B. Barros and M. F.
Verdejo |
2000 |
Analysing student
interaction processes in orger to improve collaboration: the DEGREE
approach |
Barros00 ~
http://sensei.lsi.uned.es/~bbarros/papers/ijaied2000.pdf
ABSTRACT
Computer mediated collaborative learning allows the recording of a large amount of data about the interaction processes and the task performance of a group of students. This empirical data is a very rich source to mine for a variety of purposes. Some purposes are of practical nature like, for instance, the improvement of peer awareness on the on-going work. Other purposes are of a more long-term and fundamental scope such as to understand socio-cognitive correlations between collaboration and learning. Manual approaches to fully monitor and exploit these data are out of the question. A mixture of computational methods to organise and extract information from all this rough material together with partial and focused in-depth manual analysis seems a more feasible and scalable framework.
NOTES
The idea presented in this paper is to use the logs of CSCL system to guide the teacher and the students using the system. The logic used in the system consists of applying finite qualitative evaluation rules to the logs. One of the characteristics of the system is to ask the user to define what their are doing into the system to say, for instance, if they are making a proposal, or a contra-porposal, or commenting, or clarifying, or questioning. Finally the logs are compared with a model of what a good interaction in the group should look like.
Keywords: Analysis of interaction, collaborative awareness, intervention
B. Barros and M. F.
Verdejo |
2002 |
Applications of a
Collaborative Learning Ontology |
Barros02 ~
http://sensei.lsi.uned.es/~bbarros/papers/micai2002.pdf
ABSTRACT_ The objective of the research presented in this article is to find representational mechanisms for relating and integrating the collaborative learning elements present in real practical environments, create an integrated ontology that considers and relates these elements, and make use of it to define new collaborative learning scenarios. It is therefore necessary to identify the key ideas underlying the notion of ontology that will be essential in subsequent application development: a list of the basic elements that give rise to a common vocabulary for collaborative learning, and the relationship and dependencies between them. The Activity Theory is used as a theoretical framework for organising the elements in the ontology. This ontology gives rise to the structured elements that form the concpetual structure for the definition and construction of CSCL environments, and the analysis and assessment of group collaboration. In this paper a computational model has been presented which express the Activity Theory in terms of a CSCL ontology. This ontology offers a conceptual knowledge level representation for describing collaborative learning systems. It is based upon the structure and the knowledge contained in previous ontologies together with knowledge which was not explicitly represented in other collaborative learning ontologies. This ontology has been designed to be reusable by different tools in many collaborative learning scenarios due to the combination of the theoretical AT framework with an underlying XML-based representation. One of the theoretical concept of this paper is to use actions as a unit of analysis as the needed structure to make context of a situation explicit. This choice is therefore discussed over a number of other studies which made other decisions privileging more communication models or problem solving methods or learning goals. The structure of these ontology is explained, where the concepts are expressed in two different nodes: Source of information (which is itself divided into two nodes: a statistical node and an interpreted node) and Analysis method, containing three types of node (Interaction-based, Action based, Interaction-Action-Stage based). The authors, finally sketch three possible usage for this ontology: the definition and authoring of cscl environments; the analysis and identification of collaborative features and finally the guide and coach of cscl activities.
K. L. Beckett |
2004 |
We Built This
City |
Beckett04 ~
http://www.education.wisc.edu/edpsych/facstaff/dws/papers/
ABSTRACT_
The Madison 2200 project explored how
participation in a technology-based learning environment modeled on
authentic urban planning practices informed students' learning of
ecology. Unlike complex modeling programs such as StarLogo (Resnick,
1994) and augmented reality environments (Feiner, 2002), the learning
environment in this study is augmented by reality: as students engage
with a computational microworld, their problem solving experiences are
guided by real-world tools and practices. In this study, urban planning
practices and technologies enhanced students' ability to determine a
solution to a complex problem presented to them in a simulation. It was
informed by the theory of pedagogical praxis which posits that modeling
technology-based learning environments on tools used in professional
practices enable youth to develop a deeper understanding of particular
domains (Shaffer, 2003).
This paper illustrates a system called Madison 2200 that
hopes to support children's learning of the environment unlike modeling
programs such as StarLogo or augmented reality environments. The learning
environment of this study is augmented by reality: the problem solving is
guided by real-world tools and practices.
Keywords: Constructivism, Urban Planning
H. Clark |
1996 |
Using
Language |
Clark96 ~
ABSTRACT_
NOTES_
Keywords:
M. Cole and Y.
Engestr\"om |
1993 |
Distribuited
Cognitions |
P. Dillenbourg |
2003 |
Designing biases that
augment socio-cognitive interactions |
Dillenbourg03 ~
ABSTRACT_
This chapter questions the assumption
that the best environment for computer-supported collaborative learning
is the one that most closely reproduces the feature of face-to-face
collaboration. Empirical studies failed to establish the superiority of
group interaction with richer media. Instead, the chapter explores media
features that do not exist in face-to-face interactions and explain how
these features might augment group cognition.
P. Dillenbourg and M.
Baker |
1996 |
The evolution of research
on collaborative learning |
Dillenbourg96 ~ http://sir.univ-lyon2.fr/GRIC/GRIC5/Home/mbaker/webpublications/DilBakOmaBla.PDF
ABSTRACT_
For many years, theories of collaborative
learning tended to focus on how individuals function in a group. More
recently, the focus has shifted so that the group itself has become the
unit of analysis. In terms of empirical research, the initial goal was to
establish whether and under what circumstances collaborative learning was
more effective than learning alone. Researchers controlled several
independent variables (size of the group, composition of the group,
nature of the task, communication media, and so on). However, these
variables interacted with one another in a way that made it almost
impossible to establish causal links between the conditions and the
effects of collaboration. Hence, empirical studies have more recently
started to focus less on establishing parameters for effective
collaboration and more on trying to understand the role which such
variables play in mediating interaction. In this chapter, we argue that
this shift to a more process-oriented account requires new tools for
analysing and modelling interactions.
P. Dillenbourg |
1999 |
What do you mean by
collaborative learning? |
Dillenbourg99 ~
ABSTRACT_
NOTES_
The authors did not agree on a single definition of
`collaborative learning'. However they propose this definition: it is a
situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something
together. In this definition all the elements can be interpreted in
different ways: (a) ``two or more'' may be interpreted as a pair, a small
group (3-5 subjects), a class (20-30 subjects), a community etc.; (b)
``learn something'' may be interpreted as ``follow a course'', study some
kind of material, perform learning activities such problem solving etc.;
(c) ``together'' may be interpreted as a face-to-face, computer mediated,
synchronous or not, frequent in time or not.
Under these different aspect of CSCL we encounter firstly a variety of
scales: from the number of people in the group to the amount of time
spent during the interactions, the methodological approaches may be
completely different.
One of the question raised by Schwartz (\cite{Schwartz95}) is that: ``The
question is not how individuals become members in a larger cognitive
community as they do in apprenticeship studies. Rather, the question is
how a cognitive community could emerge in the first place.'' The author
highlight how in the comparison between dialogue with oneself and
dialogue with a peer, the main difficulty is not to be able to identify
similarities but instead to establish what exactly differs between the
two process. In this sense the group can be viewed as a unit and a unit
as a group, coming back to the change of scales.
Keywords: CSCL
E. Hutchins |
1995 |
How a Cockpit Remembers
Its Speeds |
Hutchins95 ~ http://hci.ucsd.edu/hutchins/
ABSTRACT_
Cognitive science normally takes the
individual agent as its unit of analysis. In many human endeavors,
however, theoutcomes of interest are not determined entirely by the
information processing properties of the individuals. Nor can they be
inferred from the properties of the individual agents, alone, no matter
how detailed the knowledge of the properties of those individuals may be.
This article presents a theoretical framework that takes a distribuited,
socio-technical system rather than an individual mind as its primary unit
of analysis. This framework is explicitly cognitive in that it is
concerned with how information is represented and how representations are
transformed and propagated in the performance of tasks. An analysis of a
memory task in the cockpit of a commercial airliner shows how the
cognitive properties of such distribuited system can differ radically
from the cognitive properties of the individuals who inhabit them.
NOTES_
Cognitive science normally takes the individual as unit of
analysis. This study takes as primary unit of analysis a distributed,
socio-technical system. The following analysis of memory tasks will show
that the cognitive properties of such distributed system can differ
dramatically from the cognitive properties of the individuals who inhabit
them. What is new in this approach is the study of the way
representations forms in the participant to the cognitive system and how
these representations span through the system. The author shows that the
same framework of the classical cognitive psychology can be applied to
the cognitive system as a whole. The author then describe the cockpit
system and in particular the task of remembering the speeds, from three
different point of view: (a) a procedural description; (b) a cognitive
description outside the pilots; (c) and finally a cognitive description
inside the pilots. The author states that collaborative learning is
completely different from individual learning because the cognitive
processes are mixed. The function of the speed bug the engineers had in
mind whilst designing the system was just a memory reinforcements for the
pilots. The cognitive analysis revealed that the speed bugs translate and
make redundant that information into a visual alignment esteem. This
activity became, in fact, a combination of recognition, recall, pattern
matching, cross modalities consistency checks, construction, and
reconstruction. Technological devices introduced into the cockpit affect
the flow of information.
Keywords: Human Factors
I. Ioannidou |
2004 |
Young Children
Collaborating to use Maps |
Ioannidou04 ~ http://craftsrv1.epfl.ch/mosil/scripts/related-papers/ioannidou%20dimitracopoulou%202004%20ictm6%20congress.pdf
ABSTRACT_
How very young children of 6 years old
reach to accomplish activities related to map use (reading, navigation);
activities so cognitive demanding even for adults? This paper presents
certain analysis aspects on a complex cognitive system that is formed by
two groups of children collaborating by distance so as to navigate each
other, through the use of technological tools of motion representation,
cartography and oral communication. The analysis presented in this paper
is focused mainly on cognitive processes during intra-group interactions
as well as intergroup interactions involving relations and interactions
among individuals and artifacts and examines which cognitive activities
are emerged or activated by the children in their effort to read a map
and navigate others to move in space facilitating learning related to
spatial knowledge.
NOTES_
This paper concentrate on the theme of children's learning
of map design and construction. One of the point raised in the text is
that there are lots of studies on the cognitive difficulties children
have in understanding maps, while few studies concentrate on the design
of learning activities aiming to develop learning on the same themes. The
authors' solution is a system in which a team of children can stand in
front of a 2D digital representation of the world while another team can
walk in the actual world. These two teams are connected with a
walky-talky device for communication. In this way the authors have been
tested several ``scripts'' which report significant learnings in the
cognitive difficulties enumerated in previous studies. Using the same
platform the authors have a chance to test several collaboration settings
which enables for a zoom into intra-group or inter-group collaboration.
Keywords: Map related learning activities, technology based
collaborative learning environment, pre-school education, distributed
cognition, spatial abilities
P. Jermann and A.
Sollerk |
2001 |
From mirroring to
guiding |
Jermann01 ~
http://www.mmi.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/197.pdf
ABSTRACT_
We review systems that support the
management of collaborative interaction, and propose a classification
framework built on a simple model of coaching. Our framework
distinguishes between mirroring systems, which display basic actions to
collaborators, metacognitive tools, which represent the state of
interaction via a set of key indicators, and coaching systems, which
offer advice based on an interpretation of those indicators. The
reviewed systems are further characterized by the type of interaction
data they assimilate, the processes they use for deriving higher-level
data representations, and the type of feedback they provide to users.
NOTES_
This paper reviews a bunch of systems for the management
of collaborative interaction and propose a classification framework built
on a simple model of coaching. The authors sketch four phases of the
coaching collaborative interaction (supporting or managing the members'
metacognitive activities related to the interaction). These four phases
gradually move from ``mirroring'' to ``guiding'' the collaborative
activity. The former term refer to the system's ability to gather data
about the group members' interaction and use this information to
visualise the activity for the users. Is then up to the users to
interpret and decide what to do. The latter term refer to an approach by
which the system assessment is hidden to the users. The system use this
information to make decisions about how to moderate the group. This
second approach has to deal with a model of ideal interaction, which is
not trivial to design.
We can imagine a third state which is not constraint by imposing a
predefined model nor that has to deal with the in-definition of user's
expectation and understanding of the representation.
Keywords: CSCL systems, interaction managment, mirroring, coaching
collaboration
John Doe |
1991 |
Perspectives on Socially
Shared Cognition |
G. Salomon |
1993 |
Distribuited Cognitions:
psychological and educational considerations |
Salomon93 ~
ABSTRACT_
NOTES_
Keywords: distribuited congitions
D. R. Traum |
1999 |
Computational Models of
Grounding in Collaborative Systems |
Traum99 ~
http://www.ict.usc.edu/~traum/Papers/psych.ps
ABSTRACT_
In this paper, I present in detail two
models of grounding, Clark and Schaefer's contribution model, and the
grounding acts model from my previous work. Description of each model is
accompanied with discussion of it's limitations, particularly with
respect to use within a collaborative system. Also presented is an
approach taking factors such as media costs into account.
NOTES_
This paper contains a description of Traum's Grounding
Acts model. He developed this model to address some of the specific
deficienses of Clark and Schaefer's Contribution Model. Particularly, he
critics their model because: a) it is not clear that contributions are
ever really complete; b) there is no graded evidence of understanding; c)
it is difficult to define the initiation of the next relevant
contribution; d) it is hard to tell whether a particular utterance is
part of the presentation phase or the acceptance phase; e) there is no
easy way to tell the ``state''of the current contribution while engaged
in a conversation. He states that this model is of no use for
collaborative systems, and therefore he develops the Grounding Acts
model, which collapses the different types of acceptance and extends the
building blocks of the units of common ground to those that could be
realised with a single utterance thus allowing an agent to track progress
of each communication without lookahead.
He defines Discourse Units (DU), rather than Contributions; and Grounding
Acts, as the basic building blocks. Each of these is identified with a
particular utterance unit and performs a specific function toward the
achievement of the common ground.
In the same paper he defines the deficiencies of his own model as: a) the
oversimplification of the ``grounded or not grounded'' distinction; b)
the dependancy of the model on the size of the utterance units; c) the
difficulty in recognising which act was performed; d) the
in-sensitivities to modalities other than spoken language.
Keywords:
I. T. Vogiazou and M.
Dzbor |
2003 |
BuddySpace |
Vogiazou03 ~
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/buddyspace/index.html
ABSTRACT_
Our research addresses the question of
how presence in networked environments can enhance the sense of social
participation and well-being among isolated individuals in very large
virtual communities. Large-scale presence poses a special challenge, and
for this reason we aim to leverage the `buzz' and `feel-good factor'
evident in certain kinds of large crowds. As Donath (1996) asks: ``Is
there a design that would make palpable the sensation that one was
indeed on-line in the company of millions of other people?'' Such a
sensation could of course be thrilling, but it may equally be daunting,
confusing, annoying, or simply irrelevant, depending on the context. We
therefore pose a slightly different question. In particular, we want to
know ``how can we create and sustain verylarge-group `buzz' at work,
study, and play?''
NOTES_
This paper describe the author's concern towards the
spontaneous establishments of human groups and interaction, which they
think leads to a powerful collaboration. The framework in which they
develop their research is based on some fuzzy ideas of how providing
people location is useful in terms of their collaboration. Two points are
interesting: the grounding in familiar visual metaphor enables people to
focus on the content rather then incurring in the cognitive overhead to
make sense of what is shown. The second is that context matters for
interacting meaningfully. The testbed they used to explore these concept
is an instant messaging client for Jabber that was specifically
redesigned to give the user the ability to see the partners on a
customized map. Finally, this study was not grounded into a strong
experimental framework.
Keywords: Instant Messaging, CSCL, CSCW
J. Roschelle and S.D.
Teasley |
1995 |
The construction of shared
knowledge in collaborative problem solving |
roschelle1995 ~
ABSTRACT_
NOTES_
Keywords: collaboration, cscl
N. Nova |
2003 |
Socio-cognitive functions
of space in collaborative settings |
nova2003a ~
http://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/staf/nova/CRAFT_report1.pdf
ABSTRACT_
This document reports on a brief
literature review about social and cognitive functions of spatial
features used when collaborating in both physical and virtual settings.
Those concepts come from various fields like social, cognitive as well
as environmental psychology or CSCW (Computer Supported Collaborative
Work). I briefly summarize the social and cognitive affordances of
spatial features like distance, proxemics, co-presence, visibility or
activity in the context of physical and virtual space. The way human
beings employ those features finally allows to give insights about
potential avenues of research.
NOTES_
Keywords: cognition, collaboration, space, review
C. Cramton |
1991 |
The mutual knowledge
problem and its consequences for dispersed
collaboration |
cramton2001 ~
ABSTRACT_
NOTES_
Seminal paper about mutual modeling
Keywords: mutual modeling, mutual modelling, communication
H.H. Clark and S.E.
Brennan |
1991 |
Perspectives on Socially
Shared Cognition |
clark1991 ~
ABSTRACT_
NOTES_
Seminal paper about grounding theory
Keywords: communication, pragmatics, linguistics, grounding
R. Bromme |
2000 |
Beyond one's own
perspective: The psychology of cognitive
interdisciplinarity |
bromme2000 ~
ABSTRACT_
NOTES_
Keywords: mutual modeling, intersubjectivity, grounding,
communication, pragmatics
S. Benford, M.
Fraser |
2002 |
Staging and Evaluating
Public Performances as an Approach to CVE Research |
benford2002 ~
http://machen.mrl.nott.ac.uk/PublicationStore/2002-benford-0.pdf
ABSTRACT_
Staging public performances can be a
fruitful approach to CVE research. We describe four experiences: Out of
This World, a gameshow; Avatar Farm, a participatory drama; Desert Rain,
a mixed reality performance; and Can You See Me Now?, a game that mixed
on-line players with players on the streets. For each, we describe how a
combination of ethnography, audience feedback and analysis of system
logs led to new design insights, especially in the areas of
orchestration and making activity available to viewers. We propose
enhancing this approach with new tools for manipulating, analysing and
sharing 3D recordings of CVEs.
NOTES_
The paper "Staging and Evaluating Public Performances as
an Approach to CVE" (Steve Benford, Mike Fraser, Gail Reynard, Boriana
Koleva and Adam Drozd The Mixed Reality Laboratory, Nottingham), claims
that staging public performances can be a fruitful approach to CVE
research. The authors describe four experiments in 4 contexts (four
different location based games used a art/public performance).
"For each, we describe how a combination of ethnography, audience
feedback and analysis of system logs led to new design insights,
especially in the areas of orchestration and making activity available to
viewers."
Among many methods of conducting research (proof implementation as proof
of concept, "demo or die", controlled experiment in laboratorym theory
backed up with mathematical proof...), they propose to put technology out
of the lab and create an "event" (vow event-based research ;)
This is also a nice paper in the sense that it provides idea for
analyzing mobile collaboration:
Keywords: collaboration, cscw, mobile activity