Interfering and resolving: How tabletop interaction facilitates co-construction of argumentative knowledge

Article

Abstract

Tangible technologies and shared interfaces create new paradigms for mediating collaboration through dynamic, synchronous environments, where action is as important as speech for participating and contributing to the activity. However, interaction with shared interfaces has been shown to be inherently susceptible to peer interference, potentially hindering productive forms of collaborative learning. Making learners effectively engage in processes of argumentative co-construction of knowledge is challenging in such exploratory learning environments. This paper adapts the social modes dimension of Weinberger and Fischer’s (Computers and Education 46(1):71–95, 2006) analytical framework (for argumentative co-construction of knowledge) to analyse episodes of interference, in the context of a shared tabletop interface, to better understand its effect on collaborative knowledge construction. Studies involved 43 students, aged 11–14 years, interacting in groups of three, with a tangible tabletop application to learn basic concepts of the behaviour of light. Contrary to the dominant perspective, our analysis suggests that interference in shared interfaces can be productive for learning, serving as a trigger for promoting argumentation and collective knowledge construction. Interference episodes led to both productive and counter-productive learning opportunities. They were resolved through quick consensus building, when students abandoned their own activity and accepted changes made by others; integration-oriented consensus building, where students reflected on and integrated what happened in the investigation; or conflict-oriented consensus building where students tried to undo others’ actions and rebuild previous configurations. Overall, interference resolved through integration-oriented consensus building was found to lead to productive learning interactions, while counter-productive situations were mostly characterised by interference resolved through conflict-oriented consensus building.

Keywords

Co-construction of knowledge Interference Physical interaction Shared interfaces Tangible interfaces 

References

  1. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chan, C., Burtis, P. J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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. 127–148). Washington: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
  8. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.Google Scholar
  9. Do-Lenh, S., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Paper-based concept map: The effects of tabletop on an expressive collaborative learning task, 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers - HCI'09. Cambridge, UK: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Grasel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleck, R., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., Marshall, P., Carr, A., Rick, J. et al. (2009). Actions speak loudly with words: unpacking collaboration around the table, Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. In: Proceedings of ITS '09 (pp. 189–196). Banff, Canada: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ha, V., Inkpen, K. M., Whalen, T., & Mandryk, R. L. (2006). Direct intentions: The effects of input devices on collaboration around a tabletop display. Proceedings of Tabletop 2006. Adelaide, Australia: IEEE.Google Scholar
  13. Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: A framework on physical space and social interaction. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Montreal, Canada: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Dalton, S., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Collaboration and interference: Awareness with mice or touch input. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. San Diego, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jorda, S. (2003). Sonigraphical instruments: From FMOL to the reacTable. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, NIME’03. Montreal, Canada: McGill University.Google Scholar
  16. Kaltenbrunner, M., & Bencina, R. (2007). reacTIVision: A computer-vision framework for table-based tangible interaction. Proceedings of the first International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, TEI’07. Baton Rouge, LA, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2004). Internal and external cooperation scripts in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Proceedings of EARLI: Instructional Design and Learning and Instruction with Computers. Tubingen, Germany: Knowledge Media Research Center.Google Scholar
  18. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2005). Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based science learning at schools. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, CSCL’05. Taipei, Taiwan: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris, M. R., Cassanego, A., Paepcke, A., Winograd, T., Piper, A. M., & Huang, A. (2006). Mediating group dynamics through tabletop interface design. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 26(5), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nacenta, M., Pinelle, D., Stuckel, D., & Gutwin, C. (2007). The effects of interaction technique on coordination in tabletop groupware. Proceedings of Graphics Interface’07. Montreal, Canada: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. Piaget, J. (1967). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
  23. Pontual Falcão, T., & Price, S. (2009). What have you done! The role of ‘interference’ in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning CSCL’09. Rhodes, Greece: ISLS.Google Scholar
  24. Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogers, Y., Lim, Y., Hazlewood, W. R., & Marshall, P. (2008). Equal opportunities: Do shareable interfaces promote more group participation than single user displays? Human Computer Interaction, 24(2), 79–116.Google Scholar
  26. Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentation activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Sheridan, J. G., Tompkin, J., Maciel, A., & Roussos, G. (2009). DIY design process for interactive surfaces. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Human Computer Interaction HCI’09. Cambridge, UK: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stanton, D., & Neale, H. R. (2003). The effects of multiple mice on children’s talk and interaction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single display groupware: A model for co-present collaboration. Proceedings of the Conference of Human Factors in Computing Systems. Pittsburgh, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  31. Underkoffler, J., & Ishii, H. (1998). Illuminating light: An optical design tool with a luminous-tangible interface. Proceedings of the Conference of Human Factors in Computing Systems. Pittsburgh, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  32. von Aufschneider, C., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, USA: HUP.Google Scholar
  34. Webb, N., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In R. Calfee & C. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York, USA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London Knowledge LabInstitute of EducationLondonUK

Personalised recommendations