Effect paradigmEmpirical 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., OMalley, 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 5 Collaborative learning: Three paradigms (Dillenbourg et al., 1996) Conditions paradigmEmpirical 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 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 vois A : Ben jsais pas comment expliquer mais bon qui agissent(:::) B : Qui qui qui tient(?) Productive (germane) interactions

7 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 8 REFLECT (Bashour, EPFL-CRAFT)

9 Awareness: Definitions 9 AwarenessConsciousness 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 linstant davant 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 dawareness habituel Test your awareness

10 La compréhension des activités des autres qui fournissent un contexte à sa propre activité. Ce contexte permet dassurer que les actions individuelles soient situées dans lactivité globale du groupe (Dourish & Bellotti, 1992) Réguler son activité Partenaire APartenaire B Rendre visible son activité Percevoir et comprendre lactivité du partenaire Se coordonner et collaborer Lieu de travail Contexte Réguler son activité Group awareness: Definitions 10

11 Gutwin, Stark, & Greenberg (1995). Support for Workspace Awareness in Educational Groupware Types of awareness information used in a collaborative experience 11

12 Perception-action cycle (Gutwin et al., 1999): How awareness information is gathered/used 12

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 13

14 Effect 1Impediment of social interaction Effect 2Grounding problems Effect 3Problems with coordinating conversations Effect 4Hampers impression formation Effect 5Hampers 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 14

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) 15

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) 16

17 CriteriaDefinition 1. ContentWhich information is displayed 2. Time spanAcquiring or maintaining awareness information Information about the present Historical perspective 3. ModeHow 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 outputVisual information, sound, etc. 5 criteria used to define awareness tools (Nova, 2002) 17

18 Lists of awareness tools Nova, 2002Romero, 2010 18

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) 19 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 20 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.) 19902005 A systematic exploration of the underlying mechanisms that impact the relationship between awareness and learning (Buder, in press) 21

22 Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions (Buder, in press) DISPLAYING (see also Schmidt, 2002) Issue 1Explicit (ratings) vs. implicit feedback Deliberate, intentional and conscious displaying activity by learners Tools automatically generate awareness information Issue 2Dynamic 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 3Voluntary vs. enforced display activities e.g., participants could only gain access to awareness information when they had completed their own ratings (Phielix et al., in press) Issue 4Closed vs. open display format Questions associated with displaying activities (process of making something aware) 22

23 Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions (Buder, in press) MONITORING (see also Schmidt, 2002) Issue 1Obtrusive vs. non-obtrusive monitoring Extraneous cognitive load associated with splitting attention between own display and partner display Issue 2Interpersonal comparability of performances Ability and ease with which to compare own display and partner display Issue 3Normative pressure vs. evaluation apprehension Normative function of group awareness tools : How to deal with evaluation apprehension Issue 4Guidance and directivity of tools Correlation 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) 23

24 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 25 Dehler et al. (in press) Sangin, Molinari et al. (in press) Subjective knowledge AT (self-assessments)Objective knowledge AT (partners pretest scores ) More collaborative elaboration was found in high compared to low outcome dyads in the group knowledge awareness condition

26 26 The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) Mutual modeling Beliefs Desires Intentions Emotions Knowledge Empirical investigations of mutual knowledge modeling on the outcomes and processes of collaborative learning

27 27 The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) What does my partner know/understand ? Audience design Speech adjustment to the interlocutor Egocentric bias False consensus effect overestimation + suboptimal grounding

28 28 The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) Dyadic collaboration Dyadic collaboration Remote setting Remote setting Vocal communication Vocal communication Shared interface Shared interface Dual Eye-Tracking (DUET)

29 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 map Collab map

30 30 The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) introk.v.individuallearning Individual concept mapping collaborative concept mapping post-test questionnair e k.e.t timeline 0 min90 min 112233445566 MM Exp 2: SCRIPT Jigsaw Script Complementary Knowledge introk.v.individuallearningpre-testquestionnairecollaborative concept mapping post-test questionnair e k.e.t timeline 0 min90 min 112233445566 MM Exp 1: KAT) Knowledge Awareness Tool

31 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 lowlow rather low mediumrather highhighvery 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 lowlow rather low mediumrather highhighvery high Knowledge Estimation Test Mutual Modeling Accuracy (MMA)

32 32 MM Exp 1 : KATMM 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 33 Fixations oculaires Gaze-on-KAT Verbal interaction The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) Info- providing Info- seeking Contradiction Knowledge Modeling Collaboration management KAT reference Other A : KAT-viewer22.4% 4.7%2.8%12.2%23.4% 14%0.6% B : Viewers peer33.1%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 peers contributions MM Exp 1: KAT

34 34 The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) MM Exp 2: SCRIPT Self map Partner map Collab 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 lapprentissage collaboratif Dautres types dinformations à prendre en compte (registre émotivo-affectif) Distinction plus claire entre awareness et consciousness – Des outils pour aider la prise dinformations – Des outils pour aider la réflexion (métacognition) Incertitude et performance (AT et traitement actif) 35 Group awareness for collaboration and learning: Conclusions (en construction…) (Buder, in press) …

36 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 lapprentissage. Cette synthèse se nourrira de ce qui a été discuté pendant le séminaire, des ressources conseillées par lintervenante et de recherches bibliographiques personnelles. Par ailleurs, sur la base des lectures, il sagira de proposer un outil dawareness original pour faciliter la collaboration et lapprentissage dans un contexte à distance. Loutil dawareness 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 lapprentissage collaboratif + justifier (14h30 – 15h30) – Présenter oralement aux autres groupes (15h30 – 16h00) T3 : Opérationnaliser la problématique de recherche – Réfléchir aux spécificités de loutil dawareness à créer pour soutenir le processus visé + justifier (16h00 – 17h00) – Présenter oralement aux autres groupes (17h00 – 17h30) T4 : Définir la méthodologie danalyse – Définir la méthode à utiliser pour tester leffet de loutil sur le processus visé (population, matériel et mesures, procédure) – Présenter oralement aux autres groupes 37 Semactu2010 : Activité collaborative autour des group awareness tools A distance