La dimension culturelle dans la modélisation de l'usager

1. La dimension culturelle dans la modélisation de l'usager Jacqueline Bourdeau LICEF, TELUQ, Québec, Canada MATI, 4 octobre 2012 Conférence-midi

3. Tell Me Where You've Lived, And I'll Tell You What You Like: Adapting Interfaces to Cultural PreferencesKatharina Reinecke, Abraham Bernstein, University of Zurich, SwitzerlandUMAP 2009, Best StudentPaperAward Myreflections: UM isinterested in culture UM likedHofstede’sframework Culture isseen as an interface issue Culture isrelated to preferences Culture isgeography-related

4. And in ITS/AIED Research? • CATS International Workshop on Culturally-Aware Tutoring Systems: 2008, 2009, 2010 • Blanchard, E. and Allard, D., Handbook of Research on Culturally-Aware Information Technology, 2010 • Cultural student modeling: not reporting a set of demographics, but to reconcile the multi-layered nature of cultural identity (Blanchard & Ogan, 2011); Model instead of profile or preferences • Modeling in ITS: student (OLM) and domain; a tradition of cognitive computationalmodels, deepsemantics, conceptualization, knowledgerepresentation, reasoning (Nkambou, Bourdeau & Mizoguchi, 2010)

5. Studieson Cultural Issues In ITS Research

6. Plan • Culture: What’s in it? And what’s not? • Whyisitmeaningful for User Modeling? • A Layer or a Dimension? • Towards an Ontology of Culture • Cultural Diversity and Instructional Design • Cultural Intelligence • Culture and Adaptation • Towards a Culturally Aware Web 3.0

7. Multiple Facets of Culture:Manifestations and Representations R R M M M User B: Adapts to the system User A: System shouldadapt! User A has R1, User B has R2, User C has R3 = 3 differentrepresentations for the same manifestation (a strong man)! Manifestation ??? Representation User D: No need to adapteither one: sheistransculturallycompetent R M User C: Lost!

8. 1. Culture: What’s in it? • Definitionsfrom the literature • Culture, context, and situation • Culture and language, communication • Individual and collective culture • Hofstede’sframework (theoretical) • Sperber’snaturalisticapproach(theoretical) • Cultural intelligence: Ang & Earley (empirical) • CQ four-dimensional structure by Angand Van Dyne (empirical)

9. Definitionsfrom the Literature: A Construct • Hofstede:The collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of a human group from another (1980) • Sperber: An epidemiology of representations (1986, 1996) • UNESCO: The set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, [...] it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs (1982) • Kroeber & Kluckhohn (1952), in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, inventoried a list of over 200 different definitions for the word culture. • Culture issocial, not onlygeography-related • Culture is about sharing or not sharing, including the case of rebels, hybrids and mutants • Culture is about meaning

10. Hofstede’sFramework, 1980 • An anthropologistworking on organizational culture (IBM etc); descriptive/interpretative • “people carry mental programs that are developed in the family in early childhood and reinforced in schools and organizations. These mental programs are of three levels: individual, collective and universal, and contain a component of national culture” • Five dimensions: • individualism versus collectivism • masculinity versus femininity • power distance • uncertainty avoidance • short- and long-term orientation • Advantages: clarity, parsimony, resonance with managers for cross-cultural management • Manifestations: symbols, heroes, rituals, values (deepest) • Representations: mental

11. Manifestations: Four levels • Hofstede & Hofstede (2005) present the manifestations of culture at different depth levels, using four concepts: symbols, heroes, rituals and values.

12. RitualsRitual2

13. Criticism of Hofstede’s Framework • Limitations: oversimplistic, ignores evolution of culture, ignores cultural diversity within a country • Challenging the view of cultures as relatively stable systems in equilibrium • Fundamental: interpretative, speculative • Methodological: overgeneralization • B.L. Kirkman, K.B. Lowe, C.B. Gibson, "A quarter century of culture’sconsequences: A review of empiricalresearchincorporatingHofstede »s cultural values framework," Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, pp. 285-320, 2006 (a meta-analysis of 180 studiesbased on Hofstede’s Framework)

14. Sperber’sNaturalisticApproach • A materialistanthropologisttrying to explain Culture as a phenomenon, itsmechanics, the factorscausing the phenomenon, with the metaphor of biology • Approach: epidemiology of representations (causal chains), seeks for causality, reconceptualization • Cultural macro-phenomena= cumulative effect of • Individualmechanismsforming and transforming mental representations • Inter-individualmechanismstransmitting the representations • A cultural factis the combinedeffect of countless micro-mechanisms • Adressed the issue of an Ontology of culture, 1986

15. Scharifian’s Cultural Conceptualizations • Cultural conceptualizations vs conceptualization of culture • Cultural schemas, cultural categories • Emergefrom interactions between people, are continuallynegotiated • Distributedamongmembers of the group is more or lesscoherent; not evenlydistributed • Example: Australianaboriginals’ schemas for events, roles, images, propositions • F. Scharifian, "On cultural conceptualizations," Journal of Cognition and Culture, vol. 3(3), pp. 187-207, 2003 • An ethnographist, Persian

16. Not everyoneis W.E.I.R.D!(Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic)Most people are not WEIRD, Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan, Nature, Vol 466, 1 July 2010On the WEIRD nature of ITS/AIED conferences: A 10 year longitudinal study analyzing potential cultural biases, Emmanuel G. Blanchard, ITS 2012

17. Whyis Culture meaningful for User Modeling? • Adaptation=individual • Social web= groupsharing something (cultural?) • Semantic web is about meaning • Culture a commonfeatureamongindividuals in a society-group vs in a social network • Cultural issues a source of problems and misunderstandings in a globalizing world • User Experience (UX) isinfluenced by culture, and vice versa

18. Questioning • Doessocialization in social networks level cultural differences? • Do we live a different life in the virtualthan in the real world? Transcultural versus cultural? • Are weaware of our culture/s? of being cultural in whatwe do, think? • Cultural: bi-, multi-, inter-, cross-, transcultural • Emerging cultures, dependent or not on language (FB, Tweeter) • Whatis not cultural? Whatis social thatis not cultural?

19. A Layer or a Dimension? • Cultural features a layer betweenindividual and social? • Or a dimension thatpervades life in the social web? • Culture a prominentfeaturein human interactions? (Johnson & Valente, 2008) • Cultural diversity in teams, networks, countries • Culture: an Ill-defineddomain (Blanchard & al, 2010)

20. Towards an Ontology of Culture • Semantic issues with culture: entity or property? Culture or culturality? • A top levelontology of culture (Blanchard & al) • An ontology of cultural interferences in human communication (Allard & al) • An ontology of cultural differences for culturally-awareinstructional design (Savard & al) • Cultural Intelligence (Wu & al) • Small pieces of a masterpiecestill to come…

21. A Top LevelOntology Of Culture: Goals 1. To allow development teams to consider cultures in a scientifically-sound and cross-disciplinary way 2. To propose ways of appropriately computerizing cultural aspects of a given problem by suggesting templates for theory-driven data structures and data management processes 3. To promote interoperability by enforcing the consistency of cultural data modelling between systems, thus facilitating reuse of computerized cultural data 4. To promote cultural automatic reasoning, thus allowing systems to take culturally-informed decisions that may impact on their internal processing as well as on human-computer interaction (Blanchard & al, 2010)

22. A Top LevelOntology Of Culture (Blanchard & al, 2010) • An ontology: specification of a conceptualization • An ontology consists of a set of concepts, axioms, and relationships that describe a domain of interest (SUOWG, 2009) • The most possible abstract level of culture • Builtupon a general top levelontology • In order to specify cultural components, events, agents, withtheirpropertieswithin a semantic network • Excerpt

24. Lightweight and Heavyweight Ontologies • Lightweight ontology: for web search engines, consists of a topic hierarchy with little consideration of rigorous definition of a concept, principle of concept organization, distinction between word and concept, etc. The main purpose of such a hierarchy is to power up the search engine and hence it is very use-dependent. • Formal (heavyweight) ontology: developed with much attention paid to rigorous meaning of each concept, organizing principles developed in philosophy, semantically rigorous relations between concepts, etc. Instance models are usually built based on those ontologies to model a target world, which requires careful conceptualization of the world to guarantee of the consistency and fidelity of the model. (Mizoguchi, in Blanchard & al, 2010)

25. Culture and Language (Allard & al) • Problem: Cultural interferences in human communication, in L2…Ln learning • Interference: Error due to transfer stemming from a native language (L1), or another previously acquired language • Cultural knowledge: part of language learning • UNESCO’s objectives for intercultural education (2007) underline interaction amongst and within groups of people: • To respect “the cultural identity of the learner through the provision of culturally appropriate and responsive quality education for all” • To provide “every learner with the cultural knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to achieve active and full participation in society” • To provide “all learners with cultural knowledge, attitudes and skills that enable them tocontribute to respect, understanding and among individuals, ethnic, social, cultural and religious groups and nations” • Objectives: • examine cultural variables that contribute to explain the existence and / or use of certain language patterns, and also explain why students of a given cultural group face difficulty acquiring L2 patterns given the influence of L1, itself a reflection of certain cultural values.

28. Cultural Diversity and InstructionalDesign (Savard) • Problem: • in order to be reused, Learning Objects (LO) should be as neutral as possible • However, students need anchors for learning to occur and LOs must be presented in a context that is meaningful to them • Semantics: not only the LO (content) are referenced, but also the learning scenarios (student-centered, multi-actoractivities), in terms of cultural aspects • Not only for learners, but also for instructional designers to search, adapt, share and reuse • Scenarios are specifications of learning/techningactivitiesusinglearningobjects

29. The Life Cycle of Culture (Savard) Adaptingto a culture: Adapt manifestations AND representations

31. Savard’s Objectives • A ‘’cultural diversity’’ knowledge base exploitable by a system designed to help instructional designers in their design tasks • A method to process cultural variables that can be implemented into an instructional design process • An agent to integrate cultural awareness in the instructional design process

32. Cultural Intelligence (Wu) • A kind of Intelligence (intellectual, affective, social..) • Definition: The ability to collect and to process information, to form judgments, and to implement effective measures in order to adapt to a new cultural context • Measuring IQ • Modelling IQ • Reasoning about IQ • Applications: training, expat, decision-making…

33. Cultural Quotient (Wu) • Cultural quotient is • the level of success people obtain when adapting to another culture (Thomas) • the ability to interact efficiently with people who are culturally different (Ng et al.) • the ability to be effective in all cultures (Johnson et al.) • the ability of an individual to integrate a set of knowledge, skills and personal qualities so as to work successfully with people from different cultures and countries, both at home and abroad (Wu et al, 2012)

34. Modelling CI & CQ (Wu) • Ang and Van Dyne: • four-dimensional CQ structure • based on the general intelligence structure of Sternberg and Detterman • divides CQ into metacognitive, cognitive , motivational and behavioral CQ • Wu: • the four CQ dimensions are interdependent entities • acomputational model with an inferenceengine(hybrid neuro-fuzzy soft-computing technique) • The smart CIES system interactingwithusers • Needed: big data!

38. Culture and Adaptation • Taking culture intoaccount to adapt • Taking cultural intelligence intoaccount to adapt • Culture isdeep! Complex! Pervasive! Evolutionary! Ill-defined! • Whatis not cultural? • Towards a CulturallyAware Web 3.0

39. Top levelontology ITS? Semantic, adaptive, culturallyaware INDEED Cultural agent Semantic Web, adaptive, culturallyaware L2L-ITS? Instru Lan Language Cultural interferences Elearning design ITCICCI CI-ITS? SMARTIES scenario builder CIES Cultural Intelligence Expert System Semantic, Adaptive, Contextaware Adaptive, Culturallyaware

40. References • Allard, D., Bourdeau, J. and Mizoguchi, R. (2011). Addressing L1 Interference and Related Cultural Factors Using Technology, CALICO Journal, Vol 28, No. 3. • Allard, D., Bourdeau, J. and Mizoguchi, R. (2010). Addressing and Modeling Knowledge of Cross-Linguistic Influence and Related Cultural Factors Using Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), in Blanchard, E. et Allard, D., Handbook of Research on Culturally-Aware Information Technology: Perspectives and Models, IGI-Global, pp. 582-598. • Ang S. and Van Dyne, L. (2008). Handbook of Cultural Intelligence. 1st ed. M.E. Sharpe.Armonk. • Blanchard, E. G., Mizoguchi, R., Lajoie, S. P. (2010). Structuring the Cultural Domain with an Upper Ontology of Culture. In E.G. Blanchard and D. Allard (Eds), Handbook of Research on Culturally Aware Information Technology: Perspectives and Models, Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. • Blanchard E. andOgan, A. (2011)…. Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Volume 308 • Blanchard E. (2012). On the WEIRD nature of ITS/AIED conferences: A 10 year longitudinal study analyzing potential cultural biases, Proc. of the ITS Conference, 2012. • Bourdeau, J. et Grandbastien, M. (2010). Modeling Tutoring Knowledge, in Nkambou, R., Bourdeau, J. et Mizoguchi, R. (Eds.), (2010). Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Volume 308, pp. 123-144. • Earley P.C., Ang, S.: Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003. • Henrich, J., Heine, S. and Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD, Nature, Vol466/1, July. • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work‐relatedvalues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. • Hofstede, G., and Hofstede, J.G. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd Edition ). New-York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

41. References, cont’d • Johnson, L. and Valente (2008). Tactical Language and Culture Training Systems: Using Artificial Intelligence to Teach Foreign Languages and Cultures, In Proceedings of IAAI 2008. • Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., and Gibson, C.B. (2006). A quarter century of culture‟sconsequences: A review of empiricalresearchincorporatingHofstede‟s cultural values framework, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, pp. 285-320. • Mizoguchi, R. , Hayashi, Y. et Bourdeau, J. (2010). Ontology-BasedFormalModeling of the Pedagogical World: TutorModeling, in Nkambou, R., Bourdeau, J. and Mizoguchi, R. (Eds.), (2010). Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Volume 308, pp. 229-248. • Nkambou, R., Bourdeau, J. and Mizoguchi, R. (Eds.), (2010). Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Volume 308. • Reinecke, K., Bernstein, A. (2009). Tell Me Where You've Lived, And I'll Tell You What You Like: Adapting Interfaces to Cultural Preferences, UMAP 2009, Best student paper award. • Savard, Bourdeau & Paquette, ITS 2008 • Scharifian, F. (2003). "On cultural conceptualizations," Journal of Cognition and Culture, vol. 3(3), pp. 187-207. • Sperber, D., Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. • SUOWG. (2009). IEEE Standard Upper Ontology Working Group. Retrieved from http://suo.ieee.org • Tremblay, O.(2009) Une ontologie des savoirs lexicologiques pour l' élaboration d'un module de cours en didactique du lexique. Unpublished dissertation, Université de Montréal. • Wu, Z., Nkambou, R. and Bourdeau, J. (2012). Cultural Intelligence Decision Support System for Business Activities, accepted paper for the BUSTECH 2012 Conference, Nice, France. • Wu, Z., Nkambou, R. and Bourdeau, J. (2012). The Application of AI to Cultural Intelligence, in Proc. of ICAI 2012, The International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Las Vegas, USA.