No description available.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(情報学) / 甲第19110号 / 情博第556号 / 新制||情||98(附属図書館) / 32061 / 京都大学大学院情報学研究科知能情報学専攻 / (主査)教授 西田 豊明, 教授 乾 敏郎, 教授 河原 達也 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Informatics / Kyoto University / DGAM

L’objet de la thèse est d’étudier l’activité de travail de professeurs engagés dans un nouveau dispositif : la co-intervention. En France, la réussite de tous les élèves à l’école primaire s’appuie sur un postulat : le travail collectif des enseignants fait évoluer les pratiques pédagogiques et améliorer les résultats des élèves. Les réformes éducatives se multiplient et conduisent à une diversification de la forme scolaire et une complexification du travail enseignant. Plusieurs projets expérimentent depuis plusieurs années la co-intervention, où deux enseignants travaillent ensemble au sein même de la classe. Notre recherche en ergonomie de l’activité enseignante donne à voir et à réfléchir sur la ré-organisation des milieux de travail et les motifs de l’activité conjointe dans les dispositifs d’aide en co-intervention, source potentielle d’une activité dialogique qui ouvre à de nouvelles manières de faire « possibles » et une transformation des pratiques. La co-intervention est une nouvelle situation de travail qui bouscule les dimensions collectives telles qu’elles existent pour un maître seul dans sa classe. Contrairement à l’affirmation institutionnelle, nos résultats montrent que co-intervenir avec un enseignant ordinaire ou un enseignant spécialisé ne produit pas forcément une activité conjointe ni un débat professionnel sur les manières de faire et de penser orientés vers les élèves en difficulté d’apprentissage. / This research aims at studying the work of teachers who are experimenting a new system : co-teaching. In France, it is widely considered that the academic success of all elementary school pupils relies on the teachers' collective work, which makes teaching practices evolve and improves pupils' results. Educational reforms multiply, leading to more diverse teaching methods and a more complex teaching job. Many projects have been experimenting co-teaching for severaly years, with two teachers working together in the same classroom.Our research in teaching activity ergonomics gives us some visibility and food for thought concerning a new organization of the working environment and the reasons justifying joint activity in those new ways to help the pupils in the school system. If co-teaching is a new work frame that allows to redefine what has to be done and how to do it, it then becomes the source of some dialogic activity that opens new horizons and new possible ways to work as well as changing practices. Unlike what the educational authorities are saying, our results show that co-teaching with a regular or a specialized teacher does not necessarily lead to similar joint activities, nor does it produce a professional debate on the ways of acting and thinking with underachieving pupils.

<p>With autonomous systems bringing greater demand for user data, in some applications, this also brings an opportunity to solicit data from users. To exploit this, a user interface will need to be designed to coax the user into achieving system goals, like data solicitation. One approach is to design a system to leverage an already present tendency for people to socially interact with technology. In this thesis, I argue that such an approach would involve incorporating interaction concepts that facilitate engagement into the design of recommender system interfaces that will improve the likelihood of obtaining data from users. To support this claim, I synthesize past work on human-computer interaction and recommender systems to derive a framework to guide scientific investigations into interface design concepts that will address the data solicitation problem.<br></p>

In this research the process through which a group of teachers deal with problems that arise from their shared context of their daily teaching practice is discussed. The approach to the problem is understood as a process of construction of situated knowledge. The overall objectives of the research were: i) to analyze the way in which context determines joint activity of teachers; as well as ii) to analyze joint activity of teachers through which relevant problems to their practice in the Center are solved. The main findings of this project are, on the one hand the existence of four stages of addressing problems, which can be combined in different ways in each of the sessions; in addition three large stages along joint activity sequence are observed: delimitation of the problem, exploration of alternatives and finding concrete solutions / Se analiza el proceso mediante el cual un grupo de profesores aborda problemas que surgen del contexto compartido de su práctica docente cotidiana. El abordaje de los problemas es entendido como un proceso de construcción de conocimientos situado. Los objetivos generales de la investigación fueron: i) analizar la manera en que el contexto codetermina la actividad conjunta del profesorado; así como ii) analizar la actividad conjunta del profesorado mediante la cual resuelve los problemas relevantes para su práctica en el centro. Los principales hallazgos de este proyecto son, por un lado la existencia de 4 fases de abordaje de los problemas, mismas que pueden combinarse de distintas maneras en cada una de las sesiones; además se observan tres grandes etapas a lo largo de la secuencia de actividad conjunta: la delimitación del problema, la exploración de alternativas y la concreción de soluciones

The number of informal carers in the UK is rising, yet the dynamics of care within informal care relationships remain poorly understood. The present research examined adaptation of informal care relationships affected by Acquired Brain Injury. The research addresses four pairs of questions: (1a) Are there any disagreements and/or misunderstandings between carers and people with Acquired Brain Injury (PwABI) regarding carer identity? (1b) How can the pattern of divergences be explained? (2a) Are there any disagreements and/or misunderstandings between carers and PwABI regarding PwABI identity? (2b) How can the pattern of divergences be explained? (3a) What strategies do carers and PwABI use in collaboration on a joint task? (3b) Is the type of input provided by carers on the joint task comparable to scaffolding as described in the child development literature? (4a) What happens when carers and PwABI collaborate to fill in the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claim form? (4b) Why do carers see more disability than PwABI when filling in the DLA form? Four mixed-method data sets were used to answer these questions: (1) numerical ratings given by PwABI and carers to map out convergences and divergences (2) videos of discussions between participants and researcher during rating tasks (3) videos of carers and PwABI engaging in a joint task - planning inviting a friend or relative round for a meal and (4) videos of carers and PwABI filling in part of the DLA claim form. All data was collected from the same 28 PwABI/carer dyads who were two or more years post injury. Chapter 4 addresses questions 1a and 1b. Carers’ and PwABIs’ perspective ratings revealed a number of disagreements regarding carer identity. Carers perceived themselves negatively compared to their partners’ view of them. Regarding question 1b, carers feel negatively about themselves due to difficulties in the transition to the role of ‘carer’. They experience a lack of recognition for this caring role as a result of concealing the burden of care. Carers require more long term support from health services to help them achieve recognition for their role, such as facilitating attendance at support groups. Chapter 5 addresses questions 2a and 2b. Carers’ and PwABIs’ perspective ratings revealed only one disagreement and corresponding misunderstanding regarding PwABI identity. Regarding question 2b, alignment was found between the perspectives of carers and PwABI regarding PwABI due to the relational rating method used. It is carer identity which is the source of most divergences of perspective, not PwABI identity as commonly assumed. Using a relational rating method shows promise as a tool to explore perspectives as it treats all viewpoints as equal and avoids pathologising the perspective of PwABI. Chapter 6 addresses questions 3a and 3b. Analysis of strategies shows that completing a joint task is a collaborative process. Carers direct the background of the task but PwABI are in charge of the foreground, making task decisions. However, carers dominate the process and control where and how PwABI contribute. Regarding question 3b, the interaction meets the criteria for scaffolding in the strategies chosen and the flexibility of collaboration. However, removal of supports is often an unrealistic goal, leading to frustration in carers. Examination of processes of collaboration has elucidated the strategies used by carers and PwABI and can enhance theoretical discussion of the applicability of the scaffolding metaphor for a cognitively impaired adult sample. Chapter 7 address questions 4a and 4b. Disagreements were frequent when completing the DLA form. Contestations were almost exclusively in the direction of carers seeing greater disability than PwABI. Regarding question 4b, carers see greater disability due to the communication required to complete the form. Dyads are forced to confront disability, a pattern of interaction they avoid in everyday life. Carers marginalise PwABI point of view and position themselves as ‘expert’ on the PwABI. Differences in frames of reference regarding audience, aim and scope lead carers to maximise the disability and PwABI to minimise this. The impact of completing complex forms on relationships and identity needs to be considered during development of disability benefit assessment methods. A relational approach which studies both halves of informal care partnerships simultaneously allows us to go beyond outcomes of ABI and affords a greater understanding of processes of adaptation.

The complexity in the world is continuously increasing. Teams are faced with imperfect information in uncertain, dynamic, and time critical environments as they strive to make the right decisions, not just as individuals, but as a team. In this joint activity the members choreograph their actions and synchronize their behavior through the use of communication. Communication is the predominant form of interaction within teams – it is not only a window into team cognition – it is an externalized cognitive process at a team level (Letsky, Warner, Fiore &amp; Smith, 2008). In an earlier study, non-professional participants were trained in teams of three to become high-performing within the C3Fire microworld (Baroutsi, Berggren, Nählinder and Johansson, 2013). In this microworld the team members are faced with the dynamic decision problem of fighting a forest fire. They have interdependent roles, requiring them to coordinate and strategize on a team level, making C3Fire a suitable platform for investigating dynamic decision making in teams. These six trained teams were compared to six untrained teams in a final experiment through a variety of measures, showing that the trained teams differed significantly in terms of both performance and in other important team aspects (Baroutsi, Berggren, Johansson, Nählinder, Granlund, Turcotte, &amp; Tremblay, 2014; Berggren, Baroutsi, Johansson, Turcotte, &amp; Tremblay, 2014; Berggren, Johansson, Baroutsi, &amp; Dahlbäck, 2014; Berggren, Johansson, Svensson, Baroutsi, &amp; Dahlbäck, 2014; Baroutsi, Berggren, Johansson, manuscript). These differences were thought to have an impact on the communication shared among the team members. Hence, the purpose of the present report was to investigate how the communication pattern was affected by these differences. The communication was analyzed using a coding scheme that categorized the content of the teams’ utterances. No difference was found in terms of communication frequency between the two types of teams. However, the trained and untrained teams did differ in communication content. The trained teams communicated more frequently about the context and the situation, while the untrained teams communicated more about the activities of the team. This can be interpreted as a deficiency in common ground, directability, and interpredictability (Klein, Feltovich &amp; Bradshaw, 2005) among the untrained teams. Also, the communication content explained 88.3 % of the variance in performance. / I en värld av ständigt ökande komplexitet, som karaktäriseras av ofullständig information och dynamiska, tidskritiska miljöer, strävar människor efter att fatta rätt beslut – inte som individer – utan även som ett team. I denna gemensamma aktivitet behöver medlemmarna synkronisera sina handlingar, vilket utförs med hjälp av kommunikation. Kommunikationen är den dominerande formen av interaktion inom ett team, och är även en externalisering av teamets kognitiva processer (Letsky, Warner, Fiore &amp; Smith, 2008). I en tidigare studie har oerfarna deltagare tränats i team om tre, för att bli högpresterande inom mikrovärlden C3Fire (Baroutsi, Berggren, Nählinder och Johansson, 2013). I denna mikrovärld står teammedlemmarna inför ett dynamiskt beslutsproblem - att bekämpa en skogsbrand. Rollerna i teamet är ömsesidigt beroende av varandra, vilket kräver att de samordnar och lägger upp strategier på en teamnivå för att på ett framgångsrikt sätt kunna lösa uppgiften. Dessa sex tränade team jämfördes sedan med sex otränade team i ett experiment. Flera mått användes för att bedöma teamen (CARS, DATMA, Shared Priorities, m.fl.), vilket visade att de tränade teamen skilde sig både avseende prestation, men även inom andra viktiga teamaspekter (Baroutsi, Berggren, Johansson, Nählinder, Granlund, Turcotte, &amp; Tremblay, 2014; Berggren, Baroutsi, Johansson, Turcotte, &amp; Tremblay, 2014; Berggren, Johansson, Baroutsi, &amp; Dahlbäck, 2014; Berggren, Johansson, Svensson, Baroutsi, &amp; Dahlbäck, 2014; Baroutsi, Berggren, Johansson, manuskript). Syftet med denna rapport är att undersöka hur kommunikationsmönstret påverkas av dessa skillnader. Kommunikationen analyserades med hjälp av ett kodningsschema där innehållet i teamens uttalanden kategoriseras. De två olika typerna av team uppvisade ingen skillnad i antalet uttalanden, men skillnader fanns för olika kommunikationskategorier. De tränade teamen kommunicerade oftare angående sammanhanget och situationen, medan de otränade teamen oftare kommunicerade om de aktiviteter som pågick. Detta kan tolkas som en brist i den gemensamma förståelsen, styrbarheten och förutsägbarheten mellan teamets medlemmar (Klein, Feltovich &amp; Bradshaw, 2005) hos de otränade teamen. Kommunikationsinnehållet förklarade 88,3 % av variationen i prestationen. / The Swedish Armed Forces research and development (R&D) project AVALO

No description available.

No description available.