There are two streams in our group, those who focus on peer interaction (and are also more cognition-oriented) and those who focus on larger groups (and are more technology-oriented). The workshop is structured around this duality.
9.00 Warming up. Worshop schedule, practical stuff, task force managment. --- Session I : Analysing and modelling peer interactions 9.30 - 10.15 "Analyses of collaborative computer assisted learning: towards a review." Karen Littleton, The Open University Kim Issroff, University College London Abstract In this presentation, we discuss the ways in which researchers have approached the analysis of collaborative CAL. We describe indices which have been used in interpretating collaborative interactions and some of the theoretical approaches that inform these analyses. We will illustrate with reference to a range of papers some of the approaches which have been used. We will also describe two small scale case studies which will illustrate, with reference to our own data, some of the problems confronting researchers interested in the analysis of collaborations. Our attempt to document the various approaches reveals a complex picture and points to the need for integration of the relevant indices in studies of computer-supported collaborative learning. 10.30 - 11.00 Coffie-Tea break 11.00 - 11.45 "Explaining to Oneself and to Others" Rolf Ploetzner & Michael Preier (University of Freiburg, D), Pierre Dillenbourg & David Traum (Univerity of Geneva, CH) Abstract: While the junior scientist Rolf Ploetzner visited the senior scientist Pierre Dillenbourg in his research laboratory, they developed together with David Traum an experimental design to investigate whether systematic explaining to each other leads to more learning than just systematic explaining to oneself. That were happy, enlightening and productive days! Later, being (almost) alone again, they realized that nobody had the time and money resources to actually conduct the research. Everyday work had us all back (be careful, I don't say that the happy days were over)! Fortunately, Michael Preier was in search for a topic for his Diplom-Thesis. After talking to him, he picked up the ideas developed so far. With some modifications, the study is currently conducted by him. 11.45 - 12.30 "The limits of metaphors: Some discrepancies between 'distributed artificial intelligence' and 'distributed cognition' Pierre Dillenbourg (University of Geneva, CH) Abstract: Distributed articificial intelligence attempts to improve the efficiency of systems by distributing processes over different processors. It relies on strong empirical bases, but still lacks of a unifying theoretical framework. At the opposite, DCT renewed the interest in the socio-cultural theories. This heritage provides DCT with an elaborated theoretical background, but its concrete implications of DCT are still rather unclear. These respective weaknesses and strengths should lead us to consider DAI and DCT as complementary approaches. Moreover, both approaches offer metaphors which appear to be easily transferable to the other one. Actually, one can always transfer metaphors at the superficial level. However, a second analysis of metaphors reveal discrepancies between the assumptions carried out in DAI and DCT. The 8 discrepancies concern the 'agent' metaphor, the 'joint system' metaphor, the 'shared udnerstanding' metaphor, the 'isomorphism' postulate, the 'conflict' metaphor, the importance of noise, the redundancy of agents and the generalisation of group size. I points out these discrepancies, not to fossilise them, but to suggest research directions: to model the impact of social interactions on cognition by developing computational models in which dialogue operators are used within inference engines. 12.30 - 14.30 Lunch 14.30 - 15.15 "Analysing argumentation in collaborative problem-solving dialogues" Michael Baker (C.N.R.S., COAST research team, Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon, France) ABSTRACT: Despite some recent negative results concerning the role of interpersonal conflict in producing cognitive change (e.g. Blaye, 1988), some authors (e.g. Mavarech & Light 1990) have conjectured that the way in which such conflicts are resolved by argumentation in cooperative problem-solving dialogues may be more important than the incidence of conflict itself. In this presentation I attempt to take this conjecture seriously : I describe some interactional mechanisms and phenomena of argumentation sequences, and the different types of cognitive change with which they may be associated. After a short review of different theoretical approaches to argumentation,and the associated analysis methods, I apply one such approach - dialogic logic - to the analysis of argumentation sequences taken from a corpus of dialogues produced by pairs of students solving problems in physics. I then describe the expressive limits of this argumentation model, and describe two other important dimensions of argumentation dialogues : (1) the interactive dimension (negotiation of the meaning of domain knowledge and problem solutions), and (2) the epistemic dimension (the role that explicitation of different types of knowledge plays in argumentation). In conclusion I describe ways in which research on analysing and modelling argumentation dialogues in learning sit 15.15 - 16.00 "What Machine Learning Transmutations have to do with Negotiation in Teaching-Learning Dialogues" Engelbert Mephu-Nguifo (University of Artois, F) Abstract: During this talk, I would describe Machine Learning Transmutations, which are operators that make knowledge changes in the knowledge space. Then I would show the relationships between these operators and the set of "Transformation Functions" described in Michael Baker's paper entitled "A model for Negociation in Teaching-Learning Dialogues". Finally an opened discussion would focus on the contribution of these operators in the modelization of collaborative learning. (I put this talk here because Engelbert said it will be closely connected to Michael's papers on dialogic learning) 16.30 - 17.15 "Aspects of Conversational Agency" David R. Traum (Universite de Geneve, CH) Abstract: Designing an agent to particpate in natural conversation requires more than just adapting a standard agent model to perceive and produce language. In particular the model must be augmented with social attitudes and a notion of discourse context. In this talk, I will focus on two such necessary extensions which are also absent in traditional speech act work: Obligations and Grounding. We claim that obligations are a necessary adjunct to beliefs, desires, and intentions as inputs for deliberation in social agency, and are also the main effect of requests. Grounding, the process of adding to the common ground or set of mutual beliefs between conversants, has also generally been oversimplified or ignored in previous speech act work. I briefly describe a computational theory of grounding which treats traditional speech acts as multi-agent acheivements which are completed only with participation be both the initiating speaker and the responder. 17.15 - 18.00 Discussion of session I (if we are not exhausted)
--- Session II : The relationship between situated cognition ---- and distributed cognition (joint with members of task force 4) 9.00 - 12.30 Short contributions (20 min) from various members followed by a discussion. So far, the following people said they might contribute on this topic by choosing some concerte case of discussion: Edith Ackerman (Universite de Provence, Fr) Title to be announced Bob Lewis (Universite de Lancaster, UK) Title to be announced Ulrich Hoppe (University of Dusiburg, D) "What kind of cognitive and educational theories do we need to support collaborative (group) learning in computerized environments?" Christofer Sinha (University of Aarhuis, DK) Pierre Dillenbourg (University of Geneva, CH) "The implications of situated an ddistributed cognition for the design of interactive learning environments". 12.30 - 14.30 Lunch --- Session III: Collaboration in large groups ----- 14.30 - 15.15 "Problem orientation as a method and as a foundation for CSCdistanceL Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Aalborg Unversity (Dk) Abstract Collaborative learning is considered a phenomenon of learning in which there is a mutual interdependece between individual learning and the development of the collaborative community. In collaborative learning at distance, this community should be created in "a virtual environment" in which a computer-based application designed for collaboration has an incorporated role. I would like do discuss how computer conferencing as an example of a communication tool mediates the building of "a virtual environment", as well as I would like to talk about our methode: Soft Dialectics. 15.15 - 16.00 "Competence development within an administrative work environment: Interplay between humans and software assistants" Carl Gustaf Jansson (KTH and University of Stockholm) Abstract Software assistants adaptive to people s individualized working habits for particular tasks are being rapidly developed. Such tasks include electronic mail services, information retrieval, meeting scheduling, document preparation and tele/video conferences. We are interested in the study of how an integrated set of such software assistants can be used by a specific user group. In particular we are interested in the study of competence development, not only in individual users and software assistants (adaptive agents) but in the total system of user group and software assistants. Current projects and competence of the research group include multi agent software technology, machine learning, communication models, design and evaluation of adaptive interfaces in general and systems for help, explanation and filtering of information in particular. 16.00 - 16.30 Tea break 16.30 - 17.15 "Intelligent support functions in distributed, group-oriented learning environments - towards a taxonomy and a methodology" Ulrich Hoppe (University of Dusiburg, D) Abstract Based on distributed computing and networking technology we face a new type of educational computing environments that explicitly facilitate group learning. It will be discussed what computerized support for group learning can provide beyond the mediation of human-human communication (synchronous CSCW) and beyond the distributed management of multimedia material. Given the current state of the art in cognitive modeling and diagnosis, student modeling will be essentially restricted to individual assessment. However, individual models/assessments can be used to intelligently inform group learning scenarios. Possible support functions include: balanced composition of learning groups, selection of learning material (exercises) for a given group, and teacher/tutor information. Different functions of computerized agents in group learning environments require different computational mechanisms. As an extrapolation of existing experience, we can characterize typical functions and related requirements and propose specific computational approaches to meet these requirements. 17.15 - 18.00 Discussion
--- Session IV : Merging learning in pairs and learning in large groups ------ 09.00 - 10.30 "Theory debate: Can we use the same theories for studying collaborative learning within pairs and within large group?" Animator: Claire O'Malley Abstract Most cognitive theories related to collaborative learning concern basically a few people working closely together. When the group is larger, theories rely more on social psychology, anthropology, and so forth. Give the recent devlopments of CSCL, there is a trend to generalize the findings observed in such peer interactions to current practices involving large groups, without face-to-face contact and often with a boradly defined goal. Are the peer interaction theories still relevant? Which theoretical development do we need for understanding the effects of learning in large groups ? 10.30 - 11.00 Coffied break 11.00 - 12.00 "Applications debate: Can we use the same tools for supporting collaborative learning within pairs and within large group?" Animator: Bob Lewis Abstract The type of support provided by computers to collaboration in large groups often uses a narrower bandwidth that the tools used to support collaboration in small groups : while small groups can share whiteboards and other applications, the support offered by larger groups is often limited to texet (e.e e-mail, WWW, MOO, bulletin boards, ...). This difference can be explained by the fact communication costs increase exponentially with the number of participants. Are there other intrinsic differences between these two types of tools? 12.30 - 14.30 Lunch break 14.30 - 16.00 Planning TF5 activities for next year.
Organizer:Dr. Pierre Dillenbourg TECFA (Educational Technology Unit) Faculte de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education (FPSE) Universite de Geneve, Route de Drize,9, CH1227 CAROUGE SWITZERLAND Phone: (+ 41.22.) 705.96.93 Fax: (+41.22.) 342.89.24 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org WWW: http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa-people/dillenbourg.html