Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration

Abstract

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.

References

  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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

  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.

  7. Finn, K. E., Sellen, A. J., & Wilbur, S. B. (Eds.) (1997). Video-mediated communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  8. Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 29, 737–767.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Feldman, H. (1977). The development of language-like communication without a language model. Science, 197(4301), 401–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mylander, C. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature, 391(15), 279–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  22. Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Paper presented at the International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.

  23. Hollan, J., & Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Monterey, CA.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  30. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-computer Interaction, 15(2/3), 139–178.

    Article  Google 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.

  33. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Dwyer.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dwyer, N., Suthers, D.D. Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. Computer Supported Learning 1, 481–511 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9001-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Descriptive studies
  • Interactional practices
  • Representational affordances
  • Shared workspaces
  • Video analysis