Ana səhifə

Grounding in computer-supported collaborative problem solving


Yüklə 1.41 Mb.
səhifə5/18
tarix25.06.2016
ölçüsü1.41 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   18

Levels of mutuality of knowledge


We discriminated different levels of mutuality of knowledge (Dillenbourg, Traum & Schneider, 1996). We transposed Clark's levels (1994), established for spoken conversation, to the peculiarities of virtual workspaces, namely typed communication and spatial metaphor. If agent A want to communicate information X to agent B, A may receive different feedback about B's :

  • A can infer that B can (not) access to X: For instance, in the MOO, A knows that if B is in room 7, where information X can be found, but A does not know if B actually ask to read this information.

  • A can infer that B has (not) perceived X: For instance, if A writes a note on the whiteboard and B moves that note, A can infer that B has read it.

  • A can infer that B has (mis-) understood X: For instance, in the MOO, if A says "let's ask him a few questions" and B moves to the room where "him" is located, then A can infer that B has well understood what she meant by "him".

  • A can infer that B (dis-)agrees. This includes verbal agreement, but also agreement by action. An instance of non-verbal agreement in the MOO is when A says "Let's go to the kitchen" and B moves to the kitchen. An instance of non-verbal disagreement in the whiteboard, A write a note "Hans has a motive to kill" and B puts a red cross on this note or erase it.

This classification enables us to view grounding and agreement as different points in a continuum going from complete mutual ignorance to completely shared understanding. By extending the notion of grounding to the notion conflict resolution, we also relate this research with the socio-cognitive theory (Doise & Mugny, 1984). Conflict resolution has been intensively studied in research on collaborative learning. It extends the piagetian concept of conflict to the inter-psychological plane. We have two reasons to bypass the distinction between misunderstanding and disagreement. First, to be able to disagree requires a certain level of mutual understanding. Second, empirical studies have shown that real conflict (p versus ~p) was not a condition for learning, that some slight difference of understanding may be sufficient to generate argumentation. Learning probably results less from the intensity of the conflict than from the fact that it generates verbalizations (Blaye, 1988).
    1. Variety of grounding acts


When Agent-A attempts to check if Agent-B has understood what he meant/wrote, she may perform 3 types of grounding acts: monitoring, diagnosis, or repair (these categories have been adapted from Clark, 1994). Each category concerns each level of mutuality previously mentioned: for instance, A can monitor if B has access to information X, has read X, has understood B or agrees on X. Moreover, Clark and Schaefer (1989) pointed out that grounding is itself a collaborative process in which Agent-B participates by informing A about his understanding. For instance, B can put a question mark beside X to inform B that he does not understand or cross X to express his disagreement. Table 1 presents the different grounding acts which can defined if one crosses these tree dimensions: the level of mutuality, the type of act and the A/B roles.

Grounding act

From A's viewpoint

From B's viewpoint

Monitoring

Passive/Inferential (How A knows that B knows X)

Pro-active (B can help A to know that he knows)




level 1: A infers if B can access X

level 1: B tells A about what he can access




level 2: A infers that B has noticed X

level 2: B tells (or shows) A that B perceived X




level 3: A infers that B understood X

level 3: B tells A how B understands X




level 4: A infers if B (dis-)agrees

level 4: B tells A that B (dis-)agrees on X

Diagnosis

Active (How A tries to know that B knows X)

Reactive (How B participates into A's grounding act)




level 1: A joins B to initiate co-presence

level 1: B joins A




level 2: A asks B to acknowledge X

level 2: B acknowledges X




level 3: A asks B a question about X

level 3: B answers the question




level 4: A asks B to agree about X

level 4: B (dis-)agrees on X

Repair

How A repairs B's ignorance of X

How B repairs the fact that A ignores that B knows X




level 1: A makes X accessible to B

level 1: B communicates X to A




level 1: B communicates X to A

level 2: A communicates X to B




level 3: A repeats / rephrases / explains X

level 3: B repeats / rephrases / explains X




level 4: A argues about X

level 4: B argues about X

  1. Table 1: Grounding acts at different levels of mutuality of knowledge
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   18


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət