Fourth graders’ dyadic learning on multi-touch interfaces—versatile effects of verbalization prompts
Multi-touch interfaces allow for direct and simultaneous input by several co-present learners and afford hands-on learning experiences. Additional scaffolding for strategic behavior and/or verbalizations may constructively complement collaborative learning with a multi-touch device. In this study, the tablet app “Proportion” is supposed to enable two novices (about 10 years old) to collaboratively construct an understanding of proportional relations. In a 2 × 2 factorial design (n = 162), effects of enriching Proportion with strategy prompts (with/without) and verbalization prompts (with/without) on multi-modal processes as well as near and far transfer learning gains have been investigated. The process variables include task focus, positive and negative emotions, and quality of dialogue (transactivity, epistemic quality). We found a general improvement in near transfer task types over all conditions without the two prompt types further affecting learning gains. While the strategy prompts did not significantly affect processes or outcomes, the verbalization prompts had versatile effects on learning processes: On one hand, quality of talk was improved, on the other hand, task focus and emotions were negatively affected.
KeywordsCollaborative learning Embodiment Proportional reasoning Scaffolding Tablets
The authors would like to thank Jochen Rick for designing and programming the Proportion app and the various student assistants supporting the research project.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Abrahamson, D. (2017). Embodiment and mathematics learning. In K. Peppler (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (pp. 247–252). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 399–410.Google Scholar
- Danish, J. A., Enyedy, N., Saleh, A., Lee, C., & Andrade, A. (2015). Science through technology enhanced play: Designing to support reflection through play and embodiment. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschman, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: The computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 332–339). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
- Ellis, S., Klahr, D., & Siegler, R. S. (1993). Effects of feedback and collaboration on changes in children’s use of mathematical rules. Paper presented at the Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.Google Scholar
- Gelman, R., Cohen, M., & Hartnett, P. (1989). To know mathematics is to go beyond thinking that “Fractions aren’t numbers.” In C. A. Maher, G. A. Goldin, & R. B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 29–67). New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
- Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI (pp. 187–194). Los Angeles, CA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lehman, B., Matthews, M., D’Mello, S., & Person, N. (2008). What are you feeling? Investigating student affective states during expert human tutoring sessions. In B. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 50–59). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Reinholz, D. L., Trninic, D., Howison, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2010). It’s not easy being green: Embodied artifacts and the guided emergence of mathematical meaning. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 6, pp. 1488–1496). Columbus, OH: PME-NA.Google Scholar
- Regionalverband Saarbrücken. (2012). 1. Bildungsbericht für den Regionalverband Saarbrücken. Saarbrücken, Germany: Regionalverband Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
- Rick, J. (2012). Proportion: A tablet app for collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Interaction Design and Children Conference, IDC (pp. 316–319). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- Rick, J., Kopp, D., Schmitt, L., & Weinberger, A. (2015). Tarzan and Jane Share an iPad. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschman, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: The computer supported collaborative Learning (CSCL) conference 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 356–363). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Rick, J., Rogers, Y., Haig, C., & Yuill, N. (2009). Learning by doing with shareable interfaces. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(1), 320–341.Google Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Sim, G., Cassidy, B., & Read, J. C. (2013). Understanding the fidelity effect when evaluating games with children. In IDC 2013 (pp. 193–200).Google Scholar
- Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H., ter Vrugte, J., Vandercruysse, S., de Jong, T., & Elen, J. (2015). The role of curiosity-triggering events in game-based learning for mathematics. In J. Torbeyns, E. Lehtinen, & J. Elen (Eds.), Describing and studying domain-specific serious games. Advances in game-based learning (pp. 191–207). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar