1. Chapitre 5: Collecticiels
Groupware
Computer-Supported Co-operative Work (CSCW)
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)
29 mai: Rendez-vous par équipes
5 juin: Les campus Virtuels
12 juin: Hands-on
19 juin: Synthèse de l’année

2. WYSIWYG
WYSIWIS
WYSIWIS-relaxed
Awareness tools

4. 123 Variables indépendantes Variables dépendantes
Apprendre à 2 (ou 3,…) est-il plus efficace qu’apprendre seul ?
Variables indépendantes
Variables dépendantes
Performance à la tâche
Régulation
'Conceptual change'
Abstraction
Transfert
123

5. 123 Variables indépendantes Variables dépendantes Tâche
Distribuabilité
Ouverture
...
Groupe
Nombre
Hétérogénéité
Genre …
Environnement
Medium
Performance à la tâche
Régulation
'Conceptual change'
Abstraction
Transfert
123

7. 123 Variables indépendantes Variables dépendantes
Variables intermédiaires
Tâche
Distribuabilité
Ouverture
...
Groupe
Nombre
Hétérogénéité
Genre …
Environnement
Medium
Explications
Participation
Argumentation
Régulation mutuelle
'Grounding' …
'Eye contact'
'Turn-taking'
Performance à la tâche
Régulation
'Conceptual change'
Abstraction
Transfert
123

8. Collectif
échelle !
Collaboratif

9. CSCL Supporter la collaboration
CSCL Supporter la collaboration ? = favoriser l’émergence d’interactions productives: conflits, explications, justifications, regulations, misunderstanding, grounding,…

10. Mécanismes de co-construction de connaissances
INOUT Verbaliser des connaissances explicites
Argumentation, négociation
Résolution de conflits
(Self)-explantion effect
« Reciprocal tutoring », « learning by teaching »
OUT  IN Internalisation
Private/egocentriy speech; ZPD
Apprenticeship= scaffolding (étayage) + fading (baisse de l’aide)
Régulation mutuelle
Abstraction & transfert
Charge cognitive
Biais de confirmation
Effort pour maintenir une compréhension partagée

11. on ne peut garantir l’efficacité de l’apprentissage collaboratif
Bref,
on ne peut garantir l’efficacité de l’apprentissage collaboratif
Donc il faut:
Structurer
Reguler
Environnement
Enseignant

12. ¨Tecfa Virtual Campus, Village 16, Building1 : « Argue Graph »
This activity takes place in a course dedicated to software design
We want to teach students the learning theories underlying design choices in courseware development,
more precisely we want them to understand that there is not ONE correct theory or design choice but that it depends on the situation at hand.
CLICK
The scenario is as follows:
Students start to fill in a questionnaire about concrete design choices,
for instance, "is it better to give immediate feedback or not when a student makes an error"
They have to make a choice between several option and to give a written argument for their choice

13. ¨Tecfa Virtual Campus, Village 16, Building1 : « Argue Graph »
On the basis of the answers the student gave to the questionnaire, the system produces a scatterplot of opinions.
Students see the scatterplot all together and the teacher uses this data to form pairs of students
Pairs are formed so as to maximise the distance between student's opinions

14. ¨Tecfa Virtual Campus, Village 16, Building1 : « Argue Graph »
Students then fill in the SAME questionnaire in pairs
They see the solo arguments each of them gave at phase 1
They have to make a common choice
And to provide a written argument for their choice

15. ¨Tecfa Virtual Campus, Village 16, Building1 : « Argue Graph »
On the basis of the solo and duo answers, the system produces a synthesis containing
a pie chart representing the choices the students made in the solo and the duo phase
all the arguments given to support these choices
a short theoretical statement related to the design choice adressed in the question

16. ¨Tecfa Virtual Campus, Village 16, Building1 : « Argue Graph »
Theories
Behavioursime
Constructivisn
Metacognition
Design choices
Immediate FB
Delayed FB
Microworld FB
Finally, the teacher uses these informations to debrief the class.
It is not sufficient to propose an innovative scenario, it is also necessary to evaluate what kind of learning mechanisms it is able to trigger
We have taken a closer look to the arguments the students provided to support their choices

17. ¨Tecfa Virtual Campus, Village 16, Building1 : « Argue Graph »
Semantic content of arguments
Union
Victory
New
A NEW argument corresponds to the case where the common argument provides by the pair contains a NEW idea which was not present in either solo argument.
A UNION argument is the juxtaposition of the two solo arguments given by the students
A VICTORY argument corresponds to the pair taking the idea of one of the subjects as its common argument
It is interesting to see the high number of "New" arguments in the conflictual condition.
Again, it seems that when having to explain their choice and searching an alternative, students explore the subject matter more than when there is no conflict.

18. ¨Tecfa Virtual Campus, Village 16, Building1 : « Argue Graph »
Type of arguments
"We answer 3 because motivation
is important"
"We answer 2 if the learner is a child
but we answer 3 for adult learners"
"We choose 3 because 2 does not work"
Condition
Accept
Discard
It is interesting to notice that almost all the "Condition" arguments were given in a conflictual situation.
We think this is a way of solving the conflict by coordinating the different opinions.
Let's also notice that this type of argument violates the instruction to give an argument to support only one choice
BUT it matches the pedagogical goal of the activity because it brings students to use situational facts to justify their choice

19. « Laboratoire d ’Ergonomie »

20. « Laboratoire d ’Ergonomie »

21. Estimate the volume of an oil reservatoir
Activity 5 : Jigsaw
Seismic Data
Well Data
Environment Data
Estimate the volume of an oil reservatoir

22. Estimate the volume of an oil reservatoir
Activity 5 : Double Jigsaw
Seismic Data
Well Data
Environment Data
Estimate the volume of an oil reservatoir

23. FATAL ERROR #3546 

24. La collaboration par ordinateur est plus difficile que la collaboration en face-à-face

25. F2F Video Audio Whiteboard Chat
+ (with few exceptions)

26. F2F Video Audio Whiteboard Chat?

27. F2F Video Audio Whiteboard Chat
Vraie différence mais fausses conclusions: ce n’est pas parce que le face-à-face est plus riche que la communication électronique que cette dernière doit imiter la première

28. Phillips B., Should we take Turns ?, CHI2000

29. Phillips B., Should we take Turns ?, CHI2000

30. Phillips B., Should we take Turns ?, CHI2000

31. 1 0.9 chat interactions ? F2F dialogue 0 ABABAB
Bootnap experiments, Dillenbourg & Traum, 1997
Index of complexity: regularity in turn taking 1
chat interactions
? F2F dialogue
ABABAB

32. Interwoven Dialogue Turns in a Chat
88.5 r1 H page sherlock but what about the gun?
88.8 Priv S 'Hercule which motive jealousy? He would have killed hans no?
89.3 Priv S 'Hercule he stole it when the colonel was in the bar
90.3 r1 H page sherlock Giuzeppe wanted to avoid that one discovers that the painting was fake.
HSSH turns (from Pair 11, translated )
43.5 Bar H Why does Heidi have a motive ?
43.6 Bar S How do you propose we should go further?
43.9 Bar H Should we merge our note books?
44.1 Bar S She said that she didn't like her (and Hans)
HSHS turns (from Pair 12 )

33. F2F Video Audio Whiteboard Chat
persistency

34. Whiteboard CHAT dialogues Persistent Non-Persistent Non Persistent
Medium
Information
CHAT dialogues

35. Persistency : The whiteboard maintains a shared representation of the problem state.

36. Yes, CMC is « less » than F2F but if offers other opportunities: Persistency  group memory Contextuality  shared understanding Reflexivity  self-regulation

37. Yes, CMC is « less » than F2F but if offers other opportunities: Persistency  group memory Contextuality  shared understanding Reflexivity  self-regulation

38. E. Churchill et al, FX Palo Alto Lab

39. DocMeeting (Corti et al, Tecfa)

40. Yes, CMC is « less » than F2F but if offers other opportunities: Persistency  group memory Contextuality  shared understanding Reflexivity  community MIRROR

41. ¨Tecfa Virtual Campus, Village 16, Building1 : « Argue Graph »

42. R. Rodenstein & J. Donath, MIT Media Lab

43. Social Proxy
W. Kellog, IBM

44. Visualizing On-Line Communities

45. Patrick Jermann (TECFA/LRDC)

46. Social network analysis of a Dutch police community (De Laat, 2002).

47. Conclusions: Ne pas imiter forcément le face-à-face
Le message devient subtsance…
Groupe + outils = système cognitif distribué
le medium est plus qu’un fil, il remplit certaines fonctions cognitives :
persistence  memoire du groupe
reflection  regulation du groupe …

49. Virtual World Real World (1) hybrid education (2) Persistency
Reflexivity
Contextuality

50. Mixed Reality Environments