Les outils d’ awareness pour la collaboration et l’apprentissage

1. Gaëlle Molinari, Formation universitaire à distance Suisse (UniDistance) Sem@actu2010, TECFA, Genève, 16 février 2011 Les outils d’awareness pour la collaboration et l’apprentissage

2. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)

3. Collaborative learning Partners work together on the same task Collaboration is a coordinated, synchronous activity • 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 j’sais pas comment expliquer mais bon qui agissent(:::) • B : Qui qui qui tient(?) • 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)

4. Collaborative learning: Three paradigms (Dillenbourg et al., 1996) 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)

6. Collaborative learning: Three paradigms (Dillenbourg et al., 1996) Which interactions occur under which conditions? What effects do these interactions have? ++ 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 j’sais pas comment expliquer mais bon qui agissent(:::) • B : Qui qui qui tient(?) • Providing explanations • Asking questions • Conflict elaboration and resolution • Knowledge negotiation Productive (germane) interactions

7. Structuring and regulating interactions (Dillenbourg, 2002) • Providing explanations • Asking questions • Conflict elaboration and resolution • Knowledge negotiation ++ ? Learning Preventive Reactive Structure interaction Regulate interaction Collaborative scripts Awareness tools

8. Group Awareness for CSCL REFLECT (Bashour, EPFL-CRAFT)

9. Awareness: Definitions Gestalt-thérapie 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 ? Rupture par rapport au niveau d’awareness habituel Processus de contact (perception, attention, moteur) • Sensoriel (que sens-tu?) • Emotivo-affectif (que ressens-tu?) • Cognitif (que sais-tu?) • Moteur (que fais-tu?) Processus de réflexion (langage, métacognition, régulation) Expérience-ingrédientsactivité compétente à comprendre de manière discriminante Expérience-synthèseactivité réceptive, sans effort, non-contrôlée Test yourawareness

10. Group awareness: Definitions 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) Rendre visible son activité Se coordonner et collaborer Partenaire A Partenaire B Réguler son activité Réguler son activité Percevoir et comprendre l’activité du partenaire Lieu de travail Contexte

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

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

13. A lack of awareness information in CM environments Computer-mediated (CM) communication is restricted to verbal communication No non-verbal cues Vision Audition Tactile Olfaction No social context cues Geographic Organizational Situational

14. A lack of awareness information in CM environments: Effects Amplified because episodes of exchanging socio-emotional content is limited (no facilities for off-task contexts) From Kreijns et al. (2003). Group Awareness Widgets

15. Awareness Tools (AT) to compensate the lack of awareness information in CM environments 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) Presence

16. Providing awareness raises two problems (Sohlenkamp, 1999 in Nova, 2002) • Privacy violations • A vital tension between privacy and visibility (Erickson & Kellog, 2000) • 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. 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 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) What You See is What I See (WYSWIS)

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) 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) Questions associated with displaying activities (process of making something aware)

23. Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions (Buder, in press) Questions associated with monitoring activities (process of becoming aware of information)

24. Phielix et al. (in press) Janssen et al. (in press) Awareness stimulated by the peer feedback and reflection tools enhances group-process satisfaction and social performance Students who used the participation tool longer discussed more about the way their group was collaborating. No effect on group performance

25. Sangin, Molinari et al. (in press) Dehler 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 modeling Beliefs Desires Intentions Emotions Knowledge 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 bias False consensus effectoverestimation + suboptimal grounding

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

29. MM Exp 1: Sangin, Molinari et al. (in press) MM Exp 2: Molinari, Sangin et al. (2009) Electric Text Ionic Text Knowledge Awareness Tool (KAT) Jigsaw Script Complementary Knowledge Self map Collab map Partner map

30. The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) MM Exp 1: KAT) 0 min 0 min 90 min 90 min timeline timeline intro intro k.v. k.v. individual learning individual learning Individual concept mapping pre-test questionnaire collaborative concept mapping collaborative concept mapping post-test questionnaire post-test questionnaire k.e.t k.e.t Knowledge Awareness Tool MM Exp 2: SCRIPT 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 Jigsaw Script Complementary Knowledge

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) 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 very low low low medium medium rather high rather high high high very high very high rather low rather low Knowledge Estimation Test Mutual Modeling Accuracy (MMA)

32. The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg)

33. The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) MM Exp 1: KAT Verbal interaction Gaze-on-KAT Fixations oculaires Co-learners look at the KAT mainly to assess the quality of their peer’s contributions

34. The Mutual Modeling (MM) project (Molinari, Sangin, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg) MM Exp 2: SCRIPT • 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 Self map • 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 Collab map Partner map

35. Group awareness for collaboration and learning: Conclusions (en construction…) • Etude plus systématique (seeBuder, 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) (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. Semactu2010 : Activité collaborative autour des group awareness tools • 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 A distance