Schématisation argumentative et co-élaboration de connaissances: le cas des interactions médiatisées par ordinateur

International audienceDans le cadre du projet européen SCALE (IST-1999) (Internet-based intelligent tool to Support Collaborative Argumentation-based Learning in secondary schools, http://www.euroscale.net), nous avons élaboré et étudié des situations d'apprentissage coopératif médiatisé par ordinateur au travers Internet. Il a s'agit de proposer une variété d'activités argumentatives — lecture et production de textes argumentatifs, élaboration de textes et schémas argumentatifs, interactions (ou débats) langagières et/ou schématiques — dans le but d'amener les élèves à élargir et à approfondir leurs connaissances d'un espace du débat particulier. Par la notion de « l'espace du débat », nous entendons l'espace cognitifsémiotique partagé, co-construit par les élèves au cours de leurs interactions argumentatives, en référence à une question débattue (Baker, Quignard, Lund & Séjourné, 2003 ; Quignard, Baker, Lund & Séjourné, 2003). Ce travail a conduit à la production d'outils de recherche permettant une analyse fine des processus interactifs d'élaboration des connaissances en relation avec des activités argumentatives

Les graphes argumentatifs interactifs sur Internet : sont-ils plus efficaces comme média du débat ou comme moyens de le représenter ?

Nous présentons les résultats d'une expérience menée dans le cadre du projet européen SCALE. Le but de cette recherche était d'étudier l'influence du type d'utilisation du graphe argumentatif durant des débats pédagogiques sur Internet. Précisément, il s'agissait de savoir sur le graphe argumentatif était plus efficace lorsqu'il était utilisé comme médium du débat (C1) ou comme moyen de le représenter (C2). Dans cet objectif, nous avons évalué à l'aide d'une méthode originale (ADAM), les différences entre des graphes argumentatifs construits individuellement avant et après le débat, et avons comparé ces différences entre les deux conditions expérimentales. Les résultats suggèrent une complémentarité entre les deux types d'utilisation des graphes argumentatifs dans le cadre d'un apprentissage conceptuel centré sur des questions socialement vives

The Visu Reflection Tool for Socio-Emotional Awareness in CSCL situations

International audienceAn exploratory study has been conducted in which 12 students in Bachelor of Science in Psychology were asked to use the Visu reflection tool during Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) situations. Visu is a web videoconferencing platform that allows participants to put reflective markers during their collaborative learning activity, and to review the traces of their synchronous collaboration later. In this study, co-learners used two types of markers: (1) free markers and (2) socio-emotional markers to express either negative or positive feelings about the way they collaborate together. Our contribution is related to the first focus of the workshop: emotion awareness in CSCL. In line with this focus, our main questions are as follows: (1) How can the Visu tool help learners express and share their feelings about collaboration? How does this affect the way they interact and learn together? (2) How do they use the Visu markers after the collaboration to self-reflect on their group processes? In this paper, we first describe the Visu platform. We then present a study we have carried out to answer the questions presented above. We finally conclude with the contributions of our research to the workshop topic

Reflection-in-Action Markers for Reflection-on-Action in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Settings

International audienceWe describe an exploratory study on the use of markers set during a synchronous collaborative interaction (reflection-in-action) for later construction of reflection reports upon the collaboration that occurred (reflection-on-action). During two sessions, pairs of students used the Visu videoconferencing tool for synchronous interaction and marker setting (positive, negative or free) and then individual report building on the interaction (using markers or not). A quantitative descriptive analysis was conducted on the markers put in action, on their use to reflect on action and on the reflection categories of the sentences in these reports. Results show that the students (1) used the markers equally as a note-taking and reflection means during the interaction, (2) used mainly positive markers both to reflect in and on action; (3) paid more attention in identifying what worked in their interaction (conservative direction) rather than in planning on how to improve their group work (progressive direction); (4) used mainly their own markers to reflect on action, with an increase in the use of their partners' markers in the second reflection reports; (5) reflected mainly on their partner in the first reflection reports and more on themselves in the second reports to justify themselves and to express their satisfaction

Élaboration et étude d'une situation d'apprentissage médiatisée par ordinateur pour le développement de la compréhension de l'espace du débat

Sommaire des pré-actes : http://archive-edutice.ccsd.cnrs.fr/edutice-00000318La vidéo de l'intervention et les questions de la salle sont accessibles sur http://webcast.in2p3.fr/tematice/baker.ramLa recherche présentée dans cet exposé a été réalisée dans le cadre du projet « SCALE » (Intelligent Support for Collaborative Argumentation-Based Learning, ou Guidage Intelligent pour L'Apprentissage Coopératif fondé sur l'Argumentation et l'Internet : http://www.euroscale.net), financé par le 5ème Plan IST (Information Society's Technologies) de l'Union Européenne. L'objectif pédagogique du projet est de comprendre comment concevoir des situations d'apprentissage coopératif pouvant conduire les élèves à élargir et à approfondir leur compréhension d'un espace du débat (cf. Golder, 1996). Cet objectif se situe à l'intersection de deux autres, devenues classiques : « apprendre à argumenter » et « argumenter pour apprendre ». Il s'agit en effet d'amener les élèves du secondaire à élaborer des connaissances qui sont de nature argumentative, grâce à leur implication dans l'activité argumentative que constitue le débat

Facteurs a priori et in situ de l’engagement des étudiants dans les forums de discussion des MOOC

Cette étude de cas instrumentale mixte explore les potentiels facteurs d’engagement des étudiants de l’université de Genève dans les forums de discussion des MOOC. Pour ce faire, les données issues de 127 réponses à un questionnaire et 11 entretiens semi-structurés ont été analysées au prisme de la théorie de l’autodétermination et ses motifs d’engagement, des modèles de la dynamique motivationnelle, de l’acceptabilité et l’acceptation in situ des technologies. Les résultats ont permis d’élaborer un modèle qui montre comment 11 facteurs a priori et 23 in situ influencent l’engagement des étudiants dans les forums.This mixed instrumental case study explores the factors of engagement in MOOC discussion forums as perceived by students at the University of Geneva. To this end, data from 127 questionnaire responses and 11 semi-structured interviews were analysed through the lens of self-determination theory and its motives for engagement, models of motivational dynamics, acceptability and in situ acceptance of technologies. The results have enabled the development of a model that shows how11 factors a priori and 23 in situ affect the students’ engagement in the forums

Towards emotion awareness tools to support emotion and appraisal regulation in academic contexts

International audienceThis paper studies learners’ emotion awareness in university level academic contexts as a first step to help learners regulate their emotions. Existing emotion awareness tools offer little information on learners’ emotions and their antecedents. This study created an emotion-reporting grid for university students based on the emotions they experienced daily. Students were interviewed based on their self-reported grid. A quantitative descriptive analysis of these retrospective interviews was conducted based on Pekrun’s control-value theory of achievement emotions. Student transcripts were analyzed based on the focus of their emotions (retrospective, activity, or prospective), the causes they attribute to their emotions (agent or external circumstances) and how they appraised the situation in which they experienced the emotions (value and control). We discuss the results with regard to the types of emotion-oriented and appraisal-oriented regulation strategies used in learning contexts and draw implications for the design of emotion awareness tools to support emotion regulation processes

Knowing What the Peer Knows: The Differential Effect of Knowledge Awareness on Collaborative Learning Performance of Asymmetric Pairs

In an empirical study, we provided (or not) pairs of students working in a remote collaborative learning situation with a knowledge awareness tool that provided learner A with learner B’s level of knowledge measured through a pre-test. We analyzed the effect of the knowledge awareness tool on asymmetric pairs with regards to the prior-knowledge. Post-hoc analysis on the pairs’ knowledge level showed that the knowledge awareness tool mainly affects the learning performances of asymmetric pairs. Further analysis on the learners’ level showed that the knowledge awareness tool mainly affects the collaborative learning gain of the more-knowledgeable peers of asymmetric pairs. The results are discussed in light of socio-cognitive processes such as audience design and perspective taking

The Symmetry of Partner Modelling

© 2016, International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. Collaborative learning has often been associated with the construction of a shared understanding of the situation at hand. The psycholinguistics mechanisms at work while establishing common grounds are the object of scientific controversy. We postulate that collaborative tasks require some level of mutual modelling, i.e. that each partner needs some model of what the other partners know/want/intend at a given time. We use the term “some model” to stress the fact that this model is not necessarily detailed or complete, but that we acquire some representations of the persons we interact with. The question we address is: Does the quality of the partner model depend upon the modeler’s ability to represent his or her partner? Upon the modelee’s ability to make his state clear to the modeler? Or rather, upon the quality of their interactions? We address this question by comparing the respective accuracies of the models built by different team members. We report on 5 experiments on collaborative problem solving or collaborative learning that vary in terms of tasks (how important it is to build an accurate model) and settings (how difficult it is to build an accurate model). In 4 studies, the accuracy of the model that A built about B was correlated with the accuracy of the model that B built about A, which seems to imply that the quality of interactions matters more than individual abilities when building mutual models. However, these findings do not rule out the fact that individual abilities also contribute to the quality of modelling process