The symmetry of partner modelling

  • Pierre Dillenbourg
  • Séverin LemaignanEmail author
  • Mirweis Sangin
  • Nicolas Nova
  • Gaëlle Molinari


Collaborative learning has often been associated with the construction of a shared understanding of the situation at hand. The psycholinguistics mechanisms at work while establishing common grounds are the object of scientific controversy. We postulate that collaborative tasks require some level of mutual modelling, i.e. that each partner needs some model of what the other partners know/want/intend at a given time. We use the term “some model” to stress the fact that this model is not necessarily detailed or complete, but that we acquire some representations of the persons we interact with. The question we address is: Does the quality of the partner model depend upon the modeler’s ability to represent his or her partner? Upon the modelee’s ability to make his state clear to the modeler? Or rather, upon the quality of their interactions? We address this question by comparing the respective accuracies of the models built by different team members. 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). In 4 studies, the accuracy of the model that A built about B was correlated with the accuracy of the model that B built about A, which seems to imply that the quality of interactions matters more than individual abilities when building mutual models. However, these findings do not rule out the fact that individual abilities also contribute to the quality of modelling process.


Cognitive modelling Grounding Theory of mind 



The experiments were developed with the help of Mirweis Sangin, René Glaus, Patrick Jermann, Fabien Girardin, Marc-Antoine Nüssli, Thomas Werhle, Yvan Bourquin and Jeremy Goslin. We also thank Kshitij Sharma and Łukasz Kidziński for their help with data analysis. The main funding has been provided from a NSF Grant grant #102511-106940.


  1. Anderson, A.H., O’Malley, C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Langton, S., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., Fleming, A.M., & Van der Velden, J. (1997). The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US, pp 133–155. Computers, cognition, and work.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., & Stephan, C. (1978). Sikes J, The jigsaw classroom. Sage Publications, Snapp M.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches 31–63.Google Scholar
  4. Blaye, A., & Light, P. (1995). Collaborative problem solving with HyperCard: the influence of peer interaction on planning and information handling strategies. In: Computer supported collaborative learning, Springer, pp 3–22.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, S.E. (1991). Conversation with and through computers. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 1(1), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherubini, M., Van Der Pol, J., & Dillenbourg, P. (2005). In Grounding is not shared understanding: Distinguishing grounding at an utterance and knowledge level CONTEXT’05, the Fifth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (pp. 11–23).Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M.T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M.W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science, 13(2), 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, H.H., & Brennan, S.E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 13(1991), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, H.H., & Marshall, C.R. (2002). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. Psycholinguistics: critical concepts in psychology 414.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, H.H., & Schaefer, E.F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive science, 13(2), 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, H.H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of cscl macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15 (1), 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M.J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science 189–211.Google Scholar
  15. Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations. European journal of social psychology, 5(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaver, W.W., Sellen, A., Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1993). One is not enough: Multiple views in a media space. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 335–341).Google Scholar
  17. Hutchins, E., & Palen, L. (1997). Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In Discourse, Tools and Reasoning (pp. 23–40): Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., Bolger, N., & etal (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. The handbook of social psychology, 1(4), 233–265.Google Scholar
  19. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liben, L.S., Patterson, A.H., & Newcombe, N. (1981). Spatial representation and behavior across the life span. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Molinari, G., Sangin, M., Nüssli, M.A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Effects of knowledge interdependence with the partner on visual and action transactivity in collaborative concept mapping. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on International Conference for the Learning Sciences - Volume 2 (pp. 91–98).Google Scholar
  22. Moreland, R.L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge.Google Scholar
  23. Nova, N., Girardin, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Location is not enough!: an empirical study of location-awareness in mobile collaboration. In IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (pp. 21–28).Google Scholar
  24. Nova, N., Girardin, F., Molinari, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2006). The underwhelming effects of automatic location-awareness on collaboration in a pervasive game. In Cooperative Systems Design: Seamless Integration of Artifacts and Conversations-Enhanced Concepts of Infrastructure for Communication (pp. 224–238).Google Scholar
  25. Nova, N., Wehrle, T., Goslin, J., Bourquin, Y., & Dillenbourg, P. (2007). Collaboration in a multi-user game: impacts of an awareness tool on mutual modeling. Multimedia tools and Applications, 32(2), 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation, 4(2-3), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S.D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97): Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M.A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). How learners use awareness cues about their peer’s knowledge?: insights from synchronized eye-tracking data. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 2, International Society of the Learning Sciences (pp. 287–294).Google Scholar
  30. Schober, M.F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47 (1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz, D.L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slugoski, B.R., Lalljee, M., Lamb, R., & Ginsburg, G.P. (1993). Attribution in conversational context: Effect of mutual knowledge on explanation-giving. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(3), 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stahl, G. (2007). Meaning making in CSCL: Conditions and preconditions for cognitive processes by groups. In Proceedings of the 8th iternational conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 652–661).Google Scholar
  34. Suthers, D.D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for cscl. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Traum, D., & Dillenbourg, P. (1996). Miscommunication in multi-modal collaboration. In AAAI Workshop on Detecting, Repairing, and Preventing Human–Machine Miscommunication (pp. 37–46).Google Scholar
  36. Webb, N.M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for research in mathematics education 366–389.Google Scholar
  37. Wegner, D.M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Theories of Group Behavior (pp. 185–208): Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Dillenbourg
    • 1
  • Séverin Lemaignan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mirweis Sangin
    • 2
  • Nicolas Nova
    • 3
  • Gaëlle Molinari
    • 4
  1. 1.Computer-Human Interaction in Learning and InstructionÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Use-able consultingLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Haute École Arts, Design de GenéveGenéveSwitzerland
  4. 4.Distance Learning University Switzerland (Unidistance)SierreSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations