This study contributes to our understanding of meaning making in CSCL environments by examining a specific aspect of collaborative problem solving in which students improvise, introduce, and make meaning with representations in disciplinary domains. These situations include the embodied and imaginative processes of discovering new representational possibilities and artifact meanings. Much of the research on student-generated representations examines situations in which students are asked by a teacher or researcher explicitly to produce representations. However, we need more knowledge about how students within CSCL settings introduce representations from outside of the designed environment or intended task in order to solve a problem. To unpack the processes of collaborative improvisation and meaning making, we take a sociocultural stance towards imagining. This stance involves considering the socially and materially situated ways that participants express new possibilities and alternative situations that extend beyond the present reality. Focusing on a specific task based on maps as disciplinary representations, we analyze video data of upper secondary physics students working in small groups in a co-located CSCL environment. To characterize shifts across boundaries of several modalities including the verbal and gestural, digital and physical, and 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional, we identify emergent representations as imaginative productions. The findings extend current research on collaborative meaning making by bringing attention to the processes through which improvised representations emerge.. This knowledge is key to facilitating the discovery of representational possibilities in CSCL environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Anderson, K. C., & Leinhardt, G. (2002). Maps as representations: Expert novice comparison of projection understanding. Cognition and Instruction, 20(3), 283–321. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2003.
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.
Battersby, S. E., & Kessler, F. C. (2012). Cues for interpreting distortion in map projections. Journal of Geography, 111(3), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2011.609895.
Bausmith, J. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Middle-school students’ map construction: Understanding complex spatial displays. Journal of Geography, 97(3), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221349808978834.
Bednarz, S. W., Acheson, G., & Bednarz, R. S. (2006). Maps and map learning in social studies. Social Education, 70(7), 398–404. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841273.
Brainerd, J., & Pang, A. (2001). Interactive map projections and distortion. Computers & Geosciences, 27(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(00)00108-4.
Bungum, B., Henriksen, E. K., Angell, C., Tellefsen, C. W., & Bøe, M. V. (2015). ReleQuant - improving teaching and learning in quantum physics through educational design research. Nordina: Nordic Studies in Science Education, 11(2), 153–168.
ÇakIr, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9061-0.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9248-8.
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.
Downs, R. M., & Liben, L. S. (1991). The development of expertise in geography: A cognitive-developmental approach to geographic education. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81, 304–327.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9001-1.
Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.
Eriksson, U. (2014). Reading the sky (PhD thesis). Uppsala University.
Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Who needs 3D when the universe is flat? Science Education, 98(3), 412–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21109.
Evans, M. A., Feenstra, E., Ryon, E., & McNeill, D. (2011). A multimodal approach to coding discourse: Collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9113-0.
Farmann, J. (2010). Mapping the digital empire: Google earth and the process of postmodern cartography. New Media and Society, 12(6), 869–888.
Furberg, A. (2016). Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: Bridging the gap between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9229-3.
Furberg, A., Kluge, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9165-4.
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis , learning , and social practice : A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026001005.
Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.
Henriksen, E. K., & Angell, C. (2010). The role of ‘talking physics’ in an undergraduate physics class using an electronic audience response system. Physics Education, 45(3), 278–284.
Henriksen, E. K., Bungum, B., Angell, C., Tellefsen, C. W., Frågåt, T., & Vetleseter Bøe, M. (2014). Relativity, quantum physics and philosophy in the upper secondary curriculum: Challenges, opportunities and proposed approaches. Physics Education, 49(6), 678–684.
Hutchins, E. (2010). Enaction, imagination, and insight. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 425–450). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundation and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences., 4, 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2.
Jornet, A., & Steier, R. (2015). The matter of space: Bodily performances and the emergence of boundary objects during multidisciplinary design meetings. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(2), 129–151.
Kersting, M., & Steier, R. (2018). Understanding curved spacetime - the role of the rubber sheet analogy in learning general relativity. Science & Education, 27(7), 593–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9997-4.
Krange, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). What does it mean? Students’ procedural and conceptual problem solving in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9030-4.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502001000100008.
Latour, B. (1986). Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture. Past and Present, 6, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470979587.ch9.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. In Norwood. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. IAP.
Ludvigsen, S. (2012). Commentary. Instructional Science, 40(5), 849–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9233-6.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2013). Juxtaposing practice: Uptake as modal transposition. In Proc. 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL '13), June 15-19, 2013 (pp. 328-335). WI: Madison.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.137.
Murphy, K. M. (2004). Imagination as joint activity: The case of architectural interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 267–278.
Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 159–174.
Nemirovsky, R., Rasmussen, C., Sweeney, G., & Wawro, M. (2012). When the classroom floor becomes the complex plane: Addition and multiplication as ways of bodily navigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 287–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.611445.
Nishizaka, A. (2003). Imagination in action. Theory & Psychology, 13(2), 177–207.
Nordby, M., Knain, E., & Jonsdottir, G. (2017). Vocational students ’ meaning-making in school science – Negotiating authenticity through multimodal mobile learning. NorDiNa, 13(1), 52–65.
Ochs, E., Jacoby, G., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through space. Configurations, 1, 151–171.
Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). When I come down I’m in the domain state’: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.626462.
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1843–1866.
Schneider, B., Sharma, K., Cuendet, S., Zufferey, G., Dillenbourg, P., & Pea, R. (2018). Leveraging mobile eye-trackers to capture joint visual attention in co-located collaborative learning groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 241–261.
Silseth, K. (2012). The multivoicedness of game play: Exploring the unfolding of a student’s learning trajectory in a gaming context at school. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9132-x.
Silseth, K. (2018). Students’ everyday knowledge and experiences as resources in educational dialogues. Instructional Science, 46(2), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9429-x.
Silvis, D., Taylor, K. H., & Stevens, R. (2018). Community technology mapping: Inscribing places when “everything is on the move”. International journal of computer-supported collaborative learning 13(2), 137–166.
Snyder, J. P. (1993). Flattening the earth - two thousand years of map projections. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Stahl, G. (2017). Group practices: A new way of viewing CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 113–126.
Steier, R., & Kersting, M. (in press). Metaimagining and embodied conceptions of spacetime. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1580711.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.05.002.
Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction - language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making. International Conference for Computers in Education, 1(2), 1–24.
Tang, K., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2011). Students’ multimodal construction of the work–energy concept. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1775–1804. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.508899.
Taylor, K. H., & Hall, R. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18(1–2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-013-9201-5.
Tyner, J. A. (1987). Interactions of culture and cartography. The History Teacher, 20, 455–464.
Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00031-0.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1993). Voices of the Mind. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.542700.
Wiegand, P. (1999). Children’s understanding of maps. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8(1), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382049908667591.
Wood, D. (2010). Rethinking the power of maps. New York: The Guildford Press.
Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2013). Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9164-5.
Zittoun, T., & Gillespie, A. (2015). Imagination in human and cultural development. London: Routledge.
This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway (ProjectNo. 246723) and the Olav Thon Foundation. We wish to thank the many people involved in the development of the learning resources presented in this project, especially our ReleQuant colleagues.
(2.5) Time interval between speech in tenths of a second
< > Right and left carats indicate that the talk between the participants speeded up or slowed down
word Underlining indicates emphasis on words and expressions
[ Brackets indicate where overlapping talk starts
::: Colons indicate the lengthening of a word or sound
.,? Punctuation markers indicates intonation. The period indicates falling intonation. The comma and question-mark indicate rising intonation
() Empty parentheses indicate that it was difficult to hear what was said
°word° Indicates that the word or sound is softer compared to the surrounding talk
((looks up)) A sentence that appears within double parentheses describes an action
• Dot marks where the corresponding gesture figure occurs in the transcript
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Steier, R., Kersting, M. & Silseth, K. Imagining with improvised representations in CSCL environments. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 14, 109–136 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09295-1
- Embodied interaction
- Computer-supported collaborative learning