Grounding in computer-supported collaborative problem solving
|
|  Yüklə 1.41 Mb.
|
Semi-structured communication interfacesJermann (1996)also takes advantage of the facilities offered by the MOO platform for his research on collaborative problem-solving. The aim of his research is to observe the usage of a semi-structured communication interface. The problem the pairs have to solve deals with setting up the schedule of a working conference by respecting certain constraints. The subjects can act on a shared problem representation and communicate by two modes inspired by previous work on structured communication interfaces by Baker & Lund (1996). In the 'free' mode, they can type a message in a bare text field. In the 'structured' mode, the text fields are preceded by sentence openers as 'I propose ...', 'Why...','Because', etc. Ten mixed pairs took part in the experience. Data was automatically collected by the MOO which served as a backend for a graphical user interface. The results show that pairs who use the 'free' communication mode more than the 'structured' mode, produce more 'off-task' statements than the pairs who prefer the 'structured' mode. Another finding is that the relative contribution of the subjets to the task and the communication is sometimes equal and sometimes not. In the former case, there is a tendency to be more accurate in placing the events at the right place at first trial while in the latter, more actions werenecessary to place the events. It seems that in these cases there was worse coordination between the subjects.
Ligorio reused the Bootnap task (murder in the Auberge) and the whole MOO infrastructure but without the whiteboard, to study the effect of the social status, a key parameter in studies in social psychology. She, herself played the role of one subject, working with a partially scripted set of interactions, while solving the task with another subject. She repeated the experiments with 25 subjects, located through the world. She informed her partner about her assumed status, defined by two variables, the academic level and the MOO expertise42: she respectively pretended to be an University professor without MOO experience, an University professor who is a MOO expert, a high-school student novice in the MOO, and a high-school student expert in the MOO. There was also a control group, which was not informed of the confederate’s status. She observed parameters such as leadership (who is following who in the MOO) and social influence in conflict resolution. She found that the most collaborative subjects were in the control group - these were most likely to share information and inferences. In the experimental groups, there was also an interaction effect of the two variables. Subjects whose partner had a higher social status and higher moo experience tended to perceive their partners as more competitive.
Baker, M.J. & Lund, K. (1996) Flexibly structuring the interaction in a CSCL environment. In P. Brna, A. Paiva & J. Self (Eds), Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Lisbon, Portugal, Sept. 20 - Oc. 2, pp. 401-407. Blaye, A. (1988) Confrontation socio-cognitive et résolution de problèmes. Doctoral dissertation, Centre de Recherche en Psychologie Cognitive, Université de Provence, 13261 Aix-en-Provence, France. Bruckman, A: (1992) Identity workshop: Emergent social and psychosocial phenomena in text-based virtual reality. Internal Report. MIT Media Laboratory. Cherny, L. (1995). The situated behaviour of MUD back channels. Internal Report. Stanford University, Linguistics Department. Clark, H.H. & Marshall, C.R (1981) Definite reference and mutual knowledge In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag, editors, Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press,. Clark, H.H. & Schaefer, F.E. (1989) Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13:259–294. Clark, H.H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1–39. Clark, H.H.(1994) Managing problems in speaking. Speech Communication, 15:243 – 250. Clark, H.H., & Brennan S.E. (1991) Grounding in Communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (127-149). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association. Dalal P.N. & Kasper, G.M. (1994) The design of joint cognitive systems: the effect of cognitive coupling on performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, pp. 677-702. Dalal P.N. & Kasper, G.M. (1994) The design of joint cognitive systems: the effect of cognitive coupling on performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, pp. 677-702. Dillenbourg, P. & Baker, M (1996) Negotiation spaces in Human-Computer Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cooperative Systems (COOP’)6), juan-Les-Pins (France), June 12-14 1996 Dillenbourg, P. & Traum, D. (1996) Grounding in multi-modal task-oriented collaboration. In P. Brna, A. Paiva & J. Self (Eds), Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Lisbon, Portugal, Sept. 20 - Oc. 2, pp. 401-407. Dillenbourg, P. (1996) Some technical implications of distributed cognition on the design of interactive learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7 (2), pp. 161-179. Dillenbourg, P., & Self, J.A. (1992) A computational approach to socially distributed cognition. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3 (4), 353-372. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. & O'Malley, C. (1995) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds) Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science. (Pp. 189-211) Oxford: Elsevier. Dillenbourg, P., Mendelsohn, P. & Schneider, D. (1994) The distribution of pedagogical roles in a multi-agent learning environment. In R. Lewis and P. Mendelsohn. Lessons from Learning (pp.199-216) Amsterdam: North-Holland. Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984) The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Frohlich, D.M. (1993) The history and future of direct manipulation, Behaviour & Information Technology, 12 (6), 315-29 Gaffie, J. (1996) Etude des stratéges de recueil de données lors d'une résolution de problème en collaboration dans le MOO. Rapport de recherche non-publié. TECFA, Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288. Jermann, P. (1996) Conception et analyse d'une interface semi-structurée dédiée à la co-résolution de problème. Mémoire de Diplôme d'Etudes Supérieures en Sciences et Technologies de l'Apprentissage. Non publié. TECFA, Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève. Lave J. (1991) Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (63 - 84). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association. McLeod, P. (1992) An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 3, pp. 281-214. Meier, P.-N.. (1996) Les gestes dans une interaction question-reponse. Rapport de recherche non-publié. TECFA, Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève. Minsky, M (1987) The society of mind. London: William Heinemann Ltd. Montandon, L. (1996) Etude des mécanismes de coordination spatiale dans un environnement virtuel de collaboration. Mémoire de Diplôme d'Etudes Supérieures en Sciences et Technologies de l'Apprentissage. Non publié. TECFA, Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève. Nickerson, R.S. (1993) On the distribution of cognition: some reflections. In G. Salomon. (Ed). Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 229-262) Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press. O’Conaill, B., Whittaker, S. & Wilbur S. (1993) Conversations over Video Conferences: An Evaluation of the Spoken Aspects of Video-Mediated Communication. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 4, pp. 389-428. Oehler, P. (1996) Les gestes déictiques lors d'interactions entre deux utilisateurs d'un programme informatique. Rapport de recherche non-publié. TECFA, Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève. Ohayon, S. (1996) Evolution des gestes et des enoncsé produits devant le logiciel MEMOLAB en fonction de l'apprentissage. Rapport de recherche non-publié. TECFA, Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève. Pea, R. (1993) Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon. (Ed). Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pea, R.D. (1993b) Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed) Distributed Cognition. Cambridge University Press, New York. Perkins, D.N. (1993) Person-plus: a distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon. (Ed). Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88-110) Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press. Reid, E. (1994) Cultural formations in text based virtual realities. MA Thesis. University of Melbourne, Department of English. Rogers, Y. (1993) Coordinaing Computer-Mediated Work. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 1, 295-315. Roiron, C. (1996) Expérimentation d'un logiciel éducatif utilisant des techniques d'intelligence artificielle. Rapport de recherche non-publié. TECFA, Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève. Roschelle, J. & Teasley S.D. (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C.E. O'Malley (Ed), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. (pp. 69-197). Berlin: Springer-Verlag Salomon, G. (1990) Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication research, 17 (1), 26-44. Salomon, G. (1993) No distribution without individual's cognition: a dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon. (Ed). Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111-138) Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press. Sanderson, P. M. & Fisher, C. (1994). Introduction to this special issue on exploratory sequential data analysis. Human-COmputer Interaction, 9, pp. 247-250. Schrage, M. (1990) Shared Minds. The new technologies of collaboration. New York: Random House, 1990. Schwartz, D.L. (1995). The emergence of abstract dyad representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4 (3), pp. 321-354. Sellen, A (1995) Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk with Technology. Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 4, pp. 401-444. Smith, J.B. (1994) Collective intelligence in computer-based collaboration. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smith, R.B., O'Shea, T., O'Malley, C., Scanlon, E. & Taylor, J. (1989) Preliminary experiments with a distributed, multi-media problem solving environment. CITE Report 86. Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes MK76AA , UK. Suthers, D., Weiner, A. Connelly J. & Paolucci, M. (1995) Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In. J. Greer(Ed). Proceedings of the International Conference in Artificial Intelligence in Education, Washington, August 16-19, pp. 266-273. Tennison, J. & Chrucill, E. (1996) Individual and collaborative information retrieval in virtual environments. Proceedings of the 96' post graduate conference. Department of Psychology. University of Nottingham. June 1996. Terveen L.G., Wroblewski, D.A. & Tighe S.N. (1991) Intelligenc Assistance through Collaborative Manipulation, Proceedings of IJCAI. Traum, D. & Dillenbourg, P. (1996) Miscommunication in multi-modal collaboration. Paper presented at the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) conference. Watts, L., Monk, A. & Daly_Jones, O. (1996) Inter-personal awareness and synchronization: Assessing the value of communication technologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 44, 849-873. Webb, N.M. (1991) Task related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 (5), 366-389. Wertsch, J.V. (1991) A socio-cultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds). Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 85 - 100). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association. Wertsh, J.V. (1985) Adult-Child Interaction as a Source of Self-Regulation in Children. In S.R. Yussen (Ed).The growth of reflection in Children (pp. 69-97). Madison, Wisconsin: Academic Press. Whittaker, S., Geelhoed, E. & Robinson, E. (1993) Shared workspaces: How do they work and when are they useful? International Journal of Man-Machines Studies, 39, 813-842. Woods, D.D. & Roth E.M. (1988) Cognitive systems engineering. In M. Helander (Ed.) Handbook of of Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 3-43). Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam. 1 Wertsch (1985, 1991) adopts am intermediate position, strongly influenced by the socio-cultural approach, but analyzing mother-child interactions. 2 . Let us however mention that the MOO environment used in this study would also be a useful tool to study the development of culture, such as in Reid (1994) and Bruckman (1992). 3 . In the experiments, we provided subjects with abbreviations of these commands so that only one caracter had to be typed before the message body. 4 . Other combinations (local & private; global & public) are also possible but were not used in our experiments. 5 Some MOO clients display in a different color the messages sent by the partner. 6 Some MOO clients send a sound signal for 'page' commands 7 . Actually, the users could continuously use 'page' since, when you are only two people in the same room, there is no difference between 'say' and 'page'. Some subjects did, but most of them, specially those who are familiar with MOO environments, used 'say' in co-presence situation. 8 We tried a similar murder story, involving fewer suspects. The observations from these pairs are not reported here. The comparison with the full task remains to be done. 9 We do count here pairs 1 and 2 who has voice conversations. 10 .TecfaMOO has been built in our research team for various purposes. It is accessible via telnet or a MOO client at: tecfamoo.unige.ch (port 7777). An information page is at http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfamoo.unige.ch 11 Research programme "Learning in Humans and Machines", funded by the European Science Foundation, task force 5 "Collaborative Learning". 12 http://tecfa/unige.ch/ 13 We have the final state of the whiteboard, but not the intermediate states. 14 We have been previously been working on a computational model which treat dialogue and monologue as two instances of the same process (Dillenbourg & Self, 992) 15 Actually, we used 24 pairs, but we do not count here the two pairs which passed the pre-experiment, and the two pairs with the variation of the task. 16 The number of times the two subjects ask the same question to a suspect. 17 Pairs with two novice MOO users: 6, 7, 11, 19, 20 and 22. 18 We counted only moves when the subject goes to a room containing information, expecting to find there a difference between novices and advanced users. 19 We exclude here pairs 1 and 2 (voice interaction) and pair 4 (the movie of whiteboard interactions has been lost) 20 This segmentation was mainly based on speaker change. However, we also cut a speaker turn into multiple utterances when it included a long silence. 21 We compare the behaviour of the 9 pairs with the highest acknowledgement rate versus the 9 pair with lowest rates. There was not clear difference of MOO expertise / experience between the two groups (we do not compute means here since these are qualitative data). 22 Note that for some pairs, the average delay is very asymetrical. The default rule might be that delay should be symmetrical, but that asymetry can be accepted, each partner knowing roughly how long he has to wait for acknowledgement. We did not study this point in detail, since both delay and asymmetry seem to be intrinsic communication variables, without a clear relation with problem solving. 23 Repeating the last message can be done by using the arrow key 'up'. 24 Her data must be considered carefully since she was one of the subjects in her experiments. 25 The actual delay between the two interactions is 7 seconds 26 Hercule had no initial training on the MOO and did not do the warmup task. 27 Without considering pairs 3 & 4 28 The possibilty of scrolling makes the problem even harder. It is often more economical to scroll a few lines up than to type again a command. Sometimes, we observe that one detective erforms no action in the MOO or in the whiteboard during several minutes. This may correspond to periods during which they scroll the MOO window up, to retrieve old information. 29 Most 'erase' actions was related to drawing maps or tables, in which sometimes a set of lines was erased instead of being moved. 30 From a DC perspective, the two users should also be included in this matrix, but this would make it less readable since they are involved in each function, 31 Excepte, as mentionned earlier, for the pairs who expressed inferences by crossing notes. 32 e.g by using a MOO command such as 'paste 25 on pane' in which [25] is the number of a previous utterance 33 Storing and sharing are often associated 34 If the persistence of availabilty is longer than he persistence on validity, it means that invalide information is diplayed. For instance, Pair 19 uses a map on the whiteboard for sharing positions. Since whiteboard infrmation is more persistent than MOO positions, they had to manually update their position on the whiteboard, with all the risks or doubt it implies with respect to the frequency of update. 35 as defined in section 3.4 36 We dhave not yet attempted to systematically track the focus of conversation in the protocols. 37 Project #... funded by the SNF programme for cooperation with Eastern countries. Our partner is C. Buiu from the Polytechnic University of Bucarest. 38 J.C. Bresse, P. Mendelsohn, S. Tognotti, E. Berthoud 39 Before to display the actual message to the receiver, the MOO display a message such "You sense that Pierre is looking for you in the library". 40 Among the 40 subjects, 25 were connected from somewhere else in the world, other than our laboratory. 41 In this case, the difficulty increased when subjects passed from a 1-factor to a 2-factors experimental plan 42 The MOO society level itself includes a hierarchy of status, including four levels: plain user, programmer, administrator and wizard. For frequent MOO users, this hierarchy is well respected. |