Advertisement

A multimodal approach to coding discourse: Collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning

  • Michael A. Evans
  • Eliot Feenstra
  • Emily Ryon
  • David McNeill
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Our research aims to identify children’s communicative strategies when faced with the task of solving a geometric puzzle in CSCL contexts. We investigated how to identify and trace distributed cognition in problem-solving interactions based on discursive cohesion to objects, participants, and prior discursive content, and geometric and cooperative concepts. We report on the development of a method of coding and representation of verbal and gestural content for multimodal interactional data and initial application of this framework to a microethnographic case study of two small groups of 7 and 8-year-old learners solving tangram manipulatives in physical and virtual desktop settings. We characterize the establishment of shared reference points as “coreferences” which cohere on object, para, and meta-levels through both gesture and speech. Our analysis foregrounds how participants establish common referential ground to facilitate collaborative problem solving with either computer-supported or physical puzzles. Using multimodal analysis and a theoretical framework we developed to study interactional dynamics, we identified patterns of focus, dominance, and coalition formation as they relate to coreferentiality on multiple levels. Initial findings indicate increased communication and cohesion to higher-level principles in the virtual tangram puzzle-solving setting. This work contributes to available models of multimodal analysis of distributed cognition using current manipulative technologies for early childhood mathematics education.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Communicative strategies Coreferentiality Distributed cognition Early elementary mathematics Gesture Informal geometry Multimodal analysis Virtual manipulatives 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ares, N., Stroup, W., & Schademan, A. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourse. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjuland, R., Cestari, M., & Borgersen, H. (2008). The interplay between gesture and discourse as mediating devices in collaborative mathematical reasoning: A multimedia approach. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(3), 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2010). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cannon, L., Dorward, J., Duffin, J., Heal, B., & Foletta, G. (2004). National library of virtual manipulatives. Mathematics Teacher, 97(2), 158–159.Google Scholar
  8. Cassell, J., & McNeill, D. (1991). Gesture and the poetics of prose. Poetics Today, 12(3), 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cazden, C. B. (1997). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the zone of proximal development. In M. Cole, Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (pp. 303–310). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory and practice in cultural context (pp. 39–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clements, D. H. (2004). Geometric and spatial thinking in early childhood education. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A. M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 267–297). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A.-M. (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social organizations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 361–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Figueira-Sampaio, A. S., Santos, E. E. F., & Carrijo, G. A. (2009). A constructivist computational tool to assist in learning primary school mathematical equations. Computers & Education, 53(2), 484–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gehlen, A. (1988). Man, his nature and place in the world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(2), 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (W. R. B. Gibson, Trans. Third Edition, 1958). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1998). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engestrom & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kendon, A. (2008). Some reflections of the relationship between ‘gesture’ and ‘sign’. Gesture, 8, 348–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children's collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities?. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4).Google Scholar
  24. Kirsh, D. (2009). Problem solving and situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 264–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, C.-Y., & Chen, M.-P. (2008). Taiwanese junior high school students’ mathematics attitudes and perceptions towards virtual manipulatives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 1–5.Google Scholar
  26. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellwegger & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 353–360). Canada: Legas.Google Scholar
  28. McNeill, D. (2006). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. McNeill, D. (2009a). Gesture as a window onto mind and brain, and the relationship to linguistic relativity and ontogenesis. In C. Müller, E. Fricke, et al. (Eds.), Handbook on body, language, and communication. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. McNeill, D. (2009b). Thinking while speaking and gesturing: Language and gesture as a dynamic and integrated system. In C. Müller, E. Fricke, et al. (Eds.), Handbook on body, language, and communication. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. McNeill, D., & Duncan, S. D. (2000). Growth points in thinking for speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 141–161). Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McNeill, D., et al. (2010). Mind Merging. In E. Morsella (Ed.), Expressing oneself/expressing one’s self: Communication, language, cognition, and identity (pp. 143–164). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  33. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénomenologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  34. Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathmatics, 8, 372–377.Google Scholar
  36. Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Salkind, G., & Bolyard, J. J. (2008). Virtual manipulatives used by K-8 teachers for mathematics instruction: Considering mathematical, cognitive, and pedagogical fidelity. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 202–218.Google Scholar
  37. National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (2008). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  38. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2006). Exploring mathematics through construction and collaboration. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(1), 43–56.Google Scholar
  40. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  42. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and design for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Radford, L., Edwards, L., & Arzarello, F. (2009). Introduction: Beyond words. Education Studies in Mathematics, 70, 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fraction using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  45. Rekimoto, J. (2002). SmartSkin: An infrastructure for freehand manipulation on interactive surfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’02 ACM Press, New York, NY, pp 113–120.Google Scholar
  46. Rick, J., & Rogers, Y. (2008). From DigiQuit to DigiTile: Adapting educational technology to multi-touch table Paper presented at the IEEE Tabletops 2008 and Interactive Surfaces 2008.Google Scholar
  47. Romeo, G., Edwards, S., McNamara, S., Walker, I., & Ziguras, C. (2003). Touching the screen: Issues related to the use of touchscreen technology in early childhood education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392. doi: 10.3102/00346543071003365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shen, C., Vernier, F. D., Forlines, C., & Ringel, M. (2004). DiamondSpin: An extensible toolkit for around-the-table interaction. Proc. of CHI’04, 167–174.Google Scholar
  52. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  53. Strijbos, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2007). Methodological issues in developing a multi-dimensional coding procedure for small group chat communication. Learning & Instruction. Special issue on measurement challenges in collaborative learning research, 17(4), 394–404.Google Scholar
  54. Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., & Heo, H.-J. (2005). Examining technology use in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1–21.Google Scholar
  55. Tapper, J. (2007). Tangrams and geometry concepts. Connect Magazine, 20(4), 7–11.Google Scholar
  56. Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Van de Walle, J. A. (2001). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  58. van Hiele, P. M. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 310–316.Google Scholar
  59. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1999). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In P. Lloyd & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments (Vol. 1, pp. 363–380). Florence: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Evans
    • 1
  • Eliot Feenstra
    • 2
  • Emily Ryon
    • 2
  • David McNeill
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Learning Sciences and TechnologiesVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.McNeill Speech & Gesture LabUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options