Advertisement

DCLM framework: understanding collaboration in open-ended tabletop learning environments

  • Mike Tissenbaum
  • Matthew Berland
  • Leilah Lyons
Article
First Online:

Abstract

There is a growing understanding of the unique ways that tabletops support effective collaboration; however, this research mostly focuses on environments in which learners work towards a single shared goal. Underpinning this perspective, either implicitly or explicitly, is the theory that collaborative learning is a process of attaining convergent conceptual change. However, this model of collaboration may not apply to all scenarios where learners are working together. In particular, informal, open-ended exploratory environments support (and often promote) shared activities where the goal may not be for all participants to emerge with a single, shared understanding. There is increased interest in understanding the efficacy of designs that support (and encourage) learners to collaborate while seeking divergent goals, ideas, and conceptions. This paper advances a framework (Divergent Collaboration Learning Mechanisms - DCLM) for recognizing and coding collaboration and divergent learning in such environments. We apply the DCLM framework to an informal tabletop environment (Oztoc) as a means of highlighting how DCLM may reveal new productive interactions environments that support divergent forms of collaboration, mentorship, and learning. Analysis of participants’ interactions within Oztoc revealed that participants who have non-aligned goals can still productively collaborate, and in many cases can provide insight and feedback that would not be possible in shared-goal activities. We conclude with an examination of how open-ended exploratory environments can support communities of practice and legitimate peripheral participation, and the importance of divergent inquiry and divergent conceptual change across a range of learning environments.

Keywords

Interactive tabletops Collaboration Museums Informal learning environments 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Antle, A. N., Wise, A. F., Willis, A., Tan, P. Nowroozi, S., Eckerssley, R., Fan, M., Warren, J. (2013). Youtopia: A collaborative, tangible, multi-touch, sustainability learning activity. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 565–568). ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138–162. doi: 10.1002/tea.10069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63).Google Scholar
  4. Benford, S., Bederson, B., Akesson, K.-P., Bayon, V., Druin, A., Hansson, P., Hourcade, J. P., Ingram, R., Neale, H., O'Malley, C., Simsarian, K. T., Stanton, D., Sundblad, Y., Taxen, G., (2000). Designing storytelling technologies to encouraging collaboration between young children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 556–563). ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Berland, M. (2016). Making, tinkering, and computational literacy. Makeology: Makers as learners, 2, 196–205.Google Scholar
  6. Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Smith, C. P., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 564–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Block, F., Hammerman, J., Horn, M. S., Phillips, B. C., Evans, E. M., Diamond, J., & Shen, C (2015). Fluid Grouping: Quantifying Group Engagement around Interactive Tabletop Exhibits in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 867–876). ACM.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Clayphan, A., Kay, J., & Horder, J. (2012). My museum tour: Collaborative poster creation during school museum visits. In Educational Interfaces, Software, and Technology 2012: 3rd Workshop on UI Technologies and Educational Pedagogy. Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  11. Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building Islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G. Leinhardt, K. J. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333–356). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J. L., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity. Science Education, 6(85), 712–732. doi: 10.1002/sce.1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D'Angelo, S., Pollock, D. H., & Horn, M. (2015). Fishing with friends: Using tabletop games to raise environmental awareness in aquariums. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 29–38). ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Daskolia, M., & Kynigos, C. (2012). Applying a constructionist frame to learning about sustainability. Creative Education, 3(06), 818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschman, T., Lemke, J. K., Sherin, M., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewan, P., & Choudhard, R. (1991). Flexible user interface coupling in a collaborative system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Reaching through Technology-CHI ‘91 (pp. 41–48). doi: 10.1145/108844.108851.
  17. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elbers, E., & Streefland, L. (2000). Collaborative learning and the construction of common knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falcão, 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 collaborative learning - Volume 1 (pp. 325–334). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  21. Falcão, T. P., & Price, S. (2011). Interfering and resolving: How tabletop interaction facilitates co-construction of argumentative knowledge. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 539–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Falk, J. H. (2006). An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning. Curator: The museum journal, 49(2), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744–778. doi: 10.1002/sce.20078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fleck, R., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., Marshall, P., Carr, A., Rick, J., & Bonnett, V. (2009). Actions speak loudly with words: unpacking collaboration around the table. In Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces (pp. 189–196). ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Geller, T. (2006). Interactive tabletop exhibits in museums and galleries. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 26(5), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Research to practice: Observing learning in tinkering activities. Curator: The Museum Journal, 58(2), 151–168. doi: 10.1111/cura.12105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heath, C., & Vom Lehn, D. (2008). Configuring 'Interactivity' enhancing engagement in science Centres and museums. Social Studies of Science, 38(1), 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horn, M. S., & Jacob, R. J. (2007, April). Tangible programming in the classroom with tern. In CHI'07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1965–1970). ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Dalton, N. S., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Collaboration and interference: Awareness with mice or touch input. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 167–176). ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., & Herr-Stephenson, B. (2010). Hanging out, messing around and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., Schneider, B., Lucci, A., Lépine, 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-Volume 1 (pp. 345–349). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  33. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 98, pp. 16–22).Google Scholar
  35. Korn, R. (1995). An analysis of differences between visitors at natural history museums and science centers. Curator: The Museum Journal, 38(3), 150–160. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.1995.tb01051.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activty, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Lou, Y., & MacGregor, K. S. (2004). Enhancing project-based learning through online between-group collaboration. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(4–6), 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lucchi, A., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). An empirical evaluation of touch and tangible interfaces for tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (pp. 177–184). ACM.Google Scholar
  40. Lyons, L. (2009). Designing opportunistic user interfaces to support a collaborative museum exhibit. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning - Volume 1.Google Scholar
  41. Lyons, L., Tissenbaum, M., Berland, M., Eydt, R., Wielgus, L., & Mechtley, A. (2015). Designing visible engineering: Supporting tinkering performances in museums. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 49–58). ACM.Google Scholar
  42. Mäkitalo, K., Salo, P., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2001). Analysing the mechanisms of common ground in collaborative web-based interaction. In European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Euro-CSCL 2001 (pp. 445–453).Google Scholar
  43. Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (pp. 163–170). ACM.Google Scholar
  44. Martínez Maldonado, R., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2010). Collaborative concept mapping at the tabletop. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (pp. 207–210). ACM.Google Scholar
  45. Mercier, E. M., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Collaborative learning with multi-touch technology: Developing adaptive expertise. Learning and Instruction, 25, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morris, M. R., Ryall, K., Shen, C., Forlines, C., & Vernier, F. (2004). Beyond “social protocols”: Multi-user coordination policies for co-located groupware. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW ‘04). Chicago: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1031607.1031648.
  47. Nathan, M. J., Eilam, B., & Kim, S. (2007). To disagree, we must also agree: How intersubjectivity structures and perpetuates discourse in a mathematics classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 523–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nova, N., Wehrle, T., Goslin, J., Bourquin, Y., & Dillenbourg, P. (2007). Collaboration in a multi-user game: Impacts of an awareness tool on mutual modeling. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 32(2), 161–183. doi: 10.1007/s11042-006-0065-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Owen, V. E., & Halverson, R. (2013). ADAGE (Assessment Data Aggregator for Game Environments): A click-stream data framework for assessment of learning in play. In In Proceedings of the Games+Learning+Scoiety Conference 9.0. Pittsburgh: Lulu Press.Google Scholar
  50. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1–11.Google Scholar
  51. Peppler, K., Halverson, E. R., & Kafai, Y. B. (Eds.). (2016). Makeology: Makers as Learners (Vol. 2). Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2003). Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI’03), 10(4), 281–311. doi: 10.1145/966930.966932.CrossRefGoogle 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 (pp. 106–114). ACM.Google Scholar
  54. Roberts, L. C. (1997). From knowledge to narrative: Educators and the changing museum. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Schauble, L., Gleason, M., Lehrer, R., Bartlett, K., Petrosino, A., Allen, A., et al. (2002). Supporting science learning in museums. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, S. D., Grant, K. D., & Mandryk, R. L. (2003). System guidelines for co-located, collaborative work on a tabletop display. In ECSCW’03: Proceedings of the eighth conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 159–178). Helsinki.Google Scholar
  58. Shen, C., Lesh, N., & Vernier, F. (2003). Personal digital historian: Story sharing around the table. Interactions, 10(2), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Stefik, M., Bobrow, D. G., Foster, G., Lanning, S., & Tatar, D. (1987). WYSIWIS revised: Early experiences with multiuser interfaces. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 5(2), 147–167. doi: 10.1145/27636.28056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sugimoto, M., Hosoi, K., & Hashizume, H. (2004). Caretta: A system for supporting face-to-face collaboration by integrating personal and shared spaces. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘04) (pp. 41–48). Vienna.Google Scholar
  62. Tse, E., Shen, C., Greenberg, S., & Forlines, C. (2007, April). How pairs interact over a multimodal digital table. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 215–218). ACM.Google Scholar
  63. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs, 16(1), 128–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM, 1–55.Google Scholar
  65. Vygotsky, L. (1930/1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wang, J., & Agogino, A. M. (2013). Cross-community design and implementation of engineering tinkering activities at a science center. In Proceedings of FabLearn (pp. 1–4). Stanford.Google Scholar
  67. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu. 2005.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Whitman, L. E., & Witherspoon, T. L. (2003). Using legos to interest high school students and improve k12 stem education. In fie (pp. F3A6–10). IEEE.Google Scholar
  69. Wielgus, L. (2015) The Benefits of Echoing at an Engineering Design Exhibit. (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  71. Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2008). Distributed expertise in a science center social and intellectual role-taking by families. Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zufferey, G., Jermann, P., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Using augmentations as bridges from concrete to abstract representations. In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology (pp. 130–139). British Computer Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MIT Center for Mobile LearningCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Learning Sciences Research InstituteUniversity of Illinois ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options