Imagining with improvised representations in CSCL environments

Abstract

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.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eriksson, U. (2014). Reading the sky (PhD thesis). Uppsala University.

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Farmann, J. (2010). Mapping the digital empire: Google earth and the process of postmodern cartography. New Media and Society, 12(6), 869–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis , learning , and social practice : A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026001005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. In Norwood. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. IAP.

  36. Ludvigsen, S. (2012). Commentary. Instructional Science, 40(5), 849–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9233-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Murphy, K. M. (2004). Imagination as joint activity: The case of architectural interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nishizaka, A. (2003). Imagination in action. Theory & Psychology, 13(2), 177–207.

  44. 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.

  45. Ochs, E., Jacoby, G., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through space. Configurations, 1, 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

  53. Snyder, J. P. (1993). Flattening the earth - two thousand years of map projections. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Stahl, G. (2017). Group practices: A new way of viewing CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Steier, R., & Kersting, M. (in press). Metaimagining and embodied conceptions of spacetime. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1580711.

  56. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  58. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making. International Conference for Computers in Education, 1(2), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tyner, J. A. (1987). Interactions of culture and cartography. The History Teacher, 20, 455–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Wertsch, J. V. (1993). Voices of the Mind. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Wood, D. (2010). Rethinking the power of maps. New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Zittoun, T., & Gillespie, A. (2015). Imagination in human and cultural development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Appendix

Sign Explanation

(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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rolf Steier.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Imagination
  • Representation
  • Embodied interaction
  • Maps
  • Computer-supported collaborative learning
  • Multimodality