Interactions within a shared graphic space

This study is an examination of issues affecting the use of a shared graphic space (SGS). A working definition for an SGS is a virtual, computer-mediated blackboard that allows the simultaneous presentation and editing of visual information by two or more participants. The issues affecting the use of an SGS involve how people communicate with it. The addition of any technology into an already complicated situation like distance learning should be examined from multiple angles. In order to examine an SGS as a channel for communications, this study framed the SGS in terms of the nature of the feedback and noise that are present when we examine interactions in this space. This study examined 16 dyads interacting with whiteboard software to communicate solutions to 6 tangram puzzles. In all problem sets, participants used the text inherent in the whiteboard software as well as graphics to communicate potential solutions with each other in dyads. The participants also had access to audio for communications during either the first 4 or final 2 problem sets. Analysis of the results of this study show that the use of graphics for communication is dependent on accompanying communication channels. The addition of an audio channel for communications inhibited the use of text for communications. Graphics were used concurrently with audio as a dynamic enhancement to verbal communications. Graphics were not used concurrently with text. Graphics either occurred before or after text and were used as static illustrations or were used independent of text. The feedback mechanisms for the SGS were largely through the text or audio modes of communication. The graphic capabilities inherent to the SGS were an affordance to present and manipulate visual information. The SGS encourages new ways to interact and unique patterns of interactions between users. The manner in which graphics were used by each dyad was determined by the dyad and did not conform across the dyads. The unstructured nature of the SGS was a contributing factor in causing differentiation of the inter-dyad communication from intra-dyad communication. This lack of structure in the SGS was a source of noise in, as well as a source of freedom for, interactions in the SGS. The development of an etiquette for interacting in this unstructured space was developed dynamically and pragmatically and should be a source of future study. Shared space, that can be used for simultaneous, real time communications with graphics, changes the manner in which teachers and students can collaborate and construct new learning environments.

[1]  Michael J. Reddy.  Metaphor and Thought: The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language , 1993 .

[2]  M. Engle.  Book Review: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd Ed.) , 1999 .

[3]  P. Vossen,et al.  Using Timbuktu™ and Guide™ for Computer Supported Group Learning , 1992 .

[4]  Odin Westgaard,et al.  Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction by Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, and James Russell. John Wiley, 1982 , 1983 .

[5]  Ok-Choon Park,et al.  Instructional conditions for using dynamic visual displays: a review , 1992 .

[6]  Henri Dieuzeide.  Communication and education , 1980 .

[7]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Reading and cognitive capacity usage: Effects of text difficulty. , 1978 .

[8]  R. Shaw,et al.  Perceiving, Acting and Knowing : Toward an Ecological Psychology , 1978 .

[9]  G. Salomon.  Interaction of media, cognition and learning , 1979 .

[10]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[11]  H. J. Hsia,et al.  On channel effectiveness , 1968 .

[12]  W. L. Levie.  Research on Pictures: A Guide to the Literature , 1987 .

[13]  R. Travers,et al.  Essentials of learning , 1977 .

[14]  L. Vygotsky.  Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[15]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[16]  Matthew D. Livengood,et al.  Interactivity: Buzzword or instructional technique , 1987 .

[17]  John Wedman,et al.  Future issues of computer-mediated communication: The results of a delphi study , 1993 .

[18]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  When researchers swim upstream: reflections on an unpopular argument about learning from media , 1991 .

[19]  R. Shepard.  Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures , 1967 .

[20]  G. Salomon.  The differential investment of mental effort in learning from different sources , 1983 .

[21]  Leslie J. Briggs,et al.  Principles of Instructional Design , 1974 .

[22]  Lynn E. Davie,et al.  Empowering the learner through computer‐mediated communication , 1991 .

[23]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Media and method , 1994 .

[24]  H. Gardner,et al.  The Mind's New Science , 1985 .

[25]  Elizabeth Boling,et al.  User-Centered Innovation: A Model for "Early Usability Testing." , 1995 .

[26]  A. Stephanides,et al.  Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art , 1948 .

[27]  William W. Gaver.  The affordances of media spaces for collaboration , 1992, CSCW '92.

[28]  J. Neuliep.  Human Communication Theory: Applications and Case Studies , 1995 .

[29]  E. Guba,et al.  Competing paradigms in qualitative research. , 1994 .

[30]  A. M. Turing,et al.  Computing Machinery and Intelligence , 1950, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[31]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[32]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Correlates of Learning in a Virtual Classroom , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[33]  H A Simon,et al.  How Big Is a Chunk? , 1974, Science.

[34]  N. Denzin,et al.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 1994 .

[35]  R Moore.  Communication and education. , 1992, The Practitioner.

[36]  D. G. MacKay,et al.  Metaphor and Thought , 1980 .

[37]  Frank R. Hartman,et al.  Single and multiple channel communication: A review of research and a proposed model , 1961 .

[38]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Integration of interpersonal space and shared workspace: ClearBoard design and experiments , 1993, TOIS.

[39]  M. Moore.  Editorial: Three types of interaction , 1989 .

[40]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[41]  E. Orkiszewski.  [Man and his cause]. , 1972, Pielegniarka i polozna.

[42]  B. Rogoff,et al.  Everyday Cognition: Development in Social Context , 1999 .

[43]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

[44]  S. Johnstone,et al.  Research on Telecommunicated Learning: Past, Present, and Future , 1991 .

[45]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[46]  B. Rogoff,et al.  Adult guidance of cognitive development. , 1984 .

[47]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[48]  L. Resnick,et al.  Knowing, Learning, and Instruction , 2018 .

[49]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Guided, Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition , 2018, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction.

[50]  Frank R. Hartman,et al.  Recognition learning under multiple channel presentation and testing conditions , 1961 .

[51]  Ellen D. Wagner,et al.  In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction , 1994 .

[52]  Daniel C. A. Hillman,et al.  Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education: An Extension of Contemporary Models and Strategies for Practitioners , 1994 .