Advertisement

Capturing and analyzing verbal and physical collaborative learning interactions at an enriched interactive tabletop

  • Roberto Martinez-Maldonado
  • Yannis Dimitriadis
  • Alejandra Martinez-Monés
  • Judy Kay
  • Kalina Yacef
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Interactive tabletops can be used to provide new ways to support face-to-face collaborative learning. A little explored and somewhat hidden potential of these devices is that they can be used to enhance teachers’ awareness of students’ progress by exploiting captured traces of interaction. These data can make key aspects of collaboration visible and can highlight possible problems. In this paper, we explored the potential of an enriched tabletop to automatically and unobtrusively capture data from collaborative interactions. By analyzing that data, there was the potential to discover trends in students’ activity. These can help researchers, and eventually teachers, to become aware of the strategies followed by groups. We explored whether it was possible to differentiate groups, in terms of the extent of collaboration, by identifying the interwoven patterns of students’ speech and their physical actions on the interactive surface. The analysis was validated on a sample of 60 students, working in triads in a concept mapping learning activity. The contribution of this paper is an approach for analyzing students’ interactions around an enriched interactive tabletop that is validated through an empirical study that shows its operationalization to extract frequent patterns of collaborative activity.

Keywords

Collocated computer-supported collaboration Group awareness Interactive tabletops Sequence pattern mining 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. AlAgha, I., Hatch, A., Ma, L., & Burd, L. (2010). Towards a teacher-centric approach for multi-touch surfaces in classrooms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2010 (ITS 2010) (pp. 187–196). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Qaraghuli, A., Zaman, H., Olivier, P., Kharrufa, A., & Ahmad, A. (2011). Analysing Tabletop Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Data through Visualization. In Proceedings of the Visual Informatics 2011 (IVIC 2011) (pp. 329–340). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Anaya, A., & Boticario, J. (2009). Clustering learners according to their collaboration. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD 2009) (pp. 540–545). Washington: IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. Anaya, A., & Boticario, J. (2011). Application of machine learning techniques to analyse student interactions and improve the collaboration process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(2), 1171–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, R. S., & Yacef, K. (2009). The State of Educational Data Mining in 2009: A Review and Future Visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining (JEDM), 1(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  6. Baraldi, S., DelBimbo, A., & Valli, A. (2006). Bringing the Wiki Collaboration Model to the Tabletop World. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo 2006 (ICME 2006) (pp. 333–336). Washington: IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J. D. (2008). Next step: Consolidating the cmappers community. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Concept Mapping 2008 (CMC 2008) (pp. 532–539). Tallinn: OÜ Vali PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P. (1998). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In New science of learning (pp. 525–552). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., Zufferey, G., Alavi, H., Jermann, P., Do-Lenh, S., & Bonnard, Q. (2011). Classroom orchestration: The third circle of usability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2011 (CSCL 2011) (pp. 510–517). ISLS.Google Scholar
  11. Dimitracopoulou, A., Mones, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Morch, A., Ludvigsen, S., & Harrer, A. (2004). State of the art on interaction analysis: Interaction analysis indicators. 1–148 Available online: http://ltee.org/adimitr/?page_id=64.
  12. Dimitrakopoulou, A., Petrou, A., Martinez, A., Marcos, J. A., Kollias, V., Jermann, et al. (2006). State of the art of interaction analysis for Metacognitive Support and Diagnosis. 1–119. Deliverable D.31.1. Available online: http://ltee.org/adimitr/?page_id=64.
  13. Do-Lenh, S., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Paper-based concept map: The effects of tabletop on an expressive collaborative learning task. In Proceedings of the British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2009 (BCH HCI 2009) (pp. 149–158). Cambridge: British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  14. Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falcao, T. P., & Price, S. (2009). What have you done! the role of ‘interference’ in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Sollaborative Learning (CSCL 2009) (pp. 325–334). ISLS.Google Scholar
  16. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  17. 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. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2009 (ITS 2009) (pp. 189–196). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Gao, H., Shen, E., Losh, S., & Turner, J. (2007). A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what is next? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4), 479–492.Google Scholar
  19. Harrer, A., Martínez-Monès, A., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2009). Users’ data: Collaborative and social analysis. In Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 175–193). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, A., Rick, J., Bonnett, V., Yuill, N., Fleck, R., Marshall, P., & Rogers, Y. (2009). Around the table: Are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children’s collaborative interactions? In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2009) (pp. 335–344). ISLS.Google Scholar
  21. Hilliges, O., Butz, A., Izadi, S., Wilson, A. D., & 221. (2010). Bringing the Physical to the Digital. In Tabletops - Horizontal Interactive Displays (p. 189). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). An Overview of CSCL Methodologies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) (pp. 920–921). ISLS.Google Scholar
  23. Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., Schneider, B., Lucci, A., Lepine, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Physical space and division of labor around a tabletop tangible simulation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2009) (pp. 345–349). ISLS.Google Scholar
  24. Jiang, L., & Hamilton, H. (2003). Methods for Mining Frequent Sequential Patterns. In Advances in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2671, p. 992). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24(2), 31–32.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. M., Sutton, P., & Poon, J. (2000). Face-to-Face vs. CMC: Student communication in a technologically rich learning environment. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE 2000) (pp. 509–520). Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kharrufa, A. S. (2010). Digital tabletops and collaborative learning. Doctoral Dissertation, Newcastle University. (EThOS Persistent ID: uk.bl.ethos.525036).Google Scholar
  28. Kinnebrew, J. S., Loretz, K. M., & Biswas, G. (2012). A contextualized, differential sequence mining method to derive students’ learning behavior patterns. Journal of Educational Data Mining (JEDM), 5(1), 190–219.Google Scholar
  29. Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leonard, S., Mary Elizabeth, S., & Samuel, S. D. (1997). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.Google Scholar
  32. Marshall, P., Hornecker, E., Morris, R., Sheep Dalton, N., & Rogers, Y. (2008). When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. In Proceedings of the Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, 2008 (TABLETOP 2008). (pp. 33–40). Washington: IEEE.Google Scholar
  33. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2010). Collaborative concept mapping at the tabletop. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS 2010) (pp. 207–210). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Collins, A., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2011a). Who did what? who said that? Collaid: An environment for capturing traces of collaborative learning at the tabletop. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS2011) (pp. 172–181). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., Wallace, J., & Yacef, K. (2011b). Modelling symmetry of activity as an indicator of collocated group collaboration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2011) (pp. 196–204). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., Kay, J., Kharrufa, A., & Al-Qaraghuli, A. (2011c). Analysing frequent sequential patterns of collaborative learning activity around an interactive tabletop. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining 2011 (EDM 2011) (pp. 111–120). IEDMS.Google Scholar
  37. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Dimitriadis, Y., Kay, J., Yacef, K., & Edbauer, M.-T. (2012a). Orchestrating a multi-tabletop classroom: From activity design to enactment and reflection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS 2012) (pp. 119–128). 2396655: New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  38. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., Kay, J., & Schwendimann, B. (2012b). An interactive teacher’s dashboard for monitoring multiple groups in a multi-tabletop learning environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2012 (ITS 2012) (pp. 482–492). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., Kay, J., & Schwendimann, B. (2012c). Unpacking traces of collaboration from multimodal data of collaborative concept mapping at a tabletop. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2012 (ICLS 2012) (pp. 241–245). ISLS.Google Scholar
  40. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2013). An automatic approach for mining patterns of collaboration around an interactive tabletop. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education 2013 (AIED 2013) (pp. 101–110). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mercier, E., Higgins, S., Burd, E., & Joyce-Gibbons, A. (2012). Multi-Touch Technology to Support Multiple Levels of Collaborative Learning in the Classroom. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2012 (ICLS 2012) (pp. 187–191). ISLS.Google Scholar
  43. Molinari, G., Sangin, M., Nüssli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Effects of knowledge interdependence with the partner on visual and action transactivity in collaborative concept mapping. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008 (ICLS 2008) (pp. 91–98). ISLS.Google Scholar
  44. Müller-Tomfelde, C., & Fjeld, M. (2012). Tabletops: Interactive Horizontal Displays for Ubiquitous Computing. Computer (February), 78–81.Google Scholar
  45. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Heuristics. In Usability Engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  46. Novak, J. (1995). Concept mapping to facilitate teaching and learning. Prospects, 25(1), 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Novak, J., & Cañas, A. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006–01. Available online: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryCmaps/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.htm.
  48. Olson, J. S., Teasley, S., Covi, L., & Olson, G. (2002). The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work. In Distributed work: New research on working across distance using technology (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Oppl, S., & Stary, C. (2011). Effects of a Tabletop Interface on the Co-construction of Concept Maps. In Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction 2011 (INTERACT 2011) (pp. 443–460). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perera, D., Kay, J., Koprinska, I., Yacef, K., & Zaiane, O. (2009). Clustering and sequential pattern mining of online collaborative learning data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(6), 759–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piper, A. M., & Hollan, J. D. (2009). Tabletop displays for small group study: affordances of paper and digital materials. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2009) (pp. 1227–1236). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  52. Race, P. (2001). A briefing on self, peer and group assessment. (Assessment, Vol. 9). York Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre.Google Scholar
  53. Rick, J., Harris, A., Marshall, P., Fleck, R., Yuill, N., & Rogers, Y. (2009). Children designing together on a multi-touch tabletop: An analysis of spatial orientation and user interactions. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children 2009 (IDC 2009) (pp. 106–114). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  54. Rick, J., Marshall, P., and Yuill, N. (2011). Beyond one-size-fits-all: How interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC 2010) (pp. 109–117). 1999043: ACM.Google Scholar
  55. Rogers, Y., & Lindley, S. (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: Which way is best? Interacting with Computers, 16(6), 1133–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Roman, F., Mastrogiacomo, S., Mlotkowski, D., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012). Can a table regulate participation in top level managers’ meetings? In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP 2012) (pp. 1–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  57. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving. In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. d. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2012) (pp. 252–254). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  61. Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Soller, A., Wiebe, J., & Lesgold, A. (2002). A machine learning approach to assessing knowledge sharing during collaborative learning activities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2002 (CSCL 2002) (pp. 128–137). ISLS.Google Scholar
  63. Soller, A., Martinez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261–290.Google Scholar
  64. Stahl, G. (2006). Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge. Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  65. Stahl, G. (2013). Transactive discourse in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Talavera, L., and Gaudioso, E. (2004). Mining Student Data to Characterize Similar Behavior Groups in Unstructured Collaboration Spaces. In Proceedings of the Workshop on artificial intelligence in CSCL - European Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2004 (ECAI 2004) (pp. 17–23).Google Scholar
  67. Tanenbaum, K., and Antle, A. N. (2009). Using Physical Constraints to Augment Concept Mapping on a Tangible Tabletop. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Information Technology 2009 (ICEIT 2009) (pp. 539–547). San Francisco: IAENG.Google Scholar
  68. Tang, A., Pahud, M., Carpendale, S., and Buxton, B. (2010). VisTACO: Visualizing tabletop collaboration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2010 (ITS 2010) (pp. 29–38). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  69. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yu, Z., & Nakamura, Y. (2010). Smart meeting systems: A survey of state-of-the-art and open issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 42(2), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications ACM, 47(5), 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Martinez-Maldonado
    • 1
  • Yannis Dimitriadis
    • 1
  • Alejandra Martinez-Monés
    • 1
  • Judy Kay
    • 1
  • Kalina Yacef
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options