Assessment of e-learners' temporal patterns in an online collaborative writing task

E-learners are generally adults with work and family constraints who get involved in the virtual campus looking for temporary academic flexibility. However, they are often confronted with collaborative learning activities which lead to additional organizational efforts by reducing their individual time flexibility. In this paper, we argue that time is a major variable in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) activities, and that assessing students' use of time in these situations can help educational designers to propose adequate time scripting to plan these educational activities.This case study presents an exploratory analysis of time patterns for 15 groups of students (n=66), involved in a collaborative writing task. The results reveal that (a), e-learners' time-on-task increased since the beginning of the activity, (b), they work more during week days than during weekends and (c), they tend to work during "conventional" hours of the day. The identification of these patterns is the first step toward the development of new methodologies and computer-supported tools to enhance organisation of time and social aspects in CSCL

Rôle de la Face et de l'Utilité dans l'interprétation d'Enoncés Ambigus Question/Requête Imcompréhension/Désaccord

De nombreux énoncés présentent une ambiguité en ce qu'ils peuvent être interprétés différement selon que l'on choisisse leur signification directe ou indirecte. Nous nous penchons ici sur l'interprétation de deux de ces types d'énoncés : les énoncés pouvant être interprétés comme (a) des questions directes ou des requêtes indirectes (e.g., “Est-ce qu'il reste du café ?”) et (b) des demandes de précision indirectes ou des désaccords indirects (e.g., “J'ai peur de ne pas vous suivre.”) Les prédictions de deux approches de l'interprétation d'énoncés ambigus sont ici combinées et testées : (a) l'approche Gestion de la Face qui étudie plus particulièrement le rôle des variables interpersonelles telles que le statut, la distance affective ou la perte de face potentielle ; et (b) l'approche Utilitariste centrée sur les buts poursuivis par le locuteur au moment de l'énonciation. Nos résultats soutiennent les prédictions, jusque là non testées, de l'approche Utilitariste et offrent de nouvelles perspectives à l'approche Gestion de la Face. Many statements are ambiguous in that sense that they can be interpreted differently as a function of whether one considers their direct meaning or their indirect meaning(s). In this article, we examine two of these ambiguities : The direct question/indirect request ambiguity (e.g., “Is there any coffee left ?”) ; and the indirect disagreement/ indirect request for explanation ambiguity (e.g., “I don't follow you”). We combine and test predictions of two approaches of the interpretation of such ambiguities—the Face Management approach, which focuses on interpersonal variables such as status, affective distance or potential face threat ; and the Utilitarian Relevance approach, which focuses on the speaker's goal at the time of the enunciation. Results wholly support the untested predictions of the Utilitarian Relevance approach, and offer new perspectives on the Face Management approach