1. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch DISCLAIMER The intensive usage of PowerPoint may damage your understanding of a pedagogical relationship. DISCLAIMER The intensive usage of PowerPoint may damage your understanding of a pedagogical relationship. The colour of wires

2. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch DISCLAIMER The effects of collaborative learning may not apply to the situation you have designed. DISCLAIMER The effects of collaborative learning may not apply to the situation you have designed.

3. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Give them e-mail Add the video CMC has to be like F2F2 Scenario 1

4. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Explanation Abstraction Grounding Argumentation Mutual Regulation Mutuality Structuration Regulation WYSIWIS Awareness Semi-structured interfaces Persistency Reflectivity Contextuality COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 21

5. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Scenario "ArgueGraph" Phase1

6. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Phase 2 Scenario "ArgueGraph"

7. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Phase 3 Scenario "ArgueGraph"

8. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Design choices Immediate FB Delayed FB Microworld FB Theories Behavioursim Constructivism Metacognition Phase 4 Scenario "ArgueGraph"

9. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch ArgueGraph Data (Exp.3) Reformulation Justification Solo57 % 43 % Duo15 % 85 %

10. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch AcceptCondition Discard No Conflict28 13 Conflict23 111 "We answer 3 because motivation is important" "We answer 3 because motivation is important" "We choose 3 because 2 does not work" "We choose 3 because 2 does not work" ArgueGraph Data (Exp.3) "We answer 2 if the learner is a child but we answer 3 for adult learners" "We answer 2 if the learner is a child but we answer 3 for adult learners"

11. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch NewUnion Victory No Conflict6 1610 Conflict14 813 X 2 =6.2, p<.05) ArgueGraph Data (Exp.3) Arg(AB) <> Arg(A) & Arg(AB) <> Arg(B) Arg(AB) <> Arg(A) & Arg(AB) <> Arg(B) Arg(AB) =Arg(A) or Arg(AB) =Arg(B ) Arg(AB) =Arg(A) or Arg(AB) =Arg(B ) Arg(AB)=Arg(A) U Arg(B )

12. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch New version of ArgueGraph

13. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch What's the problem with exp 4 ? pseudo-task debriefing Coffee-break 1 week Exp 1-3 Exp 4 pseudo-task

14. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Part 1: So what? Collaboration has to be structured. –Web environments provide the structure by making a scenario (phases & roles) concrete. –Scenario are hard to generalize ergonomics, timing, didactic contract, … –Integrate communication in the task. Collaboration has to be regulated (…)

15. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Tools for distance education Tools for distance activities in hybrid teaching Tools for supporting presential activities with computer-activities Tools for supporting face-to- face interactions

16. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Part 2: The more F2F-like is not necessarily the better ! Phillips B., Should we take Turns ?, CHI2000

17. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Phillips B., Should we take Turns ?, CHI2000

18. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch The more F2F-like is not necessarily the better ! Phillips B., Should we take Turns ?, CHI2000

19. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Restaurant Kitchen Private Bar Room5Room6Room7Room8 Room1Room2Room3Room4 Lobby Entrance Auberge du Bout de Nappe MLV Lisa Jones Claire & Rolf Loretan Colonel Von Schneider Lucie SalèveHeidi Zeller Hans Wenger Marie Salève Oscar Salève Jacques Salève Giuzeppe Vesuvio Ski jacket Gun Painting Ski jacket Insurance Note Gun Oylster PhoneLog Registry WHO KILLED MONA-LISA?

20. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch > " Hi colleague > ' Where are you? > ask MS about last night > look gun > ask MS about last gun > read insurance > read all from DN2 > read Hans from DN2 > compare DN1 with DN2 > " skjhkjh dfsdfsf > ask Helmut about last night > ask MS about mona > look painting > read all from DN1 > read Hans from DN1 > compare DN1 with DN1 MOO Whiteboard MOO Whiteboard

21. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Low acknowledgers: 0.9 High acknowledgers: 0.9 Index of complexity Bootnap experiments, Dillenbourg & Traum, 1997

22. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Interwoven Turns 88.5r1Hpage sherlock but what about the gun? 88.8PrivS'Hercule which motive jealousy? He would have killed hans no? 89.3PrivS'Hercule he stole it when the colonel was in the bar 90.3r1Hpage sherlock Giuzeppe wanted to avoid that one discovers that the painting was fake. HSSH turns (from Pair 11, translated ) 43.5BarHWhy does Heidi have a motive ? 43.6BarSHow do you propose we should go further? 43.9BarHShould we merge our note books? 44.1BarSShe said that she didn't like her (and Hans) HSHS turns (from Pair 12 )

23. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch

25. PersistentNon-Persistent Persistent Non Persistent Display Knowledge MOO dialogues Whiteboard

26. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Persistency Contexuality Reflexivity CMC is a different system from F2F

27. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Acknowledgment Delay: Acknowledgment Rate: 39 sec 50% 59 sec. 34 % Virtual places modify communication patterns

28. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Places create a shared context He lies!

29. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Proximity creates a shared context

30. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Persistency Contexuality Reflexivity CMC is a different system from F2F E. Churchill et al, FX Palo Alto Lab

31. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Persistency Contexuality Reflexivity CMC is a different system from F2F ArgueGraph

32. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Persistency Contexuality Reflexivity CMC is a different system from F2F Lehtinen et al. (1999)

33. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Persistency Contexuality Reflexivity CMC is a different system from F2F R. Rodenstein & J. Donath, MIT Media Lab

34. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Persistency Contexuality Reflexivity CMC is a different system from F2F Patrick Jermann (TECFA/LRDC)

35. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Cotemporality (messages received at the same time as sent). Simultaneity (can both parties send messages at the same time or do they have to take turns) Sequentiality (can the turns get out of sequence). Reviewability (can they review messages, after they have been first received). Reviseability (can the producer edit the message privately before sending Co-presence (can see the same things). Visibility (can see each other). Audibility (can hear each other) Clark & Brennan (1991) Persistency (how long it remains displayed). Reflexivity (representing interactions). Contextuality (keep the context with the message) Distributed Cognitive System Media features

36. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Persistency Reflexivity Contextuality Tool features Group memory Group regulation Group understanding Distributed Cognitive System The CMC tools are parts of the distributed cognitive system

37. Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch News CSCL Book Series (Kluwer) Euro-CSCL Conference: Maastricht, NL, March 2001 deadline: October 15th Jobs @ Geneva Interaction Lab