Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

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.

  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.

  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).

  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.

  5. Berland, M. (2016). Making, tinkering, and computational literacy. Makeology: Makers as learners, 2, 196–205.

  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.

  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.

  8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

  9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  14. Daskolia, M., & Kynigos, C. (2012). Applying a constructionist frame to learning about sustainability. Creative Education, 3(06), 818.

  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.

  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.

  18. Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 491–514.

  19. Elbers, E., & Streefland, L. (2000). Collaborative learning and the construction of common knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 479–490.

  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.

  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.

  22. Falk, J. H. (2006). An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning. Curator: The museum journal, 49(2), 151–166.

  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.

  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.

  25. Geller, T. (2006). Interactive tabletop exhibits in museums and galleries. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 26(5), 6–11.

  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.

  27. Heath, C., & Vom Lehn, D. (2008). Configuring 'Interactivity' enhancing engagement in science Centres and museums. Social Studies of Science, 38(1), 63–91.

  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.

  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.

  30. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.

  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.

  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.

  33. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

  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).

  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.

  36. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  37. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activty, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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).

  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.

  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.

  45. Mercier, E. M., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Collaborative learning with multi-touch technology: Developing adaptive expertise. Learning and Instruction, 25, 13–23.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  50. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1–11.

  51. Peppler, K., Halverson, E. R., & Kafai, Y. B. (Eds.). (2016). Makeology: Makers as Learners (Vol. 2). Routledge.

  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.

  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.

  54. Roberts, L. C. (1997). From knowledge to narrative: Educators and the changing museum. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  58. Shen, C., Lesh, N., & Vernier, F. (2003). Personal digital historian: Story sharing around the table. Interactions, 10(2), 15–22.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  63. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs, 16(1), 128–157.

  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.

  65. Vygotsky, L. (1930/1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  69. Wielgus, L. (2015) The Benefits of Echoing at an Engineering Design Exhibit. (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

  70. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

  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.

  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.

  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.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Mike Tissenbaum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tissenbaum, M., Berland, M. & Lyons, L. DCLM framework: understanding collaboration in open-ended tabletop learning environments. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 12, 35–64 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9249-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Interactive tabletops
  • Collaboration
  • Museums
  • Informal learning environments