Advertisement

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

Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment

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.

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

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.

  2. Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 175–196.

  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.

  4. Dudis, P. G. (2004). Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 223–238.

  5. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

  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.

  8. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187.

  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.

  10. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.

  11. Greeno, J., & Hall, R. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.

  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.

  13. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  14. Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577.

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

  16. Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented Learning: Research and Design of Mobile Educational Games. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  17. Liddell, S. K. (1998). Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 283–314.

  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.

  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.

  20. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.

  21. Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A. (2008). Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  22. Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2, 151–171.

  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.

  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.

  25. Parrill, F., & Sweetser, E. (2004). What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. Gesture, 4(2), 197–219.

  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.

  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.

  28. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  29. Turner. (2014). The origin of ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.

  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.

  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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Correspondence to Noel Enyedy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Enyedy, N., Danish, J.A. & DeLiema, D. Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 10, 7–34 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9207-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Augmented Reality
  • Physics education
  • Elementary education
  • Play
  • Video analysis
  • Conceptual blends