Advertisement

Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment

  • Alan Zemel
  • Timothy Koschmann
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper we examine how two groups of middle school students arrive at shared understandings of and solutions to mathematical problems. Our data consists of logs of student participation in the Virtual Math Teams (VMT) system as they work on math problems. The project supports interaction both through chat and through a virtual whiteboard. We have examined in detail, the sequential work these students do to constitute and specify ‘the problem’ on which they are working in the ways they produce whiteboard objects and text postings. Solutions emerge as students come to understand the problem on which they are working. This understanding is achieved through gradual respecification of the math problem on which they are working.

Keywords

Indexicality Referential practices Problem solving CSCL Ethnomethodology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Azevedo, F. S., diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 270–289. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cakır, M. P. (2009). How online small groups co-construct mathematical artifacts to do collaborative problem solving. (Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University). Retrieved from http://dspace.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/3122/1/Cakir_Murat.pdf.
  4. 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, 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danish, J. A., & Enyedy, N. (2007). Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education, 91, 1–35. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). Representational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first?grade students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2069–2094. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.525798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 405–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science constructed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 131–158.Google Scholar
  14. Greiffenhagen, C. (2008). Unpacking tasks: The fusion of new technology with instructional work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 35–62. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/N0760P8P725N2266.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (2005). Gestures in the blackboard work of mathematics instruction. Paper presented at the 2nd Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies (Interacting Bodies), Lyon France. Retrieved from http://gesture-lyon2005.ens-lsh.fr/IMG/pdf/Greiffenhagen-Gesture.pdf
  16. Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey’s cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hanks, W. F. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (Vol. 11, pp. 43–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  20. Hanks, W. F. (2000). Intertexts: Writings on language, utterance, and context. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. Hester, S., & Hester, S. (2010). Conversational actions and category relations: An analysis of a children’s argument. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 33–48. doi: 10.1177/1461445609347233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kirschner, P. A., & Van Bruggen, J. (2004). Learning and understanding in virtual teams. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2009). Optical pulsars and black arrows: Discoveries as occasioned productions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 200–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2011). “So that’s the ureter”. The informal logic of discovery work. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 34–46. Retrieved from http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/sociology/about/events/ethnography/journal/issue12/documents/koschmann-zemel.pdf.Google Scholar
  26. Livingston, E. (1986). The ethnomethodological foundations of mathematics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  27. Livingston, E. (1987). Making sense of ethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  28. Livingston, E. (1999). Cultures of proving. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 867–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Livingston, E. (2000). The availability of mathematics as an inspectable domain of practice through the use of origami. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local education order (pp. 245–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Lonchamp, J. (2009). A three-level analysis of collaborative learning in dual-interaction spaces. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 289–317. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/c8344h6738426463.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lonchamp, J. (2011). Deixis in synchronous CSCL systems. Proceedings from 3rd Conference on Computer Supported Education - CSEDU 2011.Google Scholar
  32. Lynch, M. (1985). Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynch, M. (1994). Representation is overrated: Some critical remarks about the use of the concept of representation in science studies. Configurations, 2(1), 137–149. Retrieved from http://www.petajwhite.net/Uni/910/Legit and Representation/Representation Precis/Lynch.doc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch, M. (2011). Credibility, evidence, and discovery: The case of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 78–105.Google Scholar
  35. Macbeth, D. (2011). Understanding understanding as an instructional matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 438–451. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2008). Bringing representational practice from log to light. Google Scholar
  37. Mühlpfordt, M. (2006). Dual interaction Spaces: Integration Synchroner Kommunikation und Kooperation. 4. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik.Google Scholar
  38. Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2005). Explicit referencing in chat supports collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning: The next 10 years! (pp. 460–469). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2009). The integration of dual-interaction spaces. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 281–293). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(1–2), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parnafes, O. (2010). Representational practices in the activity of student-generated representations (SGR) for promoting conceptual understanding. Google Scholar
  42. Psathas, G. (2007). Lebenswelt origins of the sciences. Hum Stud, 30(1), 1–2. doi: 10.1007/s10746-007-9047-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rochelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry. In D. L. Day & D. K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, communication and mental models (pp. 13–25). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  44. Rochelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning, NATO ASO Series F: Computer and system sciences (Vol. 128) (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schegloff, E. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schönfeldt, J., & Golato, A. (2003). Repair in chats: A conversation analytic approach. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 241–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (2011). Discovering a practical impossibility: The internal configuration of a problem in mathematical reasoning. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 47–58.Google Scholar
  48. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stahl, G., Zhou, N., & Toledo, R. (2006). The Virtual Math Teams project: A global math discourse community. Proceedings from International Conference on Computers and Education (ICCE ’06), Beijing, China. Retrieved from http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/pub/icce2006.pdf
  50. Suchman, L. A. (1988). Representing practice in cognitive science. Human Studies, 11(2), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suchman, L. A. (2006). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives) (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suthers, D. D. (2005). Collaborative knowledge construction through shared representation. 38th Hawai’i International Conference on the System Sciences,.Google Scholar
  53. Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. Proceedings from International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Dordrecht, NL. Retrieved from http://metheny.ics.hawaii.edu/papers/2003/Suthers-et-al-CSCL2003.pdf
  54. 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 (pp. 177―204). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  55. Van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 575–602. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vergnaud, G. (1998). A comprehensive theory of representation for mathematics education. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 167–181. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0364021399800573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woolgar, S. (1988). Time and documents in researcher interaction: Some ways of making out what is happening in experimental science. Human Studies, 11(2), 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zemel, A., & Cakir, M. (2009). Reading’s Work in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying Virtual Math Teams (pp. 261–276). New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. J. (2008). “What are we missing?” Usability’s indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity at Albany SUNYAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medical EducationSouthern Illinois University School of MedicineSpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options