Mutual-Modeling

In our efforts to conciliate the CLEAP and the MM-project, ou finally arrived to some agreements about the forthcoming experiments.

The idea of an experiment analysing the efficiency of the design matter (sequential ?vs- parallel) was abandoned as well as the idea of a conceptual versus event-based design. The main reason is that it?s really difficult to provide an efficient experimental design, controlling all other graphical variables.

The new idea is to study the control variable (degree of control on the animation provided to learners) in a collaborative condition. We will compare a poor degree of control with a rich degree of control (run, stop, rewind, forward). Hence we can explore the split-interaction hypothesis by varying the degree of complexity of the interaction with the interface and see how it cohabits with the social interaction between peers.

A Mutual-Modeling task will be added to the paradigm. 3 MM-modeling analyzing methods have to be pretest. We'll see it later...

Learning: ? animated pictures ? collaboration ? multimedia-contents.
Mutual-modeling project: active problem-solving task ? mutual-model ? collaboration

CleAP project:

• multimedia based learning


• collaboration


• animated pictures


• multimedia-contents


• passive-learning


• retention and transfer tasks


• pre-test/post-test paradigm


• Split-interaction effect


• collaboration load


• Geo and/or Astro materials
  

Mutual-modeling project:

• problem-based learning


• collaboration


• collaborative games


• awareness tools


• active-learning


• mutual-modeling questionnaire


• post-test interviews


• mutual-modeling load


• collaborative problem-solving tasks

1. Space Miners


2. CatchBob


3. COTRAS

Why CleAP paradigm doesn?t fit the Mutual-Modeling project?

• no awareness tool


• poor-interaction task


• passive learning (hard to measure MM)

The main problem to conciliate CleAP and Mutual-Modeling projects lies in the integration of animations in a problem-solving task.

After reading Sperber and Wilson, 1986, I came up with a new definition of mutual modeling: process by which an individual (i) picks up facts he/she estimates to be MANIFEST and RELEVANT in his/her cognitive environment (with regard to the partners? intents), (ii) builds a representation (more or less formal) about the partners? intents.

When students solve a problem collaboratively, they maintain some representation of their partners' goals, knowledge and understanding. This mutual model may be not highly detailed, nor explicit, but is still necessary to build a shared understanding. An alternative view is that learners construct a model of the group interactions as a whole. In both cases, this modeling increases the co-learners' cognitive activity. Our main hypothesis is that this modeling activity leads co-learners to think more deeply about the task and hence to improve their knowledge. This new project will be carried out in collaboration with 4 European countries. It is funded by the Swiss Science Foundation, in partnership with the European Science Foundation. The project will begin in Spring 2005

announcement by Pierre Dillenbourg