MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2970232980 · doi:10.35199/epde2019.15

ASSESSMENT OF COLLABORATIVE DESIGN: A SOCIOCULTURAL APPROACH

2019· article· en· W2970232980 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSociocultural evolutionSocial constructivismCollaborative learningKnowledge managementActivity theoryProcess (computing)Learning theoryComputer scienceSocial learningManagement scienceProcess managementEngineeringSociologyPedagogy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This article adopts a sociocultural perspective, based on a Designerly version of Activity Theory, to propose a coherent framework in response to the challenges of assessing collaborative design. In reaction to the transforming requirements of professional designers, educational establishments need to adapt their pedagogical strategies and offer students collaborative projects during their training as this approach is now a widely-spread practice for innovative companies. Many authors conclude that efforts are needed to ensure its proper integration and successful unfolding for the learners. An important challenge to the comprehensive integration of collaborative design in learning situations resides in its proper, fair and coherent assessment. A number of gaps between the intention and the implantation of collaboration are identified. First of all, a gap is noted between the conditions of social learning and those of individual assessment. This raises interrogations about the conflicting paradigms guiding traditional assessment practices and contemporary socio-constructivist learning strategies. Secondly, another gap is found when assessing the value of a final team product over the complexity of the collaborative design process. While design is a social process (Bucciarelli, 1988), the assessment of a single final stage is puzzling. Referring to the authors’ previous studies, Activity Theory (AT) propose unexplored avenues towards the coherent assessment of collaborative design. The theory brings to light the operative components of an activity and the tensions persisting amongst its components (Engeström, 1999). In harmony with collaborative dynamics, AT seeks the active participation of actors in reaching systemic comprehension of sociocultural and organizational issues to propose coherent solutions. The sociocultural perspective is based on the concept of mediation according to which an interaction is never direct, but always mediated by a third component of the model. In a team assessment context, mediation allows the ‘re-socialisation’ of the object being assessed (Morissette, 2009), encouraging the emergence of a discussion space between the assessor and the team. AT recognize the benefits of such formative interventions through the concept of “knotworking”, defined as a form of collaboration emerging from a shared object: from unorganized collaborative efforts toward an expanded object – in our case assessment (Sannino & Ellis, 2014; Engeström, 2015). Formative interventions allow to revise incomplete or invalid knowledge and enhance learning by motivating reflective and critical thinking within the educational activity. Adopting a sociocultural perspective, this article will seek to investigate the following questions: What should be the object of assessment emerging from the re-socialisation process of a collaborative project? And, how should it be assessed? The introduction of the new Designerly interpretation of Activity Theory (d.AT), will allow to frame an assessment strategy on its strong theoretical foundations. In brief, the strategy aims at actively involving teams of learners to assess collaborative design in a coherent manner according to the emerging distinctiveness of these complex learning situations. The assessment strategy evolved around the 13 components of the d.AT model. The article will propose clear definitions of each of the components in order to propose ways to implement those within the design project-based learning pedagogy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,901
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,098
Tête enseignante GPT0,454
Écart entre enseignants0,356 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle