The five mutual-modelling experiments varied how important it was to build an accurate model (task) and how difficult it was to build one (setting)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The reported experiments were designed to vary systematically in terms of tasks and settings, covering how important it is to build an accurate model and how difficult it is to build one. → Dillenbourg 2016

Evidence¶

Dillenbourg 2016¶

Dillenbourg, P., Lemaignan, S., Sangin, M., Nova, N., & Molinari, G. (2016). The symmetry of partner modelling. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9235-5

q3 · i? · associational · r?

Descriptive statement of the study design: five experiments on collaborative problem solving or collaborative learning, deliberately spanning variation along two dimensions, task demands for accurate modelling and setting difficulty. The abstract states this design rationale without printing outcome statistics.

"We report on 5 experiments on collaborative problem solving or collaborative learning that vary in terms of tasks (how important it is to build an accurate model) and settings (how difficult it is to build an accurate model)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In most of the reported collaborative experiments, the accuracy of the partner model A built about B was correlated with the accuracy of the model B built about A
• Partner-model quality emerges through the task and is sensitive to awareness tools and media richness, partly contradicting the assumption that partner modelling is an individual skill — related
• The quality of mutual models appears to depend more on the quality of interactions than on individual representational abilities — related