learning situations with computers, this paper attempts to provide a ... Collaborative Learning, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, distributed artificial ...
European Journal of Psychology of Education 1992, Vol. VII, n.? 4, 257-267 © 1992, I.S.P.A.
Collaborative Learning at the Computer; How Social Processes 'Interface' with Human-Computer Interaction Agnes Blaye University of Provence, France
Paul Light University of Southampton, UK Vitaly Rubtsov Institute of General and Educational Psychology, Russia
In drawingan 'outline sketch' of the field of research on interactional learning situations with computers, this paper attempts to provide a general framework for the contributions which follow. After a brief overview of the theoretical grounding of studies in the field, we examine the extent to which learner-computer interaction and learner-learner interaction can interfere with or support one another. The need for a change of theoretical perspective on the role of social interaction in learning is highlighted. It is argued that viewingcollaborative learning in terms ofjoint negotiation of a common problem space might help in defining the optimal characteristics of educational software. Finally, the critical role of social dimensions such as social comparisons between partners is pointed out. In conclusion, the need for more local theories, taking particularaccount of the learning domain, is stressed.
Introduction This volume grew out in part from a symposium organised in 1991 for the fourth Conference of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction. It brings together contributions from East and Western Europe and the United States related to children's learning with computers. The main concern is with the ways in which social processes «interface» with computer-based learning, and with how children's learning with computers can be most effectively supported.
The preparation of this special issue was done at the time Agnes Blaye was member of the Laboratory of Social Psychology of Cognition (CNRS, EP 22), University of Clermont II, France.
258
A. BLAYE , P. LIGHT, & V. RUBTSOV
The study of interactional learning situations with computers lies at the heart of many research areas both in cognitive and social sciences. This growing interest is illustrated in the emergence of new notions associated to new research areas such as Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, distributed artificial intelligence (Dillenbourg & Self, this issue, O'Malley, in press). The focus of this volume is restricted to computer-based learning situations with children working generally in pairs in direct face-to-face interaction. It must be acknowledged however that collaborative learning does not require physical co-presence and may also occur through electronic networking. These two kinds of situations must however be specifically analysed since the medium of communication between partners may well influence the nature of interactions and hence, of the learning outcome. Study of collaborative learning at the computer (for a review, see Light & Blaye, 1990) stems from two independent traditions of research, one on computer-based learning within the more general context of educaltional technologyand the other on the role of social interaction in the promotion of individual learning. This second category of studies can itself be divided into research grounded in developmental psychology (our main concern here) and research grounded in the tradition of social psychology stemming from the work of Deutsch (1940) with its emphasis on cooperation processes and motivational dimensions (e.g. Slavin, 1983). In any considerations of computer-based learning, the great diversity of situations referred to by this umbrella term must be born in mind. These range from drilI and practice to intelligent tutoring systems, and from learning of a programming language to the use of a word processor, a spreadsheet or a database. One important dimension of difference in these different types of software concerns the degree of control and initiative left respectively to the user and to the machine. Most contributions to the present issue focus upon situations in which the monitoring of interactions between the learners and the computer is largely under the learners' contro1. This type of situation is found particularly in that substantial subset of computer-based learning environments commonly referred to as microworlds. This type of software is designed to induce exploration on the part of the learners, who have first to build a representation of these microworlds before being able to perform effective actions. Confronted with the poverty of drill and practice software on the one hand, and the difficulty of implementing intelligent tutoring systems on the other, many researchers see microworlds as a particularly promising avenue for the use of computers in education. The main concern of research in the area of computer-based learning has always been the design of software which can best enhance learning. An essentially individualistic view of the learning process is fundamental to this tradition of research, which has for a long time considered the potential of the computer in the classroom largely in terms of the individualisation of the curriculum (see O'Shea & Self, 1983 for a review of such ideas). In profound contrast with this view, more recent proponents of computer use in education have emphasised its capacity to stimulate active collaboration and discussion between children (e.g. Fletcher, 1985; Hawkins, Sheingold, & Berger, 1982). In spite of this emphasis, most pieces of software have been designed with a single user in mind (for recent exceptions, see O'Malley, this issue). Quite independently of this work on computer-based learning, social interaction as a stimulus for individual cognitive development has become a prominent issue in developmental and educational research. Two major theoretical approaches have grounded research in this field. The main strand of research in Europe has been developed within the Piagetian framework by Doise and colleagues (Perret-Clermont, 1980; Doise & Mugny , 1984; Perret-Clermont & Nicolet, 1988; and for reviews Blaye, 1988; Gilly, 1989, Garton, 1992), while in the United States most of psychological studies in this area were grounded in Vygotsky's theory (Wertsch, 1985; Rogoff, 1990). Although both theoretical perspectives agree on the role of social interaction in the causation of cognitive development, they disagree about what critical aspects of interaction are responsible for individual change.
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AT THE COMPUTER
259
According to the neo-Piagetian perspective, social interaction will be a source of cognitive development only if it entails «socio-cognitive conflict», i.e, conflict between differing wrong answers based on partial centrations, embodied socially in the differing perspectives of the two children. The social dimension is seen as providing the impetus towards resolving the conflict. Such resolution can be achieved by transcending the different centrations to arrive at a more advanced «decentred» solution. Individual change is then presented as the result of an internalization of the interindividual coordination of differing responses. How exactly this process occurs remains to be explained. In the Vygostkian tradition (Vygotsky, 1930/1978), the emphasis is on the fundamentally social origins of mental functioning. Development is seen as an internalization of interindividual functioning. Conflict is not central to this perspective. Efficient social interactions are interactions which occur in «the zone of proximal development» (Rogoff & Wertsch, 1984). Cognitive change is presented as the result of an internalisation of regulatory activities. They are initially managed by the more expert partner, and then progressively transferred, essentially through the mediation of language, to the less expert partner, who thus becomes capable of more elaborated autonomous cognitive functioning (for a further exploration of these two perspectives, see Blaye, 1988). The debate is still largely open, both on the mechanisms at play in the enhancement of cognitive performance through social interaction, and on the crucial features software must have to promote computer-based learning. Our aim in this issue is to address new and specific questions arising from situtations involving not only child-child interaction but also childcomputer interaction. The richness and complexity of these situations is due in part, to the muItifunctionaIity of the computer, which can be seen simultaneously as a specific device for the presentation of tasks, and as a dialogic partner. Students of computer-based collaborative learning need to try to identify the optimal conditions both for supporting interaction and for inducing learning. The literature to date in this field is far from arriving at any consensus (Light & Blaye, 1990). In this introductory paper, we shall begin by considering some illustrations of the reciprocal influences that learner-learner interactions and learner(s)-computer interaction may exert on one another. These will offer an opportunity to discuss the relevance of the theoretical frameworks that we have sketched out, and to introduce other perspectives which may illuminate the processes at play. As a conclusion, we will indicate some dimensions of interactional learning situations which might deserve more attention in further research.
To what extent does interaction with the computer modify the nature and efficacy of social interaction? As already mentioned while most educational computer software has been designed for individual learners, children typically use such software in the context of group work if only because the equipment in schools does not allow one machine per pupil. Given this, to what extent are the characteristics of the software and input devices critical in enhancing or impairing the efficacy of social interaction and what are the conditions under which the computer best supports social interaction? O'Malley (this issue) proposes interesting examples of interfaces fostering social interaction, notably through the induction of a specific distribution of roles between the learning partners. The critical role of the distribution of roles induced by an input device (e.g. one mouse for two subjects) has also been emphasised by Blaye, Light, and colleagues while using the adventure game presented in Littleton, et al. (this issue). For example, they argue that: «By channelling certain kinds of executive action into one 'role; the mouse arguably opened up the other role into something akin to a commentator, navigator or strategist» (Blaye, Light, Joiner, & Sheldon, 1991, p, 481). In this instance it should be borne in mind hat the 'navigator' role was reinforced by the fact that a paper map of the the microworld was available to the suject who did not have the mouse. Statistical analysis revealed that the
260
A. BLAYE , P. LIGHT, & V. RUBTSOV
pairs in which the amount of time with the mouse in hand was the most equally distributed between the two partners, i.e. the pairs in which both partners had to alternate between the different roles most evenly, were the most efficient. We also demonstrated elsewhere the extent to which the manipulation of input devices can modify the learning outcomes of collaborative learning situations (Blaye, 1988; Light, Foot, Colbourn, & McClelland, 1987) on different kinds of tasks (respectively the product of two sets and the Tower of Hanoi) and with children of different ages (respectively, 5 to 6 year-olds and 11 year-olds). For instance, Light et al. obtained a superiority of pair- over individual training only when requiring a dual key entry to provoke any move of disk on the computer screen. In both studies, the new requirements for inputs corresponded to a more explicit articulation of roles which induced systematic discussion between the partners before any response to the machine (cf. Miyake, 1986). Changes in the software can also be critical in modifying the socio-cognitive dynamics between the learning partners. Rubtsov (this issue) demonstrates the influence of the kind of information provided by the computer (in this case visual feedbacks). The lowest level of coordination between members of pairs corresponds to an exclusive reliance on the visual feedback provided by the machine while the highest level is obtained when subjects are able to reflect on the process of construction of the coordination itself. This level, in turn, is observed in the more demanding situation with an absence of feedback. In a study of recursive reasoning presented in the format of a game between the computer and either one or two 11 to 12 year-old player(s), Fraisse (1987) compared experimentally the effect of two kinds of 'behavior' on the part of the computer. The subjects had to find an algorithm which could ensure that they won if they took the first turn in the game. On 'its' turns, the computer playedeither randomly or it used the optimal strategywhich would inevitably provoke the failure of the opponentes) if they did not themselves find the correct algorithm. During the training session, an overall superiority of performance in the 'optimal strategy' conditions and no effect of interaction between the subjects (solos vs dyads) were observed. However, on an individual paper and pencil post-test, subjects trained in pairs performed significantly better than those who had no opportunity for social interaction, but only where the computer had been using «random» strategies. Analysis if the inputs of subjects during the interactive session showed that the nature of interaction between the subjects and the computer differed as a function of the machine behavior. In the «random» condition, verbal interactions associated with disagreements between the partners were more numerous. Thus, this study suggests that the version of the software which is the most supportive of learning is the one which most necessitates discussion and negotiation between the social partners. Amigues and Agostinelli (this issue) have obtained related results, showing that the 'non canonical' presentation of a problem turns out to be the most supportive of efficient social interaction. In this 'non canonical' situation, the partners cannot rely on tacit rules; they have to jointly construct new meanings appropriate to the new format of presentation. Data presented by these authors also illustrate how, conversely the patterns of social interaction can modify the nature of human-computer interaction. We shall move on to this consideration in the following section.
To what extent can social interaction support interaction with tbe computer? Amigues and Agostinelli's study shows that the overall superiority of dyads over individuals in the non canonical version of the task is associated with qualitative differences in humancomputer interaction. Solos gave more incorrect responses to the machine than pairs and performed more experimentations. They showed a greater reliance on the computer feedback, but at the same time used a less efficient solving strategy (
