Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Collaborative learning in an educational robotics

environment
Brigitte Denis*, Sylviane Hubert
Service de Technologie de l’Education, Centre de Recherche sur l’Instrumentation en Formation
et Apprentissage, Université de Liège au Sart-Tilman,
Bât. B32, 4000 Liège, Belgium

Abstract
Learning to collaborate is an important educational goal. The concept of collaborative
learning is differently defined by several authors. Problem solving and problem-based learning
are also important in our educational framework. We shall situate and clarify here the
instructional design concepts used in an educational setting based on a ‘‘collaborative and
problem based learning environment’’ applied to educational robotics. Educational robotics
activities are developed at several school levels (primary, secondary) and in adults’ training
contexts. The instructional design of such learning activities is based on a constructivist
approach of learning. Their educational objectives are varied. In our approach, the goal is not
only that the learners acquire specific skills (e.g. knowledge on electricity, electronics, robot-
ics. . .), but also and mainly demultiplicative, strategic and dynamic skills. The methodology
focuses on collaboration to design and develop common projects and on problem solving
skills development. The pupils work in small groups (2–4). In the reported research, some
learners’ interactions have been observed during the activity in a primary school with an
observation grid. The analysis of the verbalisations between the learners and their actions on
the computers, and the robotics materials coming from those observations offer the opportu-
nity to study the way the learners are collaborating. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Constructivism; Collaboration; Educational robotics; Evaluation; Educational technology;
Problem based learning

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-4-366-20-72; fax: +32-4-366-29-53.

E-mail address: b.denis@ulg.ac.be (B. Denis).

0747-5632/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0747-5632(01)00018-8
466 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

1. Introduction

This paper focuses on an activity based on collaborative and problem-based

learning called ‘‘educational robotics’’. Its instructional design implies the choice of
some teaching and learning methods, of classroom management parameters, of tools
to be used (e.g. computers, robotics material, reference guides, etc.) to reach deter-
mined objectives. The regulation of such activity needs the use of evaluation tools.
Here they consist in observation grids that permit coding of social interactions
between peers and actions on the didactic materials.

2. Context: the educational robotics framework

Educational robotics (ER) consists in building and programming small robots and
conducting them with the help of computer programs that have to be built by the
learners themselves. Different approaches are observed in educational robotics
applications (Denis, 1993a; Denis & Baron, 1993). They aim to develop some
learners’ competencies such as problem solving strategies, the formalisation of
thought, the socialisation as well as the acquisition of various concepts. In four
emerging trends from the ER use several differences related to their fields of application
can be observed (Denis & Baron, 1993):
1. a technocentric approach aimed at the development of technical situations
often close to the industrial world (Delannoy, 1993; Nicoud, 1993; Tauriac,
1993),
2. an approach based on the creation and exploration of microworlds based on the
learner’s project (Denis, 1993; Leroux, 1997; Limbos, 1993; Morato, 1993;
Napierala et al., 1993; Sougné, 1993; Vivet, 1993; Papert, 1984),
3. an approach based on the theory of the cognitive spectacles or computer assisted
experimentation, connected to scientific contents (Nonnon, 1986; Cervera &
Nonnon, 1993; Girouard & Nonnon, 1997; Hudon & Nonnon, 1993;
Macherez, 1993; Marchand, 1993; Nonnon, 1993; Rellier & Sourdillat, 1993),
4. a programming or algorithmic approach (Duchateau, 1993).
Among those approaches, the specific objectives and the methodologies are var-
ied, even if the epistemological bases of the activities are all based on an interac-
tionist constructivism. The interdisciplinary aspect of this activity has also been
emphasised. In fact, it is difficult to classify educational robotics within one given
discipline since projects often vary, switching from one kind of approach to another
one.
In addition, the target public is also varied, since ER addresses learners from ele-
mentary school to adult’s training.
The approach we have adopted in our study is the second one: exploration and
creation of microworlds. Here, the learners’ task is complex and based on a mean-
ingful project shared by the two peers involved in it. This groupwork should con-
tribute to the learners’ motivation throughout the learning activity.
 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480 467

Fig. 1. Architecture of competencies (Leclercq, 1987).

3. Learning objectives and learning/teaching paradigms

Two models, a four level architecture of competencies and the six learning/teaching
paradigms help to analyse and characterise the educational robotics activities (Fig. 1).

3.1. The architecture of competencies

Regardless of the approaches (out of the four options), the ER learning objectives
mentioned earlier can also be categorised referring to Leclercq’s (1987) model of the
architecture of competencies. He suggested that four types of competencies should
be considered:

Levels of architecture of competencies E.R. objectives

Dynamic
The dynamic competencies are related to (Personal) project.
MOTIVATION, i.e. the pleasure a person Meaningful activity.
experiences in doing things, in learning
specific, demultiplicative or strategic
competencies. This level is the most vulnerable:
it can be easily affected. It is also the most
‘‘penetrating’’, i.e. the motor that drives the rest
when facing a new domain which the learner
has to enter. Those competencies correspond to
the learner’s initiative, will, pleasure and
displeasure, perseverance, rigor, . . .including
one’s own image as a person being able and
motivated to learn.

Strategic
The strategic competencies are concerned Problem solving and
with METACOGNITION, i.e. knowing formalisation of thought:
oneself (as a learner, as an actor, etc.), one’s structuring the problem,
weaknesses and one’s talents, and developing definition and test of
strategies to adapt to complex situations (for hypotheses, conclusions, . . .
468 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

instance to choose which demultiplicative Socialisation: collaboration,

competency to use for learning in given socio-cognitive conflicts, . . .
circumstances). They concern planning (e.g.
how much time will it take me to master a
given subject, to do a specific work), problem
solving (e.g. analysis and structuring the problem,
decision making, . . .), communication and
cooperation (how much and when do I need
others? in which respect?) and self estimation of
knowledge (to know one’s degree of expertise in
a domain: what do I know? what do I not know?).
Demultiplicative
The demultiplicative competencies (LEARNING Reading, listening, notes
TOOLS) enable the learner to get information by taking, consultation of
him/herself and acquire more specific reference guides, using
competencies: reading, listening, notes taking, the computer.
communicating, interviewing, using the computer
to consult a database or to produce texts,
referring to guides, etc.
Specific
The specific competencies (ELEMENTS OF Electronics components,
COGNITION skills) deal with specific contents types of electric circuits,
(e.g. geography, history, physics, vocabulary of programming instructions,
a language, . . .) and are hardly transferable. production procedures,
These specific competencies are infinite and a syntax of a given
human being can (and has to) know only some computer language, . . .
of them.

This four levels architecture of competencies model offers a useful conceptual

framework which allows the learner to address important questions related to the
objectives and the methodology to choose: do we want the learners just to acquire
specific competencies or should they acquire strategic level skills?, etc.
Several relationships between competencies and educational robotics approaches
have been described in Denis and Hubert (1999). We shall hereafter just focus on
strategic ones since they deal with abilities such as collaborating and interacting with
each other and to some aspects of problem solving.

3.2. Six learning/teaching paradigms

Like other educational situations, educational robotics activities can be described

and analysed referring to the ‘‘six teaching and learning paradigms’’ model (Denis &
Leclercq, 1994; Leclercq & Denis, 1998; Fig. 2). These paradigms imply very differ-
ent kinds of interactions between trainers and learners and the proportion of
the learner’s and trainer’s initiatives mostly depends on the chosen paradigms.
 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480 469

Fig. 2. Six learning/teaching paradigms (Leclercq & Denis, 1998).

Moreover, according to the paradigm, the learner develops some particular compe-
tencies (e.g. the paradigm of ‘‘creation’’ will develop more competencies such as
demultiplicative, strategic and dynamic ones than specific ones).
Whatever the considered paradigm, we find social interactions between peers and
between the trainer and the learners. Those interactions intervene as ‘‘learning cat-
alysts’’. Nevertheless, we may consider that actual collaborative learning situations
will mostly appear in the three paradigms that allows more learner’s self-initiative
(creation, experimentation, exploration) than the others.
For us, our approach, which is based on ‘‘microworlds’’, will essentially consider
creation, that will also lead the learner to develop behaviours linked to exploration and
experimentation, but always referring to learners’ personal projects. Nevertheless, that
does not imply that a trainer will always base the activity only on creation. He/she can
decide that the learner will have the initiative to define and realise a project (build the
robots and program them), but at some moments provide a synthesis about the new
notions encountered and enrich them with new concepts (transmission/reception).

Learning/teaching paradigms ER objectives

Creation Two facets of creation of an educational robotics
activity are pointed here. One refers to the
building of the robot, and, the other, to the
writing of a program.
Programming a computer with a given language
can always be considered as creation since the
learner can choose the movements the robot will
execute. When the general design is defined by the
trainer (Nicoud, 1993; Vivet, 1993) or by an other
learner, the creativity relies on the way to build
the robot and the program, but not in the
project choice.
470 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

Exploration To do this, the learners can explore some didactic

materials (e.g. reference guides, help on line, . . .).
We could also consider the elaboration of theories
by the learners. But it is a common core between
the different approaches of the educational robotics
since it is based on constructivism: inside the
activity, the learners have the opportunity to
experiment by trial and error (experimentation) and
build their process and personal theories about the
current topic. How they create those theories and
representations are and have to be studied by
researchers (Limbos, 1993).
Experimentation The creation of original robots mainly depends on
the flexibility of the materials. For instance, in the
‘‘computer assisted experimentation’’ or ‘‘cognitive
spectacles’’ approach, the learner has a standard
material that will allow him/her to make his/her
own experiments on a specific topic [e.g. build a
model about how a battery functions (Marchand,
1993), about refrigeration systems (Hudon &
Nonnon, 1993), breathing metabolism (Rellier &
Sourdillat, 1993), . . .].

Imitation But, the learners could also build their robot or

Reception automate from their imagination with salvage of
waste products (of Saldano) or with materials
such as kits sold by Fischertechnik1, Lego1,
Inventa1, . . . even if those societies also provide
with their materials some guidelines to build the
robots. If those guides are used, it leads to the
application of paradigms such as imitation
(watching a video or observing a model) and
transmission/reception (reading to guidelines).
Emerging activities based on virtual robotics also
appear now; they refer to several approaches
(Meurice de Dormale, 1997; Nonnon, 1997).

4. A collaborative problem based learning

The learning activity proposed here is based upon two main methodological
principles: problem based and collaborative learning.
 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480 471

4.1. Problem based learning

Problem based learning (PBL) is based on a constuctivist approach of learning:

the learner is at the centre and builds his/her knowledge. PBL has some common
features with the ‘‘pedagogy of the project’’ (cf. Freinet, Le Grain), even if some-
times the project is given by the tutor and not especially a learner’s personal project.
PBL deeply implies the learners in the learning/training process since he/she (or
the group) has to define a strategy to solve the proposed problem (cf. Barrows &
Tamblyn, 1977; EARLI Instructional design, 1998; Leclercq & Van Der Vleuten,
1998).
Sometimes, the teacher suggests the project. Defining and managing such problem-
solving situations based on personal project is not very easy for the trainer and the
learners. In fact, those educational practices are not often developed among the
teachers and they prefer to adopt a constructivist methodology. With the learners
involved in a problem-solving situation, one has mainly to try to adopt teaching and
learning paradigms such as exploration, experimentation and creation (Leclercq &
Denis, 1998).
Hubert & Denis (1998, p. 33) define a ‘‘problem situation’’ or ‘‘challenge’’ as
follows:
1. a ‘‘desequilibrating’’ situation, an obstacle;
2. an enigma (whose solution is not a priori known);
3. a problem that answers a need;
4. a problem that is significant for the learner;
5. a problem whose complexity, duration and length match with the learner’s
capacities and availability;
6. a problem that can support various topics (even parallel) in the classroom; and
7. the opportunity to seek for information coming from different sources.
This list is not exhaustive. It just helps to determine if a proposed situation is a
real problem solving one. All the criteria do not have to be present. Nevertheless,
some of them are more fundamental than others. That is the case for the criteria 1– 5.
This approach has been used in secondary schools to manage activities linked to
the course of Education par la technologie (Hubert & Denis, 1998) and in a research
on the pedagogical uses of Internet (Hubert, Denis, Detroz, & Demily, 2000).
In the present context of ER activities, small groups (two or three students) have
to manage the challenge to realise their personal projects, so they have to solve
meaningful problems.

4.2. Cooperative and collaborative learning

Interactions between peers are an important and well known factor on the cognitive
development, since there are confrontations of points of view (Mugny, 1985; Doise &
Mugny, 1981; Perret Clermont, 1979) or exchanges of skills or strategies (Clark &
Lampert, 1986) or reflections on one’s practice to help to regulate it (Denis, 1990). The
share of core knowledge and the interaction between the learners’ proximal zones of
472 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

development (Vygostsky, 1962) permit learning by the way of social interactions

(Lewis, 1996). The management of educational situations based on PBL and colla-
borative learning such as the S.E.R.P (Séquences d’Entraı̂nement à la Résolution de
Problèmes; Leclercq, 1979) or the LOGO environment (Denis, 1990) helps the learners
to structure their knowledge, but also implies some changes in the teacher’s role.
The definitions of collaboration and cooperation are not unanimous. Even if dif-
ferent typologies or taxonomies of collaboration situations exist (Bennett & Dunne,
1991; Pepitone, 1985), they finally always deal with the contribution of individual
competencies to an explicit common objective and on the repartition of the group
members’ roles.
According to Rogalski (Peeters et al., 1998), we shall retain ‘‘three main form of
cooperation, depending on the relation between the task and the actors of the collec-
tive work: (1) collaboration, for the situations where the actors share the same goals all
along the task realisation; (2) distributed cooperation, for the situations where sub-
tasks having a common goal are a priori distributed among different actors; and
finally (3) mediatisation, when an actor is in the situation of let other actors execute
tasks that participate to the realisation of his/her mission defined at a more general
level’’. To the term mediatisation that generally refers to the notion of media, we pre-
fer the expression cooperative delegation that refers more to the activity itself.
As we shall see hereafter, in our educational robotics activity, we can talk about
collaboration inside the groups and about distributed cooperation between them
since the learners share and work on a common objective or sometimes since their
project will be part of a bigger one (e.g. build a city with cars, trains, pedestrians
passages, . . .; Chung, 1991; Lewis, 1996; Peeters et al, 1998; Slavin, 1986).
Collaboration can be a learning topic, in a creative activity (here try to answer to a
challenge or realise a project) (of Learn Nett, 1999). In fact, we have observed in
another situation that collaboration or cooperation can be learned and regulated at
the level of the roles or actions of the members of a group (Denis, 1981). It is
important to structure the collaboration to obtain benefits from it: self-esteem,
socialisation, etc.
Considered at distance or not, synchronously or not, we consider that collabora-
tive learning:

1. Reduces the gap between teachers and learners: in collaborative learning

environments, the trainer’s role evolves and becomes that of a facilitator, reg-
ulator of the learners’ interactions. When learning is at distance, the tutors’
role also deals with the management of learners’ interactions (Charlier, Daele,
Cheffert, & Peeters, 1999a; Charlier et al, 1999b; Peeters et al, 1998).
2. Leads to active and creative learning: the learners have goals and problems to
solve together. They create knowledge.
3. Creates a sense of community: considering the evolution of our society to a
knowledge and information society, it is very important to accentuate their
sharing and to focus on the development of community of practices and refer-
ences among the members of groups or organisations to reinforce their coher-
ence and efficiency. ER could help to reach this kind of goals.
 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480 473

5. Evaluation process

Hereafter, the evaluation process will only focus on some aspects of the learning
process. The observation will not consider the different levels of the educational
system, but it will contribute to study and regulate the interactions between peers in
a collaborative learning environment.

5.1. The regulation process

We shall situate our ER activity referring to the regulation process described by

Leclercq (1995). This author defines six phases in any regulated process (or teaching/
learning process) that we have illustrated referring to the ER framework:
1. Needs analysis or problem identification: we consider here that it is the fact
that everybody should acquire a technological culture and competencies of the
four levels described earlier (cf. Fig. 1).
2. Project or definition of the general objectives: among several possible projects,
we choose to develop ER activities to contribute to answer the needs.
3. Planning or operationalisation: the ER activities are planned in the agenda
(e.g. 2 h per week), with specific materials, in a group of three students, with
detailed objectives (a learner’s target profile) and methodology (an animator’s
profile) (Denis, 1993).
4. Action or execution: the activity is organised. The learners and teacher act and
interact.
5. Observation or measure: the observation of the process is possible with ade-
quate tools (see later).
6. Decisions of regulations or feedback loops: the results of observations help to
take decision to ameliorate the activity.
This process can also be presented in different numbers of phases: in four phases
(Hornke & Kluge, 1996; Leroy, 1991), in six (other) phases (Bahr, 1990), in seven
phases (Brien, 1986), in eight phases (Gagne & Briggs, 1986), in 17 phases (Kessels &
Smit, 1994). These phases are also observed at several levels, for instance the society,
the organisations (e.g. companies, schools, . . .), teachers, learners, . . . (Denis, 1997).
The retroaction coming from the results of the evaluation will deal with one (or
several) phase(s) of the regulation process. So the feedback loop can be as shown in
Fig. 3.

5.2. Evaluation tools

To focus our observation and regulation on the interactions between learners, we

have chosen to develop observation grids (Denis, 1993b; Denis & Villette, 1995). The
analysis of the verbalisations between the learners and their actions on tools such as
the computers, the robotics materials and reference guides coming from those
observations offer the opportunity to study the way the learners are collaborating
and use those tools.
474 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

Fig. 3. Combined loops of regulation.

The data collected permits analysis of what has happened during the action phase
and to regulate it (during the next activity—R4) or eventually to regulate the plan-
ning phase (R3—e.g. modify the target profile of a learner: having observed some
difficulties related to prerequisites, decide not to focus first on computer skills).
There are two grids, one deals with the learners’ behaviours, the other one with
the animator’s ones. To directly code interactions between the learners and their
actions we use the first one (with 25 categories of coding). So the results can be
communicated to the animator and the learners just after the activity and decisions
of regulation can be taken at once.
In this grid, some categories focus more on the collaboration between learners.
The interactions between learners can be observed by verbalisations (elicitations,
explanations, descriptions and evaluations). But the collaboration can also exist
concerning the actions of building of the robots and programming them.

6. Learners’ collaboration in an educational robotics environment

We shall focus here on learners’ collaborative behaviours when they are involved
in an ER activity. What are their roles? How are the tasks distributed?

6.1. ER activity and observations

We shall present, hereafter, some results from the observation of two couples of
students of a primary school in Liège (cf. Villette, 1995). They are 10 years old. The
two groups have been observed during six periods of 80 min.
In this classroom, only one computer is equipped with the ER interface and soft-
ware and there is just a little robotics material. The pupils worked on LOGO for 2
years. In the approach that we have adopted, the task is generally complex and
based on a meaningful project. The task of the couple 1 was to build and program a
robot or an automate with some LEGO1 material; the second one has to under-
stand what was a prebuilt model (a merry go round) and to let it move with the
help of the computer. Since the creation paradigm appears both in building and
 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480 475

programming for the group 1, we can consider that it will involve the pupils in
strong collaboration and the development of dynamic competencies (linked to the
development of their own project). This could be less observed in the second group
that only has to invent the computing program.

6.2. Hypotheses

Our hypotheses are:

1. The learners collaborate during the definition and the realisation of the ER
project: they use the tools provided in the environment and are task centred.
2. There is a repartition of the tasks (build the robot, program it and verbalise the
process) between the learners.
3. There is less collaboration behaviours observed in group 2 than in group 1.
4. When there is a leader among the group, it is possible to regulate the interac-
tions between the learners in order to let the others act and verbalise more than
observed.
5. Socio-cognitive conflicts have positive effect on the structuration and the rea-
lisation of the learners’ project.

ER activity’s observations allow us to obtain some indicators concerning these

hypotheses.

6.3. Results

Referring to Table 1, that indicates the behaviours of each pupil observed, some
of the hypotheses have been tested.

6.3.1. The learners collaborate during the definition and the realisation of the ER
project: they use the tools of the environment and are task centred
We can observe that:

1. During the activity the pupils of each group always work together and com-
municate about the task (Nx1=813, Ny1= 602, Nx2= 455, Ny2=481).
2. At least a quarter of their activity concerns the use of the didactic tools (27–
34%): they use the robotics materials (4–12%), the computer (5–19%), the
reference guides (2–7%) and they take and write personal notes (3–7%).
They also elicit many actions on computer, robotics material and documents
(20–25%).
3. They announce what they are going to do or have done (16–29%) and
ask questions about this (13–19%), so they talk about the project and how to
realise it.

There is a collaborative learning since the learners are ‘‘(i) more or less at the same
level and can perform the same action, (ii) have a common goal, and (iii) work
476 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

Table 1
Repartition of users’ behaviors

Behaviors Group 1 Group 2

X1 Y1 X2 Y2

Actions 218 27% 202 34% 125 27% 145 30%

Action on robotics materials (LEGOS) 95 12% 47 8% 19 4% 21 4%
Action on the computer 41 5% 80 13% 76 17% 91 19%
Action on reference documents 23 3% 45 7% 18 4% 9 2%
Action on notes (keeping/reading) 59 7% 30 5% 12 3% 24 5%
Towards the animator 21 3% 10 2% 19 4% 15 3%
Calls the animator 12 1% 6 1% 9 2% 7 1%
Listens to the animator 9 1% 4 1% 10 2% 8 2%

Verbalisations
Elicitation 314 39% 257 43% 168 37% 170 35%
of actions 20% 25% 22% 22%
Elicits a determined on the computer 29 4% 45 7% 42 9% 39 8%
Elicits an effect to produce on the computer 19 2% 23 4% 29 6% 36 7%
Elicits an action on robotics materials (LEGOS) 75 9% 30 5% 15 3% 24 5%
Elicits an action on documents 39 5% 50 8% 12 3% 9 2%
Of verbalisations 19% 18% 15% 13%
Elicits some information 27 3% 13 2% 8 2% 7 1%
Elicits a feedback, an agreement 25 3% 9 1% 5 1% 3 1%
Elicits an explanation—how? 12 1% 9 1% 6 1% 5 1%
Elicits an explanation—why? 19 2% 15 2% 6 1% 12 2%
Elicits a description—of an action 41 5% 50 8% 39 9% 26 5%
Elicits a description—of a project 28 3% 13 2% 6 1% 9 2%

Descriptions, explanations 158 19% 96 16% 131 29% 126 26%

Announces an action to realise 31 4% 30 5% 13 3% 21 4%
Describes a past action 10 1% 12 2% 6 1% 9 2%
Explains—how? 9 1% 12 2% 6 1% 9 2%
Explains how to structure the project, the action 12 1% 3 0% 6 1% 2 0%
Explains—why? 34 4% 10 2% 2 0% 4 1%
Evaluates 29 4% 12 2% 50 11% 42 9%
Predicts the result of an action 33 4% 17 3% 48 11% 39 8%

Yes/no 102 13% 37 6% 12 3% 25 5%

Agrees 72 9% 25 4% 9 2% 16 3%
Disagrees 30 4% 12 2% 3 1% 9 2%

Total behaviours 813 602 455 481

together’’ (cf. Dillembourg, quoted by Gross, 2000). We can also consider that all
the learners are task centred. They do not give up their project and interact about it.
Some demultiplicative skills (e.g. consultation of reference guides, note taking)
and strategic ones (e.g. explanations, collaboration,. . .) are observed (Table 1).
 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480 477

6.3.2. There is a repartition of the ‘‘tasks’’ (build the robot, program it and verbalise
the process) between the learners
Each pupil contributes to the robot creation (some more than others), especially in
group 1 (X1=12% and X2= 8%).
As foreseen, group 2 does not have a lot of action on the robotic materials (4%)
since the model is already built and then they have proportionally more verbal
interactions and behaviours centred on computer and robot programming.
Pupils of group 1 are complementary since the one (Y1) who uses the robotics
materials least (N=47 vs. 95 behaviours) programs the computer model (N=80 vs.
41). Explanations (how to do, why this consequence is observed, and project
decomposition) are given by everybody. X1 and Y1 also express evaluations (on the
work done) or predictions.

6.3.3. There are less collaboration behaviours in group 2 than in group 1

The type of projects (free or forced) seems to influence the quantity of behaviours:
there are more interactions in group 1 than in the second one (respectively, 1415 and
936). But this could also be linked to individual differences (Denis, 1993a). In fact,
both groups act and interact about the task, even if in the repartition of the beha-
viours, we observe few differences (e.g. less descriptions and explanations in group 1).
So we cannot conclude that the collaboration is qualitatively lower in group 2
than in group 1.

6.3.4. When there is a leader among the group, it is possible to regulate the
interactions between the learners in order to let the others act and verbalise more than
observed
In group 1, we observe 813 behaviours of pupil X1 and 602 for the pupil Y1.
Generally and proportionally, X1 acts more on the robotics materials, elicits more
action on it, explains, evaluates and predicts more actions, elicits information and
feedback and reacts (agrees or disagrees) more than Y1. In the second group, the
differences between the two pupils are less obvious: they have almost the same
number of behaviours. We can note that X2 elicits more action on reference docu-
ments and description of the action, evaluates and predicts more the result of his
action than Y2.
To regulate the leadership behaviours and help everybody to take part actively in
all the phases of the project, the animator has to play a certain role. For instance,
he/she can ask the pupils to use alternatively the computer, to take personal notes
or/and share them. He/she has to play the role of moderator until the pupils learn to
share and exchange regularly and autonomously their roles.

6.3.5. Socio-cognitive conflicts have positive effect on the structuration and the
realisation of the learners’ project
The present grid as it has been used does not allow pointing out socio-cognitive
conflicts that appear among the pupils. Nevertheless, if we observe sequentially
the learners’ actions and verbalisations, it is possible to identify some of them
(Denis, 1990).
478 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

The sequences of behaviours such as ‘‘explanation of action to be done; action on

the computer, negative feedback—explanations, . . .’’ should indicate the possible
presence of socio-cognitive conflicts (e.g. an ‘‘explanation A’’ confronted to an
‘‘explanation B’’). Nevertheless, this grid in itself does not allow a sequential analy-
sis. To do it, it is necessary to use video recording and to code and analyse the
behaviours a posteriori.

7. Conclusions and perspectives

ER environment centred on the learning paradigm of creation offers a great

opportunity to collaborate to a project, even if the teacher has imposed this one first.
The pupils have to create at least the program to move the robots. This permits
building of strategic competencies (e.g. explanations skills), demulptiplicative ones
(e.g. consultation of reference guides, note taking and specific ones (e.g. computer
programming).
Many interactions focused on the tasks are observed. The learners work together.
They mainly developed strategic competencies such as problem solving and colla-
boration. The type of interactions can vary inside a group and from one group to
another. Some leadership can appear in a couple of learners and be detected by
the coding of the activity. So the interpretation of the results can help to take the
decision to regulate the learners’ way to interact.
Coding directly the learners’ behaviours with the grid presented here is possible,
but is mainly focused on a cognitive dimensioning (some aspects of problem sol-
ving). The use of a more specific grid focused on social dimensions such as the roles
centred on the climate of the group or on the task (e.g. Bales) should permit obser-
vation of other types of learner interactions and attitudes.
The role of the trainer is also important in the method of animating groups and
reaching the objective of letting them collaborate on a project.

References

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1977). The portable patient pack (P4), a problem-based learning unit.
Journal of Medical Education, 52, 1002–1004.
Bennett, N., & Dunne, E. (1991). The nature and quality of talk in co-operative classroom groups,
Learning and Instruction, vol. 1, 103–118.
Brien, R. (1986). Design Pédagogique. Montréal: Les Editions Saint-Yves, Inc.
Cervera, D., & Nonnon, P. (1993). Démarche de modélisation en simulation assistée par ordinateur pour
l’apprentissage des concepts d’énergie des fluides. In B. Denis, & G.L. Baron (Eds.) (pp. 197–195).
Charlier, B., Daele, A., Cheffert, J. L., & Peeters, R. (1999a). Lusalusa, S., learning collaboratively in a
virtual campus: teachers’ experiences. Dublin: ISATT.
Charlier, B., Daele, A., Docq, F., Lebrun, M., Lusalusa, S., Peeters, R., & Deschryver, N. (1999b).
‘‘Tuteurs en ligne’’: quels rôles, quelle formation?. Poitiers: Entretiens du CNED.
Chung, J. (1991). Collaborative Learning Strategies: The Design of Instructional Environments for the
Emerging New School, Educational Technology (pp. 15–22).
Delannoy, P. (1993). Découverte micro-robotique: programmation sous hypercard. In Denis et Baron
(pp. 205–212).
 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480 479

Denis, B. (1990). Vers une auto-régulation des conduites d’animation en milieu LOGO. Thèse de doctorat
non publiée, Université de Liège.
Denis, B. (1993a). Measuring some cognitive effects of using control technology. In B. Denis (Ed.), Con-
trol technology in elementary education (Vol. 116; NATO ASI series, serie F: Computer and systems
sciences) (pp. 183–213). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Denis, B. (1993b). Réguler les interventions des formateurs en robotique pédagogique. In B. Denis & G.L.
Baron (Eds)
Denis, B. (1997, March). Evaluation of the implementation of NICT in higher education. In BITE Con-
ference ‘‘Bringing Information into Technology of Education’’ (pp. 366–378). Maestricht.
Denis, B., & Baron, G. L. (Eds.). (1993). Regards sur la robotique pédagogique. Actes du quatrième colloque
international sur la robotique pédagogique. Paris: INRP, Technologies nouvelles et éducation.
Denis, B., & Hubert, S. (1999). A conceptual framework of educational robotics. Colloque AI-ED 99, 9th
International conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AI-ED 99, Workshop on Educational
Robotics (pp. 45–54). Le Mans.
Denis, B., & Leclercq, D. (1994). The fundamental I.D.’s and their associated problems. In J. Lowyck & J.
Elen (Eds.), Modelling I.D. research, proceedings of the first workshop of the special interest group on
instructional design of EARLI, 17–19 June (pp. 67–83). Leuven.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1981). Le développement social de l’intelligence. Paris: Inter Editions.
Duchâteau, C. (1993). Robotique-informatique: mêmes ébats, mêmes débats, mêmes combats? In B.
Denis, & G.L. Baron (Eds). (pp. 10–33).
EARLI (1998). Instructional design for problem-based learning. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of
the EARLI SIG Instructional design, 26–27 June. University of Maastricht.
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J. (1986). Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Girouard, M., & Nonnon, P. (1997). La ‘‘lunette cognitive’’ pour l’acquisition d’un langage graphique de
codage, son influence sur l’atteinte d’objectifs terminaux des cours de physique à l’éducation des adultes.
Montréal: Vème colloque de robotique pédagogique.
Gros, B. (2000). Instructional design for computer-supported collaborative learning in primary ans sec-
ondary school. Fourth Workshop of the EARLI SIG Instructional design, 3–4 July, University of
Barcelona.
Hubert, S., Denis, B., Detroz, P., & Demily, F. (2000). Apprentissage et utilisation d’Internet. Comment
utiliser Internet à des fins éducatives? Comment évaluer les effets de l’emploi d’Internet sur le développe-
ment de compétences transversales et spécifiques chez les élèves de l’enseignement secondaire? Rapport,
Convention 71/99, Communauté française de Belgique.
Hudon, R. & Nonnon, P. (1993). Environnement pédagogique informatisé pour la ‘‘visualisation’’ de
systèmes techno-scientifiques. In B. Denis, & G.L. Baron (Eds.) (pp. 173–178).
Kessels, & Smit. (1994). Opleidings Kunde: Kluwer Bedrijffswetenschappen.
Learn Nett (1999). http://tecfa.unige.ch/proj/learnett/.
Leclercq, D. (1979). La complémentarité des approches clinique et expérimentale des processus de résolu-
tions de problèmes. Liège: Actes de la recontre belgo-suisse de Recherche en Sciences de l’Education.
Leclercq, D. (1987). L’ordinateur et les défis de l’apprentissage. Horizon, 13.
Leclercq, P. (1995). Approche Technologique de l’Education et de la Formation, Université de Liège.
Leclercq, D., & Denis, B. (1998). Méthodes de formation et psychologie de l’apprentissage. Service de
Technologie de l’Education de l’Université de Liège.
Leclercq, D. & Van Der Vleuten, C. (1998). Apprentissage Par Problèmes (APP). In Pour une pédagogie
universitaire de qualité. Liège: Mardaga (pp. 187–205).
Leroux, P. (1997). Roboteach: un assistant pédagogique logiciel dédié à l’alphabétisation en technologie.
Montréal: Vème colloque de robotique pédagogique.
Lewis, R. (1996, June). Working and learning in distributed communities. Universidad Autonoma de
Madrid, seminar, Computer Supported Learning Environments.
Limbos, B. (1993). L’utilisation de représentations graphiques en robotique pédagogique. In B. Denis, &
G.L. Baron (Eds.) (pp. 65–84).
Macherez, G. (1993). La robotique pédagogique au Collège I. Goffin de Mouzon. In Denis et Baron (pp.
155–160).
480 B. Denis, S. Hubert / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480

Marchand, D. (1993). Modélisation et mesures en sciences physiques et robotique pédagogique. In B.

Denis, & G. Baron (Eds.) (pp. 161–172).
Meurice de Dormale, R. (1997). Robotique virtuelle: environnement pour un apprentissage dynamique et
interactif de l’algorithmique. Montréal: Vème colloque de robotique pédagogique.
Morato, P. (1993). L’environnement LOGO et le développement de la cognition spatiale pour des enfants
atteints de Trisomie 21. In Denis et Baron (pp. 106–116).
Mugny, G. (1985). Psychologie sociale du développement cognitif. Berne: Peter Lang.
Napierala, D. et al. (1993). La robotique pédagogique au service de la pédagogie du projet. In Denis et
Baron (pp. 94–105).
Nicoud, J. D. (1993). Concours de robots. In B. Denis, & G.L. Baron (Eds.) (pp. 197–204).
Nonnon, P. (1986). Laboratoire d’initiation aux sciences assisté par ordinateur. Université de Montréal:
Faculté des Sciences de l’Education,.
Nonnon, P. (1993). Proposition d’un modèle de recherche développement technologique en éducation. In
B. Denis, & G.L. Baron (Eds.) (pp. 147–154).
Nonnon, P. (1997). Radioscopie virtuelle. Montréal: Vème colloque de robotique pédagogique.
Papert, S. (1984). Microworlds: transforming education. Paper presented at the ITT Key Issues Conference
held at the Annenberg School of Communications of the University of Southern California, 14-3.
Pepitone, E. A. (1985). Children in cooperation and competition. In Slavin, et al. (Eds.), Learning to
cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 17–65). New York: Plenum Press.
Perret Clermont, A. N. (1979). La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Berne: Lang.
Petters, R., et al. (1998). Learning collaboratively in a virtual campus. Learn-Nett, WP4.
Rellier, C., & Sourdillat, F. (1993). Evariste et la Lunette Cognitive. In B. Denis, & G.L. Baron (Eds.) (pp.
179–186).
Sougné, J. (1993). Les raisonnements temporels en robotique pédagogique. In Denis et Baron (pp. 85–93).
Tauriac, G. (1993). Du projet pédagogique au produit industriel: Modulix 787/Pgrafcet. In B. Denis, &
G.L. Baron (Eds.) (pp. 256–260).
Villette, A. (1995). Analyse de l’acquisition d’une démarche scientifique au travers d’activités de robotique
pédagogique. Mémoire de licence en sciences de l’éducation non publié, Université de Liège.
Vivet, M. (1993). La réception des productions des apprenants : une phase essentielle dans la conduite des
projets. In B. Denis, & G.L. Baron (Eds.) (pp. 117–134).