Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration

Open Access


The design of collaborative representations faces a challenge in integrating theoretical communication models with the context-sensitive and creative practices of human interaction. This paper presents results from a study that identified multiple, invariant communicative practices in how dyads appropriated flexible, paper-based media in discussions of wicked problems. These invariants, identified across media, participants and topics are a promising first step towards creating an abstract model for design that connects representational affordances and communicative functions. The authors identify areas where this model may challenge conventional design wisdom and discuss directions for further research.


Descriptive studies Interactional practices Representational affordances Shared workspaces Video analysis 


  1. Bronckart, J. P. (1995). Theories of action, speech, natural language, and discourse. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 75–91). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conklin, J. (2003). Dialog mapping: Reflections on an industrial strength case study. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. B. Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 117–136). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication-and how they may be overcome (pp. 243–264). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (1999). The long road from a shared screen to a shared understanding. In C. Hoadly & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 12–15). Stanford.Google Scholar
  6. Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 541–550). Montréal, Québec, Canada: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Finn, K. E., Sellen, A. J., & Wilbur, S. B. (Eds.) (1997). Video-mediated communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 29, 737–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiruakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton, Educational Division.Google Scholar
  11. Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication. Audio Visual Communication Review, IV(3), 171–199.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  15. Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Feldman, H. (1977). The development of language-like communication without a language model. Science, 197(4301), 401–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mylander, C. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature, 391(15), 279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Healey, P. G. T., Swoboda, N., Umata, I., & Katagiri, Y. (2002). Graphic representation in graphcal dialogue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1991). Disembodied conduct: Communication through video in a multi-media office environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology (pp. 99–103). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Paper presented at the International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.Google Scholar
  23. Hollan, J., & Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. (2002). Exploring classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to create new learning opportunities. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Kato, H., Yamazaki, K., Suzuki, H., Kuzuoka, H., Miki, H., & Yamazaki, A. (2001). Designing a video-mediated collaboration system based on a body metaphor. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 409–423). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Krauss, R. M. (1998). Why do we gesture when we speak? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lingnau, A., Hoppe, H. U., & Mannhaupt, G. (2003). Computer supported collaborative writing in an early learning classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mark, G., & Abrams, S. (2005). Differential interaction and attribution in collocated and distributed large-scale collaboration. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences. Hawai’i: IEEE.Google Scholar
  30. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-computer Interaction, 15(2/3), 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2002). Groupware and computer-supported cooperative work. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (pp. 583–595). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. O’Neill, J., & Martin, D. (2003). Text chat in action. In Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work (pp. 40–49). Sanibel Island, FL, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  33. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sacks, H. (1984a). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sacks, H. (1984b). On doing “being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Selvin, A. M. (2003). Fostering collective intelligence: Helping groups use visualized argumentation. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. B. Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 137–163). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.Google Scholar
  39. Shipman, F. M., III, & McCall, R. (1994). Supporting knowledge-base evolution with incremental formalization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence (pp. 285–291). Boston, MA: ACM.Google Scholar
  40. Sugimoto, M. (2003). How sensing and mobile technologies can enhance collaborative learning in classrooms and museums. Paper presented at CSCL 2003: Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  41. Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computers Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., & McQueen, R. (2000). A cognitive three-process model of computer-mediated group interaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 431–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Computer SciencesUniversity of Hawai`i at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations