Interfering and resolving: How tabletop interaction facilitates co-construction of argumentative knowledge

Tangible technologies and shared interfaces create new paradigms for mediating collaboration through dynamic, synchronous environments, where action is as important as speech for participating and contributing to the activity. However, interaction with shared interfaces has been shown to be inherently susceptible to peer interference, potentially hindering productive forms of collaborative learning. Making learners effectively engage in processes of argumentative co-construction of knowledge is challenging in such exploratory learning environments. This paper adapts the social modes dimension of Weinberger and Fischer’s (Computers and Education 46(1):71–95, 2006) analytical framework (for argumentative co-construction of knowledge) to analyse episodes of interference, in the context of a shared tabletop interface, to better understand its effect on collaborative knowledge construction. Studies involved 43 students, aged 11–14 years, interacting in groups of three, with a tangible tabletop application to learn basic concepts of the behaviour of light. Contrary to the dominant perspective, our analysis suggests that interference in shared interfaces can be productive for learning, serving as a trigger for promoting argumentation and collective knowledge construction. Interference episodes led to both productive and counter-productive learning opportunities. They were resolved through quick consensus building, when students abandoned their own activity and accepted changes made by others; integration-oriented consensus building, where students reflected on and integrated what happened in the investigation; or conflict-oriented consensus building where students tried to undo others’ actions and rebuild previous configurations. Overall, interference resolved through integration-oriented consensus building was found to lead to productive learning interactions, while counter-productive situations were mostly characterised by interference resolved through conflict-oriented consensus building.

[1]  Darren Gergle,et al.  On the "localness" of user-generated content , 2010, CSCW '10.

[2]  Philip Bell,et al.  Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups , 1997, CSCL.

[3]  Brigid Barron.  When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[4]  F. Fischer,et al.  A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[5]  S. Erduran,et al.  Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge , 2008 .

[6]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Group processes in the classroom. , 1996 .

[7]  Anne Marie Piper,et al.  Mediating Group Dynamics through Tabletop Interface Design , 2006, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[8]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction , 2002 .

[9]  Carol K. K. Chan,et al.  Knowledge Building as a Mediator of Conflict in Conceptual Change , 1997 .

[10]  Brigid Barron.  Achieving Coordination in Collaborative Problem-Solving Groups , 2000 .

[11]  Sara Price,et al.  What have you done! the role of 'interference' in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning , 2009, CSCL.

[12]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction , 2006, CHI.

[13]  Danaë Emma Beckford Stanton Fraser,et al.  The effects of multiple mice on children's talk and interaction , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[14]  Allison Druin,et al.  Single display groupware: a model for co-present collaboration , 1999, CHI '99.

[15]  Frank Fischer,et al.  How internal and external scripts guide argumentative knowledge construction in a web-based collaborative inquiry learning environment , 2004 .

[16]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Illuminating light: an optical design tool with a luminous-tangible interface , 1998, CHI.

[17]  J. Offer.  Mind and Society , 1988, Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind.

[18]  Jennifer G. Sheridan,et al.  DIY design process for interactive surfaces , 2009 .

[19]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Collaboration and interference: awareness with mice or touch input , 2008, CSCW.

[20]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Perspectives on socially shared cognition , 1991 .

[21]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1989 .

[22]  M. Bunge.  Mind and Society , 2010 .

[23]  F. Fischer,et al.  Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools , 2002 .

[24]  J. Roschelle.  Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[25]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  Direct intentions: the effects of input devices on collaboration around a tabletop display , 2006, First IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems (TABLETOP '06).

[26]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[27]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Paper-based concept map: the effects of tabletop on an expressive collaborative learning task , 2009, BCS HCI.

[28]  E. Cohen.  Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[29]  James D. Slotta,et al.  Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based science learning at schools , 2005, CSCL.

[30]  Ross Bencina,et al.  reacTIVision: a computer-vision framework for table-based tangible interaction , 2007, TEI.

[31]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains , 1998 .

[32]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Actions speak loudly with words: unpacking collaboration around the table , 2009, ITS '09.

[33]  Sergi Jordà,et al.  Sonigraphical Instruments: From FMOL to the reacTable* , 2003, NIME.

[34]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  The effects of interaction technique on coordination in tabletop groupware , 2007, GI '07.

[35]  Taylor Francis,et al.  Equal opportunities: Do shareable interfaces promote more group participation than single users displays? , 2009 .

[36]  Yair Neuman,et al.  Construction of Collective and Individual Knowledge in Argumentative Activity , 2003 .

[37]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction , 2002, UBIQ.

[38]  R. Sternberg,et al.  The Psychology of Intelligence , 2002 .