Advertisement

Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment

  • Noel Enyedy
  • Joshua A. Danish
  • David DeLiema
Article

Abstract

In vision-based augmented-reality (AR) environments, users view the physical world through a video feed or device that augments the display with a graphical or informational overlay. Our goal in this manuscript is to ask how and why these new technologies create opportunities for learning. We suggest that AR is uniquely positioned to support learning through its ability to support students in developing “conceptual blends”—which we propose extend beyond cognitive spaces to include the layering of multiple ideas and physical materials, often supplied by different conversation participants. We document one case study and trace how the narrative structure of a board game, the physical floor materials (e.g. linoleum), a student’s first-person embodied experiences, the third-person live camera feed, and the augmented-reality symbols become integrated in the activity. As a result, students’ conceptualization of force and friction become fused with a diverse set of intellectual resources. We conclude by suggesting that the framework of liminal blends may inform the design of future AR learning environments and in particular help generate predictions about the ways in which the juxtaposition of certain resources may otherwise produce unexpected results.

Keywords

Augmented Reality Physics education Elementary education Play Video analysis Conceptual blends 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DRL- 0733218). This project would also not be possible without the help from members of our team who are not authors on this paper Fabian Wagmister, Jeff Burke and Alessandro Marianantoni. Finally we would like to thank Sylvia Gentile who taught the lessons and led the students in some remarkable discussions of force and motion.

References

  1. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 175–196.Google Scholar
  3. Danish, J. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 100–148.Google Scholar
  4. Dudis, P. G. (2004). Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Enyedy, N, Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012). Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3). doi: 10.1007/s11412-012-9150-3
  7. Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greeno, J., & Hall, R. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented Learning: Research and Design of Mobile Educational Games. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liddell, S. K. (1998). Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindgren, R. & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445–452.Google Scholar
  19. Nemirovsky, R., & Monk, S. (2000). “If you look at it the other way…” An exploration into the nature of symbolizing. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 177–221). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A. (2008). Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2, 151–171.Google Scholar
  23. Ochs, E., Gonzalez, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). When I come down, I’m in a domain state: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physics. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parill, F. (2012). Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective (pp. 97–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parrill, F., & Sweetser, E. (2004). What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. Gesture, 4(2), 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sidnell, J. (2011). The epistemics of make-believe. In T. Stivers & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 131–156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steen, F., & Owens, S. (2001). Evolution’s pedagogy: An adaptationist model of pretense and entertainment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1(4), 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner. (2014). The origin of ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, R. F. (2006). Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Williams, R. F. (2008). Guided conceptualization: Mental spaces in instructional discourse. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations