Advertisement

The value of learning talk: applying a novel dialogue scoring method to inform interaction design in an open-ended, embodied museum exhibit

  • Jessica Roberts
  • Leilah Lyons
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Museum researchers have long acknowledged the importance of dialogue in informal learning, particularly for open-ended exploratory exhibits. Novel interaction techniques like full-body interaction are appealing for these exploratory exhibits, but designers have not had a metric for determining how their designs are supporting productive learning talk. Moreover, with the incorporation of digital technologies into museums, researchers and designers now have the opportunity for in situ A/B testing of multiple exhibit designs not previously possible with traditionally constructed exhibits, which once installed were difficult and expensive to iterate. Here we present a method called Scoring Qualitative Informal Learning Dialogue (SQuILD) for quantifying idiosyncratic social learning talk, in order to conduct in situ testing of group learning at interactive exhibits. We demonstrate how the method was applied to a 2 × 2 experiment varying the means of control (full-body vs. handheld tablet controller) and the distribution of control (single-user-input vs. multi-user-input) of an interactive data map exhibit. Though pilot testing in the lab predicted that full-body and multi-input designs would best support learning talk, analysis of dialogue from 119 groups’ interactions revealed surprising nuances in the affordances of each. Implications for embodied interaction design are discussed.

Keywords

Dialogue analysis Museum learning Embodied interaction design Exhibit design Full-body interaction Intersubjective learning Human-data interaction A/B testing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1248052.

References

  1. Abrahamson, D., & Bakker, A. (2016). Making sense of movement in embodied design for mathematics learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 33.Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259–303). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88(S1), S17–S33.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelo, S. D., 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). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Antle, A. N., Droumeva, M., & Corness, G. (2008). Playing with the sound maker: Do embodied metaphors help children learn? In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 178–185). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Droumeva, M. (2009). What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interacting with Computers, 21(1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Bevans, A. (2013a). Balancing justice: Comparing whole body and controller-based interaction for an abstract domain. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 6(4), 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Antle, A. N., Wise, A. F., Hall, A., Nowroozi, S., Tan, P., Warren, J., Eckersley, R., & Fan, M. (2013b). Youtopia: a collaborative, tangible, multi-touch, sustainability learning activity. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 565–568). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Aoki, P. M., Grinter, R. E., Hurst, A., Szymanski, M. H., Thornton, J. D., & Woodruff, A. (2002). Sotto voce: Exploring the interplay of conversation and mobile audio spaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 431–438). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ash, D. (2004). How families use questions at dioramas: Ideas for exhibit design. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(1), 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Atkins, L. J., Velez, L., Goudy, D., & Dunbar, K. N. (2009). The unintended effects of interactive objects and labels in the science museum. Science Education, 93(1), 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beheshti, E., Obiorah, M., & Horn, M. S. (2015). “Let’s dive into it!”: Learning electricity with multiple representations. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 263–266). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  16. Block, F., Hammerman, J., Horn, M., Spiegel, A., Christiansen, J., Phillips, B., Diamond, J., Evans, E. M., & Shen, C. (2015). Fluid grouping: Quantifying group engagement around interactive tabletop exhibits in the wild. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 867–876). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  17. Borun, M., Chambers, M., & Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learning in science museums. Curator, 39(2), 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cabrera, J. S., Frutos, H. M., Stoica, A. G., Avouris, N., Dimitriadis, Y., Fiotakis, G., & Liveri, K. D. (2005). Mystery in the museum: Collaborative learning activities using handheld devices. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services 2005 (pp. 315–318). Salzburg: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cafaro, F. (2015). Using framed guessability to design gesture suites for embodied interaction (PhD thesis). Retrieved from the University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Cafaro, F., Panella, A., Lyons, L., Roberts, J., & Radinsky, J. (2013). I see you there! Developing identity-preserving embodied interaction for museum exhibits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1911–1920). ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Cafaro, F., Lyons, L., Kang, R., Radinsky, J., Roberts, J., Vogt, K. F. (2014a). Framed Guessability: Using embodied allegories to increase user agreement on gesture sets. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (pp. 197–204). ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Cafaro, F., Lyons, L., Roberts, J., & Radinsky, J. (2014b). The uncanny valley of embodied interaction design. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 1075–1078). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  23. Card, S., Mackinlay, J. D., & Shneiderman, B. (Eds.). (1999). Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.Google Scholar
  24. Charoenying, T. (2013). Graph hopping: Learning through physical interaction quantification. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 495–498). ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Curcio, F. R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Davidsen, J., & Ryberg, T. (2017). “This is the size of one meter”: Children’s bodily-material collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 65–90.Google Scholar
  29. Davis, P., Horn, M., Block, F., Phillips, B., Evans, E. M., Diamond, J., & Shen, C. (2015). “Whoa! We’re going deep in the trees!”: Patterns of collaboration around an interactive information visualization exhibit. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Diamond, J., Bond, A., Schenker, B., Meier, D., & Twersky, D. (1995). Collaborative multimedia. Curator, 38(3), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Diamond, J., Luke, J. J., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Practical evaluation guide: Tools for museums & other informal educational settings (2 ed.). Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  32. Dini, R., Paternò, F., & Santoro, C. (2007). An environment to support multi-user interaction and cooperation for improving museum visits through games. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 515–521). ACM.Google Scholar
  33. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is : The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2005). From living to virtual: Learning from museum objects. Curator, 48(3), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki-Gitai, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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), 347–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., & DeLiema, D. (2015). Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums : Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. American Association for State and Local History book series. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  40. Falk, J. H., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fischer, U., Moeller, K., Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2011). Sensori-motor spatial training of number magnitude representation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  45. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., Vom Lehn, D., & Cleverly, J. (2005). Creating assemblies in public environments: Social interaction, interactive exhibits and CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hope, T., Nakamura, Y., Takahashi, T., Nobayashi, A., Fukuoka, S., Hamasaki, M., & Nishimura, T. (2009). Familial collaborations in a museum. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1963–1972). ACM.Google Scholar
  49. Horn, M., Roberts, J., Banerjee, A., & McGee, S. (2017) Touch | Don’t touch: Exploring the role of interactive displays in natural history museums to help visitors appreciate objects behind glass. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 851–852). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  50. Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). The mathematical imagery trainer: From embodied interaction to conceptual learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1989–1998). ACM.Google Scholar
  51. Humphrey, T., Gutwill, J., & Exploratorium APE Team. (2005). Fostering active prolonged engagement: The art of creating APE exhibits. San Francisco: Exploratorium.Google Scholar
  52. Jacobs, J. K., Yoshida, M., Stigler, J. W., & Fernandez, C. (1997). Japanese and American teachers' evaluations of mathematics lessons: A new technique for exploring beliefs. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(1), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2017). Embodied science and mixed reality: How gesture and motion capture affect physics education. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 24.Google Scholar
  54. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Tolentino, L., & Koziupa, T. (2014). Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2007). Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaschak, M. P., Connor, C. M., Dombek, J. L., Glenberg, A., Aveyard, M., & Blanchard, A. (2017). Enacted reading comprehension: Using bodily movement to aid the comprehension of abstract text content. PLoS One, 12(1), e0169711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kay, M., Kola, T., Hullman, J., & Munson, S. (2016). When (ish) is my bus? User-centered visualizations of uncertainty in everyday, mobile predictive systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5092–5103). ACM.Google Scholar
  58. Kisiel, J., Rowe, S., Vartabedian, M. A., & Kopczak, C. (2012). Evidence for family engagement in scientific reasoning at interactive animal exhibits. Science Education, 96(6), 1047–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kruppa, M., & Aslan, I. (2005). Parallel presentations for Heterogenous user groups - an initial user study. In M. Maybury et al. (Eds.), Proceedings INTETAIN 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 54–63). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Lanir, J., Wecker, A. J., Kuflik, T., & Felberbaum, Y. (2016). Shared mobile displays: An exploratory study of their use in a museum setting. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 20(4), 635–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lee, V. R., & Drake, J. (2013). Quantified recess: Design of an activity for elementary students involving analyses of their own movement data. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 273–276). ACM.Google Scholar
  64. Leinhardt, G., & Crowley, K. (1998). Conversational elaboration as a process and an outcome of museum learning. In Museum learning collaborative technical report (MLC-01). Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  65. Leinhardt, G., & Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on museum conversations. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  66. Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (2002). Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Liccardi, I., Abdul-Rahman, A., & Chen, M. (2016). I know where you live: Inferring details of people’s lives by visualizing publicly shared location data. In Proceedings of the 2016 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). ACM.Google Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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 (pp. 375–384). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  71. Lyons, L. (2016). Exhibiting data: Using body-as-interface designs to engage visitors with data visualizations. In V. Lee (Ed.), Learning technologies and the body: Integration and implementation in formal and informal learning environments. New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis).Google Scholar
  72. Lyons, L., Slattery, B., Jimenez Pazmino, P., Lopez Silva, B., & Moher, T. (2012). Don’t forget about the sweat: Effortful embodied interaction in support of learning. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (pp. 77–84). ACM.Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Macedonia, M. (2003). Revitalizing museums with digital technology. Computer, 36(2), 94–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Malinverni, L., & Burguès, N. P. (2015). The medium matters: The impact of full-body interaction on the socio-affective aspects of collaboration. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 89–98). ACM.Google Scholar
  76. Malinverni, L., Ackermann, E., & Pares, N. (2016). Experience as an Object to Think with. In Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 332–339). New York: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839477.
  77. McLean, K. (1999). Museum exhibitions and the dynamics of dialogue. Daedalus, 128(3), 83–107.Google Scholar
  78. Meisner, R., vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., Burch, A., Gammon, B., & Reisman, M. (2007). Exhibiting performance: Co-participation in science centres and museums. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1531–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Murray, T. S., Kirsch, I. S., & Jenkins, L. B. (1998). Adult literacy in OECD countries: Technical report on the first international adult literacy survey. SSOP, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop.Google Scholar
  81. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  82. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  83. Peppler, K., Danish, J., Zaitlen, B., Glosson, D., Jacobs, A., & Phelps, D. (2010). BeeSim: leveraging wearable computers in participatory simulations with young children. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 246–249).Google Scholar
  84. Povis, K. T., & Crowley, K. (2015). Family learning in object-based museums: The role of joint attention. Visitor Studies, 18(2), 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 3–10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Roberts, L. C. (1997). From knowledge to narrative: Educators and the changing museum. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  87. Roberts, J., Lyons, L., Cafaro, F., & Eydt, R. (2014). Interpreting data from within: Supporting human-data interaction in museum exhibits through perspective taking. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 7–16). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  88. Roberts, J., Lyons, L., Cafaro, F., & Eydt, R. (2015). Harnessing motion-sensing technologies to engage visitors with digital data. In Proceedings of Museums and the Web. Archives & Museum Informatics.Google Scholar
  89. Rounds, J. J. (2006). Doing identity work in museums. Curator, 49(2), 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  91. 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 (pp. 333–356). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  92. Scheible, J., & Ojala, T. (2005). MobiLenin combining a multi-track music video, personal mobile phones and a public display into multi-user interactive entertainment. In Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 199-208). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  93. Schmitt, B., Bach, C., Dubois, E., & Duranthon, F. (2010). Designing and evaluating advanced interactive experiences to increase visitor’s stimulation in a museum. In Proceedings of the Augmented Human International Conference (pp. 1–8). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  94. Seifert, C., & Hutchins, E. (1992). Error as opportunity: Learning in a cooperative task. Human-Computer Interaction, 7(4), 409–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.Google Scholar
  96. Slattery, B., Lyons, L., Jimenez Pazmino, P., Lopez Silva, B., & Moher, T. (2014). How interpreters make use of technological supports in an interactive zoo exhibit. In Proceedings of the  11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2014) (pp. 198–205). Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  97. Snibbe, S., & Raffle, H. (2009). Social immersive media.  In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1447-1456). ACM.Google Scholar
  98. Stahl, G. (2015). A decade of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 337–344Google Scholar
  99. Steier, R. (2014). Posing the question: Visitor posing as embodied interpretation in an art museum. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 148–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Steier, R., Pierroux, P., & Krange, I. (2015). Embodied interpretation: Gesture, social interaction, and meaning making in a national art museum. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 7, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions : The problem of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Tscholl, M., & Lindgren, R. (2016). Designing for learning conversations: How parents support Children’s science learning within an immersive simulation. Science Education, 100(5), 877–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Uzzo, S. M., Chen, R. S., & Downs, R. R. (2016). Connected Worlds: Connecting the public with complex environmental systems. In American Geophysical Union, Fall General Assembly 2016, abstract #ED23F-05.Google Scholar
  106. vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24(2), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Wagner, D., Schmalstieg, D., & Billinghurst, M. (2006). Handheld AR for collaborative edutainment. In Proceedings of ICAT 2006 (pp. 85-96). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  109. Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202–208.Google Scholar
  110. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Williams, A., Kabisch, E., & Dourish, P. (2005). From interaction to participation: Configuring space through embodied interaction. In Proceedings of UbiComp 2005: Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 287-304). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  112. Yap, K., Zheng, C., Tay, A., Yen, C.-C., & Do, E. Y.-L. (2015). Word out! In Proceedings of the 6th Augmented Human International Conference on - AH ‘15 (pp. 101–108). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  113. Yatani, K., Sugimoto, M., & Kusunoki, F. (2004). Musex: A system for supporting children’s collaborative learning in a museum with PDAs. In Proceedings The 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2004 (pp. 109–112). IEEE.Google Scholar
  114. Yoon, S. A., & Wang, J. (2014). Making the invisible visible in science museums through augmented reality devices. TechTrends, 58(1), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 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
  116. Zhu, Y. (2007). Measuring effective data visualization. In G. Bebis, R. Boyle, B. Parvin, et al. (Eds.), Advances in visual computing (pp. 652–661). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.New York Hall of ScienceQueensUSA
  3. 3.Computer Science / Learning Sciences, University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options