Analyzing group coordination when solving geometry problems with dynamic geometry software



In CSCL research, collaborative activity is conceptualized along various yet intertwined dimensions. When functioning within these multiple dimensions, participants make use of several resources, which can be social or content-related (and sometimes temporal) in nature. It is the effective coordination of these resources that appears to characterize successful collaborative activity. This study proposes a methodological approach for studying coordination of resources when solving geometry problems with dynamic geometry software. The aim is to suggest a methodological lens to capture both the content-related and social discourse within the context of geometry problem solving using dynamic geometry software. As an example, the paper also provides an analysis of a dyad’s face-to-face interaction using the suggested framework.


Coordination Geometry problem solving Dynamic geometry software Qualitative inquiry Face-to-face collaboration 


  1. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. ZDM, 34(3), 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkowitz, M., & Gibbs, J. (1985). The process of moral conflict resolution and moral development. In M. Berkowitz (Ed.), Peer conflict and psychological growth (pp. 71–84). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 155–90.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, M., Feenstra, E., Ryon, E., & McNeill, D. (2011). A multimodal approach to coding discourse: Collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9113-0.
  8. Goldenberg, E. P., & Cuoco, A. A. (1998). What is dynamic geometry? In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 351–68). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jackiw, N. (2001). The geometer’s sketchpad (Version 4) [Computer software]. Berkeley: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg papers in language and literature (No. 28). Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, K. (1998). Deductive and intuitive approaches to solving geometrical problems. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 78–83). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Laborde, C. (2004). The hidden role of diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 1–21). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL 2002). Retrieved August 22, 2012, from
  15. Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1990). What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW 1990), pp. 357–370.Google Scholar
  16. Olivero, F., & Robutti, O. (2007). Measuring in dynamic geometry environments as a tool for conjecturing and proving. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(2), 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oxford University Press. (2012). Oxford University Press. Retrieved July 28, 2012, from
  18. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarmiento, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2008). Extending the joint problem space: Time and sequence as essential features of knowledge building. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 08), Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
  23. ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Educational TechnologyBogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations