“Whoa! We’re going deep in the trees!”: Patterns of collaboration around an interactive information visualization exhibit

  • Pryce DavisEmail author
  • Michael Horn
  • Florian Block
  • Brenda Phillips
  • E. Margaret Evans
  • Judy Diamond
  • Chia Shen


In this paper we present a qualitative analysis of natural history museum visitor interaction around a multi-touch tabletop exhibit called DeepTree that we designed around concepts of evolution and common descent. DeepTree combines several large scientific datasets and an innovative visualization technique to display a phylogenetic tree of life consisting of over 70,000 species. After describing our design, we present a study involving pairs of children interacting with DeepTree in two natural history museums. Our analysis focuses on two questions. First, how do dyads negotiate their moment-to-moment exploration of the exhibit? Second, how do dyads develop and negotiate their understanding of evolutionary concepts? In order to address these questions we present an analytical framework that describes dyads’ exploration along two dimensions: coordination and target of action. This framework reveals four distinct patterns of interaction, which, we argue, are relevant for similar interactive designs. We conclude with a discussion of the role of design in helping visitors make sense of interactive experiences involving the visualization of large scientific datasets.


Learning Collaboration Evolution Interactive tabletops Information visualization 


  1. Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88(1), 17–S33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, S., & Gutwill, J. (2004). Designing with multiple interactives: Five common pitfalls. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antle, A. N., Tanenbaum, J., Seaborn K., Bevans, A., & Wang, S. (2011). Futura: Design for collaborative learning and game play on a multi-touch digital tabletop. In Proceedings of Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI’11) (pp. 93–100). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ash, D. (2004). How families use questions at dioramas: Ideas for exhibit design. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(1), 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, D. A., Smith, S. D., & Donovan, S. S. S. (2005). The tree-thinking challenge. Science, 310, 979–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Block, F., Horn, M., Phillips, B. C., Diamond, J., Evans, M., & Shen, C. (2012). The DeepTree exhibit: Visualizing the tree of life to facilitate informal earning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG), 18(12), 2789–2798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2008). Seeing the wood for the tree: An analysis of evolutionary diagrams in biology textbooks. Bioscience, 58(10), 976–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 85(6), 712–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, P. R., Horn, M. S., & Sherin, B. L. (2013). The right kind of wrong: A “Knowledge in Pieces” approach to science learning in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 31–46.Google Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2005). From living to virtual: Learning from museum objects. Curator: The Museum Journal, 48(3), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience. Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  13. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 Proc. interactive tabletops and surfaces ITS’09 (pp. 189–196). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper Colophon Books.Google Scholar
  17. Gregory, R. T. (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution Education and Outreach, 1, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall, R. (2000). Video recording as theory. Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647–664).Google Scholar
  19. Hammer, D., & Berland, L. K. (2014). Confusing claims for data: A critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Higgins, S. E., Mercier, E., Burd, E., & Hatch, A. (2011). Multi-touch tables and the relationship with collaborative classroom pedagogies: A synthetic review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 515–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinrichs, U., & Carpendale, S. (2011). Gestures in the wild: Studying multi-touch gesture sequences on interactive tabletop exhibits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3023–3032). ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Horn, M., Atrash Leong, Z., Block, F., Diamond, J., Evans, E. M., Phillips, B., & Shen, C. (2012, May). Of BATs and APEs: An interactive tabletop game for natural history museums. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2059–2068). ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Horn, M. S., Phillips, B., Evans, E. M., Block, F., Diamond, J., & Shen, C. (Under Review). Bringing “big data” to the table: Learning science in museums through an information visualization. Manuscript submitted for review. Google Scholar
  24. Hornecker, E. (2008, October). “I don’t understand it either, but it is cool”-visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum. In Horizontal interactive human computer systems, 2008. TABLETOP 2008. 3rd IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 113–120). IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. Humphrey, T., & Gutwill, J. P. (2005). Fostering active prolonged engagement: The art of creating APE exhibits. San Francisco: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Louw, M., & Crowley, K. (2013). New ways of looking and learning in natural history museums: The use of gigapixel imaging to bring science and publics together. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma, J., Liao, I., Ma, K. L., & Frazier, J. (2012). Living liquid: Design and evaluation of an exploratory visualization tool for museum visitors. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12), 2799–2808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacDonald, T., & Wiley, E. O. (2010). Communicating phylogeny: evolutionary tree diagrams in museums. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1–15.Google Scholar
  30. Marshall, P., Fleck, R., Harris, A., Rick, J., Hornecker, E., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., & Dalton, N. S. (2009). Fighting for control: Children’s embodied interactions when using physical and digital representations. In Proc. ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’09 (pp. 2149–2152). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  31. Matuk, C. F., & Uttal, D. H. (2012). Narrative spaces in the representation and understanding of evolution. In K. Rosengren et al. (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313, 765–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Novick, L. R., Stull, A. T., & Catley, K. M. (2012). Reading phylogenetic trees: Effects of tree orientation and text processing on comprehension. BioScience, 62, 757–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olson, I. C., Leong, Z. A., Wilensky, U., Horn, M. S. (2011). It’s just a toolbar!: Using tangibles to help children manage conflict around a multi-touch tabletop. In Proc. tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction TEI’11 (pp. 29–36). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  36. Oppenheimer, F. (1976). Everyone is you… or me. Technology Review, 78(7).Google Scholar
  37. Pontual Falcão, T., & Price, S. (2011). Interfering and resolving: How tabletop interaction facilitates co-construction of argumentative knowledge. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 539–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Price, S., & Pontual Falcão. (2011). Where the attention is: Discovery learning in novel tangible environments. Interacting with Computers, 23, 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prum, A. J. (Producer). (2008). Discovering the Great Tree of Life. Available from the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT.
  40. Rick, J., Marshall, P., & Yuill, N. (2011). Beyond one-size-fits-all: How interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. In Proc. interaction design and children IDC’11 (pp. 109–117). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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 Interaction Design and Children (pp. 7–16). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rosengren, K. S., Brem, S. K., Evans, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (Eds.). (2012). Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schneider, B., Strait, M., Muller, L., Elfenbein, S., Shaer, O., & Shen, C. (2012). Phylo-Genie: Engaging students in collaborative “tree-thinking” through tabletop techniques. In Proc. human factors in computing systems (CHI’12) (pp. 3071–3080). ACM.Google Scholar
  44. Scott, S. D., Mandryk, R. L., & Inkpen, K. M. (2003). Understanding children’s collaborative interactions in shared environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shaer, O., Strait, M., Valdes, C., Feng, T., Lintz, M., & Wang, H. (2011). Enhancing genomic learning through tabletop interaction. In Proc. human factors in computing systems (CHI’11) (pp. 2817–2826). ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Snibbe, S. S., & Raffle, H. S. (2009). Social immersive media: Pursuing best practices for multi-user interactive camera/projector exhibits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1447–1456). ACM.Google Scholar
  47. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1997). Seeing tornado: How video traces mediate visitor understandings of (natural?) phenomena in a science museum. Science Education, 81(6), 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pryce Davis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Horn
    • 1
  • Florian Block
    • 2
  • Brenda Phillips
    • 2
  • E. Margaret Evans
    • 3
  • Judy Diamond
    • 4
  • Chia Shen
    • 2
  1. 1.Learning Sciences and Computer ScienceNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.School of Engineering and Applied SciencesHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Center for Human Growth and DevelopmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.University of Nebraska State MuseumLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations