Representational Practices in VMT

This chapter analyzes the interaction of three students working on mathematics problems over several days in a virtual math team. Our analysis traces out how successful collaboration in a later session was contingent upon the work of prior sessions, and shows how representational practices are important aspects of these participants’ mathematical problem solving. We trace the formation, transformation and refinement of one problem-solving practice—problem decomposition—and three representational practices—inscribe first solve second, modulate perspective and visualize decomposition. The analysis is of theoretical interest because it suggests that “situated cognition” is contingent upon not only the immediate situation but also the chronologically prior resources and associated practices; shows how inscriptions become representations for the group through an interactive process of interpretation; and sheds light on “group cognition” as an interactional process that is not identical to individual cognition yet that draws upon a dynamic interplay of individual contributions.

[1]  Wolff-Michael Roth Toward an Anthropology of Graphing: Semiotic and Activity-Theoretic Perspectives , 2003 .

[2]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representationl Competence , 2005 .

[3]  R. Sawyer The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Introduction , 2014 .

[4]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  A framework for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction , 2007, CSCL.

[5]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Visualization in science education , 2005 .

[6]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Bringing representational practice from log to light , 2008, ICLS.

[7]  H. Blumer,et al.  Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method , 1988 .

[8]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes , 2003 .

[9]  Harvey Sacks,et al.  Lectures on Conversation , 1995 .

[10]  Gerry Stahl,et al.  Meaning making in CSCL: conditions and preconditions for cognitive processes by groups , 2007, CSCL.

[11]  S. Derry,et al.  Video Research in the Learning Sciences , 2007 .

[12]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[13]  E. Hutchins Cognition in the wild , 1995 .

[14]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  A Qualitative Analysis of Collaborative Knowledge Construction through Shared Representations , 2006, Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn..

[15]  Noel Enyedy Inventing Mapping: Creating Cultural Forms to Solve Collective Problems , 2005 .

[16]  Richard Alterman,et al.  Representation, Interaction, and Intersubjectivity , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  B. Latour Drawing Things Together , 2011 .

[18]  T. Koschmann,et al.  The Video Analyst's Manifesto (or The Implications of Garfinkel's Policies for the Development of a Program of Video Analytic Research within the Learning Sciences) , 2004, ICLS.

[19]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[20]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[21]  Hans Spada,et al.  Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication , 2010 .

[22]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  How Do People Learn , 2005 .

[23]  S. Woolgar,et al.  Representation in Scientific Practice , 1990 .

[24]  H. Garfinkel Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[25]  G. E. Berrios,et al.  . New York: Cambridge , 2000 .

[26]  C. Goodwin Action and embodiment within situated human interaction , 2000 .

[27]  Carlos Caldeira,et al.  Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge (Acting with Technology) , 2006 .