# A Wide Lens

Kristine Lund, Gerald P. Niccolai, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Gweonho Jeong,

Michael Baker

► To cite this version:

Kristine Lund, Gerald P. Niccolai, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Gweonho Jeong, Michael Baker. A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings, 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2019, Volumes 1 and 2. 2019. hal-03990455

HAL Id: hal-03990455

https://telecom-paris.hal.science/hal-03990455

Submitted on 15 Feb 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

13<sup>TH</sup>
LYON

CSCL 2019

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

A Wide Lens:

Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and
Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings:

13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

Conference Proceedings Volume 1

Edited by

Kristine Lund, Gerald Niccolai, Elise Lavoué, Cindy Hmelo-Silver
Gahgene Gweon, Michael Baker

17 - 21 June 2019

École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

ENS DE LYON

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive,
Extended, and Embedded Learning in
Collaborative Settings

13th International Conference on Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2019

Volume 1

13th International Conference on
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

June 17-21, 2019, Lyon, France
École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France

Editors:

Kristine Lund, Gerald Niccolai, Elise Lavoué, Cindy Hmelo-Silver
Gahgene Gweon, and Michael Baker
*A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings, 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2019*

June 17-21, 2019, Lyon, France

École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France.

© 2019 International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. [ISLS]. Rights reserved.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

www.isls.org

ISBN: 978-1-7324672-3-1 (Volume 1, PDF Version)

ISSN: 1573-4552

Cite as: Lund, K., Niccolai, G., Lavoué, E., Hmelo-Silver, C., Gweon, G., and Baker, M. (Eds.). (2019). *A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings, 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2019, Volume 1*. Lyon, France: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the copyright notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior written permission of the International Society of the Learning Sciences. The International Society of the Learning Sciences is not responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in this book.
# Conference Organizers and Committees

**Conference Chair and Co-Chairs**

Kristine Lund, CNRS, ENS Lyon, University of Lyon 2, France

Gerald P. Niccolai, CNRS, ENS Lyon, University of Lyon 2, France

Elise Lavoué, Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University, France

**Program Committee Co-Chairs**

Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Indiana University, USA

Gahgene Gweon, Seoul National University, South Korea

Michael Baker, CNRS - Telecom Paris-Tech, France

**Social Media Communications Co-Chairs**

Bodong Chen, University of Minnesota, USA

Dimitra Tsovaltzi, University of Saarbruken, Germany

**Doctoral Consortium Co-Chairs**

Heisawn Jeong, Hallym University, South Korea

Yotam Hod, University of Haifa, Israel

Kate Bielaczyc, Clark University, Massachusetts, USA

**Early Career Co-Chairs**

Julia Eberle, Bochum University, Germany

Victor Lee, Utah State University, USA

Nancy Law, Hong Kong University

**Mid-Career Chair**

Stephanie Teasley, University of Michigan, USA

Marcia Linn, University of California at Berkeley, USA

Janet Kolodner, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA

Susan Goldman, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

**Interactive Tools and Demos Co-Chairs**

Karim Sehaba, University of Lyon 2, France

Yannis Dimitriadis, University of Valladolid, Spain

Pierre-Antoine Champin, University of Lyon 1, France

**Workshops and Tutorials Co-Chairs**

Freydis Vogel, University of Nottingham, UK

Sherice Clarke, University of California at San Diego, USA

Andrew Joyce Gibbons, Durham University, UK

Lenka Schnaubert, University of Duisburg-Essen

**Current Significant Discussions and the Future of ijCSCL**

Sten Ludvigsen, University of Oslo, Norway

Alyssa Wise, New York University, NY, USA

Baruch B. Schwarz, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

**What 4E Cognition Can Tell Us About the Successes and Failures of CSCL Implementation**

Gaëlle Molinari, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Stian Håklev, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland

Claire Polo, University of Lyon 2, France
**Advisory Committee**

Marcela Borge, Pennsylvania State University, USA

Oskar Lindwall, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Paul Kirschner, Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen, the Netherlands

Sten Ludvigsen, University of Oslo, Norway

Sadhana Puntambekar, University of Wisconsin at Madison, USA
Senior Reviewers

Jan van Aalst
Richard Alterman
Michael Baker
François-Xavier Bernard
Marcela Borge
Susan Bridges
Éric Bruillard
Murat Cakir
Nur Akkus Cakir
Carol Chan
Wenli Chen
Britte Cheng
Sherice Clarke
Ulrike Cress
Cynthia D'Angelo
Crina Damsa
Joshua Danish
Erica de Vries
Bram De Wever
Yannis Dimitriadis
Sébastien George
Gahgene Gweon
Kai Hakkarainen
Päivi Häkkinen
Cindy Hmelo-Silver
Christopher Hoadley
Yotam Hod
H. Ulrich Hoppe
Heisawn Jeong
Timothy Koschmann
Kristiina Kumpulainen

Nancy Law
Victor Lee
Kyu Yon Lim
Oskar Lindwall
Chee-Kit Looi
Sten Ludvigsen
Jean-Charles Marty
Toshio Mochizuki
Anders Mørch
Hanni Muukkonen
Omid Noroozi
Jun Oshima
Kylie Peppler
Palmyre Pierroux
Joseph Polman
Sadhana Puntambekar
Christophe Reffay
Peter Reimann
Carolyn Rosé
Nikol Rummel
Baruch Schwarz
Hajime Shirouzu
Nancy Songer
Gerry Stahl
Seng Chee Tan
Pierre Tchounikine
Freydis Vogel
Armin Weinberger
Alyssa Wise
Jason Yip
Susan Yoon
## Reviewers

Pei-Yi Lin
Giovanna Scalone
Dor Abrahamson
Alejandro Andrade
Deborah Fields
Yacine Lafifi
Richard Medina
Amando Singun
Christopher Thorn
Michael Tscholl
Lucas Bietti
Elizabeth Charles
Pryce Davis
Sanna Jarvela
Yael Kali
Niki Lambropoulos
Heather Leary
Alwyn Vwen Yen Lee
Jasmine Ma
Jennifer Olsen
Johanna Poysa-Tarhonen
Amanda Siebert-Evenstone
Patrick Sunnen
Joanna Weidler-Lewis
Mireille Betrancourt
Carrie Demmans Epp
Gijsbert Erkens
Danielle Espino
Susan Goldman
Erica Halverson
Maria Antonietta Impedovo
Aaron Kessler
Brian Krisler
Feng Lin
Stefania Manca
Frederick Peck
Christoph Richter
Giuseppe Ritella
Toni Rogat
Asmalina Saleh
David Shaenfield
Mike Tissenbaum
Hakan Tuzun
Philip Vahey
Tugce Aldemir
Huiying Cai
Clark Chinn
Gi Woong Choi
Andras Csanadi
Jan Arild Dolonen
Jonan Donaldson
Matthew Duvall
Julia Eberle
Howard Everson

Amy Fox
Engida Gebre
Insook Han
So Hyo-Jeong
Allan Jeong
Priscilla Jimenez Pazmino
Ilias Karasavvidis
Anna Keune
Andrea Kienle
Yanghee Kim
Samuel Kwon
Eleni Kyza
Minna Lakkala
Luettamae Lawrence
Chien-Sing Lee
Teemu Leinonen
Leanne Ma
Lina Markauskaite
Magdalene Moy
Amanda Ochsner
Hiroki Oura
Fan Ouyang
Teresa Pargman
Sambit Praharaj
Daniel Rees Lewis
Jessica Roberts
Mamta Shah
Karsten Stegmann
Florence Sullivan
Hamideh Talafian
Dimitra Tsovaltzi
Charles Vanover
Hanna Vuojarvi
Xu Wang
Chaolun Xia
Gaoxia Zhu
Christa Asterhan
Afaf Baabdullah
Juergen Buder
Gaowei Chen
Charlie Cox
Mutlu Cukurova
Kiran Eranki
Nobuko Fujita
Andrea Gomoll
Arnseth Hans Christian
Jiangang Hao
Kian Sam Hong
Anesa Hosein
Frank Jong
Yong Ju Jung
Chanmin Kim
Paul Kirschner
Elizabeth Koh

Susan Land
Andreas Lingnau
Alejandra Martinez-Monés
Mitchell Nathan
Juliana Nazare
Ha Nguyen
Nicolae Nistor
Martina Rau
Traian Rebedea
Mimi Recker
Norma Reichelt
Kristin Searle
Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
Paul Seitlinger
Gerard Sensevy
Ji Shen
Jim Slotta
Sebastian Strauß
Jan-Willem Strijbos
Zachari Swiecki
Kate Thompson
Judith Uchidiuno
Xinghua Wang
Joshua Weese
Marcelo Worsley
Jimmy Zambrano R.
Robert Ashley
Tutaleni I. Asino
Na'ama Av-Shalom
Katerine Bielaczyc
Daniel Bodemer
Alexander Brooks
Cynthia Carter Ching
Min Chen
John Cherniavsky
Etan Cohen
David Deliema
Stavros Demetriadis
Rachel Dickler
Bernhard Ertl
Abigail Evans
Georgios Fesakis
Paul Flynn
Dilrukshi Gamage
Maria Teresa Gastardo
Aristotelis Gkiolmas
Frode Guribye
Thomas Hillman
Ty Hollett
Joey Huang
Roland Hubscher
Dongsik Kim
Simon Knight
Ingo Kollar
Elise Lavoué
Xiao Li
Roberto Martinez-Maldonado
Eileen Mcgivney
Gaëlle Molinari
Isaac Nichols-Paez
Annemarie Palincsar
Pantelis M. Papadopoulos
Isidoros Perikos
Ashlyn Pierson
Ingvill Rasmussen
Ornit Sagy
Lay Hoon Seah
D.W. Shaffer
Tanmay Sinha
Ole Smørdal
Trausan-Matu Stefan
Anouschka Van Leeuwen
Michiel Voet
Patrick Wang
Yun Wen
Longkai Wu
Shulong Yan
Dejin Zhao
Katelyn Alderfer
Maria Altebarmakian
Golnaz Arastoopour Irgens
Francine Athias
Daniel Belenky
Yifat Ben-David Kolikant
Dani Ben-Zvi
Yoav Bergner
Dario Bertero
Spencer Carlson
Ming Chiu
Irene-Angelica Chounta
Tamara Clegg
Mihai Dascalu
Sharon Derry
Michal Dvir
Erkan Er
Xueqi Feng
Lin Feng
Barry Fishman
Erin Furtak
Michael Glass
Judith Green
Christian Greiffenhagen
Dan Hickey
Megan Humburg
Shinya Iikubo
Michael Jacobson
Kaiju Kangas
Anastasios Karakostas
Mi Song Kim
Beaumie Kim
Soo Hyeon Kim

Allison Kolling
Tiina Korhonen
Ingeborg Krange
Therese Laferriere
Beatrice Ligorio
Rasheda Likely
Patrik Lilja
Robin Lin
Gabriela Locoh-A
Katharina Loibl
Guanzhong Ma
Anthony Matranga
Tom Moher
Ritsuko Oshima
Seung Won Park
Caroline Pitt
Josh Radinsky
Annelies Raes
Gabriela Richard
Ricarose Roque
Rosemary Russ
Stéphane Safin
Lara Schmitt
Bertrand Schneider
Kshitij Sharma
Saadeddine Shehab
Patrick Shih
Daniel Spikol
Rolf Steier
Jingjing Sun
Chew Lee Teo
Jakob Tholander
Yuyao Tong
Dhvani Toprani
Yu Xia
Katerina Zourou
Rotem Abdu
Cengiz Acarturk
Rodica Ailincai
Martha Alibali
Jerry Andriessen
Golnaz Arastoopour Irgens
Georges-Louis Baron
Matthew Berland
Elizabeth Bonsignore
Ivica Botički
Linda Bradley
Corey Brady
Julien Broisin
Fabio Campos
Lucila Carvalho
Tieh-Huai Chang
Monaliza Chian
Matthieu Cisel
Ashley Colley
Sugat Dabholkar
Jacob Davidsen

Bria Davis
Jort De Vreeze
Chris Dede
Anne Deiglmayr
Betsy Disalvo
Sidney Dmello
Catherine Dornfeld
Tissenbaum
Toya Frank
Luke Fryer
Chris Georgen
Dana Gnesdilow
Shuchi Grover
Joerg Haake
Stian Håklev
Raija Hämäläinen
Tellervo Härkki
Christian Hartmann
Katie Headrick Taylor
Sven Heimbuch
Lauri Hietajärvi
Jaakko Hilppö
Peter Holtz
Sameer Honwad
Mike Horn
Helen Hu
Diane Hui
Jonas Ivarsson
Lara Jasien
Kuan-Yu Jin
Emily Johnson
Mina Johnson
A. Susan Jurow
Kalle Juuti
Jennifer Kahn
Jina Kang
Shiri Kashi
Fengfeng Ke
Susan Kelly
Takeshi Kitazawa
Eric Klopfer
Vassilis Komis
Siu Cheung Kong
Deanna Kuhn
Huei-Yi Lai
Jari Lavonen
Shupin Li
Yongyan Li
Kenneth Lim
Robb Lindgren
Breanne Litts
Lei Liu
Kristine Lu
Gustav Lymer
Leilah Lyons
Emmanuel Manalo
Andrew Manches
Miika Marttunen
Hiroyuki Masukawa
Camillia Matuk
Steven Mcgee
Julien Mercier
Mikko Meriläinen
Anahid Modrek
Lorenza Mondada
Chrystalla Mouza
Kae Nakaya
Markus Nivala
Xavier Ochoa
Tuire Palonen
Anthony Pellicone
Nathan Phillips
Claire Polo
Kristina Popova
Luis P. Prieto
Michael Prilla

Rebecca Quintana
Chris Quintana
Liat Rahmian
Daniel Reinholz
Symeon Retalis
Katie Rich
Margarida Romero
Tijs Rotsaert
Jean Ryoo
Moegi Saito
Sandra Schulz
R. Mishael Sedas
Priya Sharma
Brett Shelton
Anna Shvarts
Audra Skukauskaite
Erica Snow
Kiley Sobel
Firat Soylu

Jin Splichal
Jin Splichal
Naomi Thompson
Xintian Tu
Michael Twidale
Ralph Vacca
Abha Vaishampayan
Himanshu Verma
Devan Walton
Maggie Wang
Tsering Wangyal
Michael Weinstock
Korah Wiley
Iwan Wopereis
Yuqin Yang
Junxiu Yu
Lily Zeng
Si Zhang
Heather Toomey Zimmerman
# Preface

On behalf of the whole CSCL 2019 organizing team, we are delighted to welcome you to Lyon! Our theme is

**A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings.**

Promoting productive collaborative interaction in varied contexts requires studying the interdependencies of the complex ecosystems in which collaborative learning takes place (e.g. school, museums, work, play). In Cognitive Science, research under the banner of 4E cognition favors newer paradigms that take into account the role of the body (embodied), the interactions between an organism and its environment (enactive), and the elements and aspects in the environment itself (extended and embedded). At this year's CSCL, we propose 4E *learning* as our theme. Submissions that present results on collaborative learning regarding some combination of embodied, enactive, extended, and embedded learning are welcome. Such a focus translates to studies of various interdependencies in the learning process: social, emotional, cultural, linguistic, cognitive, and technological. Finally, treating 4E learning as inherently collaborative means that as a CSCL community, we need to understand this phenomenon in settings both with and without technology. It is important that as CSCL researchers, we build on work that while not computer-supported has implications for design and research in computer-supported collaborative learning settings. In considering collaborative learning as the interplay of factors in a complex system, we aim to create novel interdisciplinary integrations and thereby extend and reinforce the CSCL Learning Sciences community with new ideas.

We hope you enjoy the program as well as visiting our beautiful city!

Kris Lund, conference chair CSCL 2019 (on behalf of the whole team)
Acknowledgments

CSCL 2019 organizers would like to thank all of our sponsors for their support: ENS de Lyon, Université de Lyon, IDEX Lyon, CNRS, Université Jean-Moulin Lyon 3, la Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Université Lumière Lyon 2, l'INSA, la ville de Lyon, le LabEx ASLAN, NSF, and ISLS, as well as the research laboratories ICAR and LIRIS. We have appreciated working with Insight-Outside, Professional Conference Organizer, in charge of certain aspects of our event's logistics. Thank-you also to the volunteers and to Santiago Guillen for organizing them. The conference logo was designed by François Gentil and the cover design was a collaborative effort between Insight-Outside, Gerald Niccolai, and Allison Hall. Many thanks to Allison for putting together the proceedings and dealing with last minute changes to the program.
# Table of Contents

## Volume 1

### Keynotes

<table><tr><td>Integrating Theorizing on Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Cognition to Augment CSCL Research<br><i>Stephen Fiore</i></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Negotiating Knowledge, Expertise, Connoisseurship and Taste in Social Interaction<br><i>Lorenza Mondada</i></td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Designing Opie Robots as Learning Companions: Insights, Interactions and Interdependencies<br><i>Janet Wiles</i></td><td>5</td></tr></table>

### Full Papers

<table><tr><td>Analysis of Touchscreen Interactive Gestures During Embodied Cognition in Collaborative Tabletop Science Learning Experiences<br><i>Nikita Soni, Alice Darrow, Annie Luc, Schuyler Gleaves, Carrie Schuman, Hannah Neff, Peter Chang, Brittani Kirkland, Jeremy Alexandre, Amanda Morales, Kathryn A. Stofer, Lisa Anthony</i></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>"I Cannot Explain Why I Like This Shape Better Than That Shape": Intercorporeality in Collaborative Learning<br><i>Jacob Davidsen, Thomas Ryberg</i></td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Effects of the Need for Cognitive Closure and Guidance on Contribution Quality in Wiki-Based Learning<br><i>Sven Heimbuch, Daniel Bodemer</i></td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Expansively Framing Social Annotations for Generative Collaborative Learning in Online Courses<br><i>Christopher Andrews, Grant Chartrand, Daniel T. Hickey</i></td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Unpacking Collaborative Learning Processes During Hands-on Activities Using Mobile Eye-Trackers<br><i>Bertrand Schneider</i></td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>The Lifespan and Impact of Students' Ideas Shared During Classroom Science Inquiry<br><i>Camillia Matuk, Wanjing (Anya) Ma, Garima Sharma, Marcia Linn</i></td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Collective Knowledge Advancement through Shared Epistemic Agency: Socio-Semantic Network Analyses<br><i>Jun Oshima, Ritsuko Oshima, Ayano Ohsaki, Jin Splichal</i></td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Families and Media Multi-tasking: Reorganizing Collaborative Learning at Home<br><i>Deborah Silvis</i></td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Designing Representations in Deeply Disciplinary Educational Games<br><i>Ravit Golan Duncan, Frieda Reichsman, Kiley McElroy-Brown, Veronica Cavera</i></td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>The Knowledge Building Network Pilot Project: An Exploration of Emergent Designs to Enhance Collective Teacher Efficacy<br><i>Leanne Ma, Monica Resendes, Marlene Scardamalia, Karen Dobbie</i></td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Comparing the Effectiveness of Supports for Collaborative Dialogic Sense-Making with Agent-Based Models<br><i>Ilana Dubovi, Victor Lee</i></td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Using Voice Assistant Skills in Family Life<br><i>Diana Beirl, Nicola Yuill, Yvonne Rogers</i></td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Measuring the Computational in Computational Participation: Debugging Interactive Stories in Middle School Computer Science<br><i>Janet Wiles</i></td><td>104</td></tr></table>
Does Order Matter? Investigating Sequential and Cotemporal Models of Collaboration
Zachari Swiecki, Zheming Lian, Andrew Ruis, D.W. Shaffer
112

Teacher Monitoring Routines: Understanding Pedagogical Judgments During Students'
Collaborative Learning
Nadav Ehrenfeld, Ilana Horn
120

Impacts of Augmented Reality on Collaborative Physics Learning, Leadership, and
Knowledge Imbalance
Iulian Radu, Bertrand Schneider
128

Finding Common Ground: A Method for Measuring Recent Temporal Context in Analyses of Complex,
Collaborative Thinking
Andrew Ruis, Amanda Siebert-Evenstone, Rebecca Pozen, Brendan Eagan, D.W. Shaffer
136

Idea Thread Mapper: Designs for Sustaining Student-Driven Knowledge Building Across Classrooms
Jianwei Zhang, Mei-Hwa Chen
144

Location, Location, Location: The Effects of Place in Place-Based Simulations
Amanda Siebert-Evenstone, D.W. Shaffer
152

The Role of Funds of Knowledge in Online Search and Brokering
Wendy Roldan, Paola Vanegas, Laura Pina, Carmen Gonzalez, Jason Yip
160

Collaboration on a Massive Scale – Conceptual Implications of the Crowd
Norma Reichelt, Christine Bussian, Christoph Richter, Heidrun Allert, Lars-Arne Raffel
168

Adaptive Support for Collaboration on Tabletop Computers
Abigail Evans, Katie Davis, Jacob Wobbrock
176

Integrative Visualization: Exploring Data Collected in Collaborative Learning Contexts
Ben Shapiro
184

An Empirical Study of Educational Robotics as Tools for Group Metacognition and
Collaborative Knowledge Construction
Chrysanthos Socratous, Andri Ioannou
192

Disciplinary Task Models for Designing Classroom Orchestration: The Case of Data Visualization for
Historical Inquiry
Josh Radinsky, Iris Tabak, Monika Moore
200

Data Wrangling Practices and Process in Modeling Family Migration Narratives with Big Data
Visualization Technologies
Shiyan Jiang, Jennifer Kahn
208

Promoting and Tracing High School Students’ Identity Change in an Augmented Virtual
Learning Environment
Hamideh Talafian, Mamta Shah, Amanda Barany, Aroutis Foster
216

Collaborative Talk Across Two Pair-Programming Configurations
Zarifa Zakaria, Danielle Boulden, Jessica Vandenberg, Jennifer Tsan, Collin Lynch, Eric Wiebe, Kristy
Elizabeth Boyer
224

CoProStory: A Tangible Programming Tool for Children’s Collaboration
Xiaozhou Deng, Danli Wang, Qiao Jin
232

A Spiral Model of Collaborative Knowledge Improvement to Support Collaborative
Wenli Chen, Si Zhang, Yun Wen, Chee-Kit Looi, Jennifer Yeo
240

Flexible CSCL Orchestration Technology: Mechanisms for Elasticity and Dynamism in
Pyramid Script Flows
248
<table><tr><td>Parent and Educator Perspectives on the Benefits of an Online Space to Promote Offline Program Collaborative Learning</td><td>392</td></tr><tr><td>Susan Walker, Cheuk Hei, Bosco Cheng, Alize Rattenni, Caroline Reynolds, Sam Lapham</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>An Alternate Statistical Lens to Look at Collaboration Data: Extreme Value Theory</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Kshitij Sharma, Jennifer Olsen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exploring Disciplinary Boundaries in Early Elementary Students' Developing Practices</td><td>408</td></tr><tr><td>Kylie Peppler, Joshua Danish, Naomi Thompson</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving: What and How?</td><td>416</td></tr><tr><td>Haley Tsang, Seung Won Park, Laure Lu Chen, Nancy Law</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Metaphorical Reasoning Together: Embodied Conceptualization in a Community of Philosophical Inquiry</td><td>424</td></tr><tr><td>Polo Claire, Sandra Lagrange-Lanaspre</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tracing Teacher Collaborative Learning and Innovation Adoption: a Case Study in an Inquiry Learning Platform</td><td>432</td></tr><tr><td>Maria Jesús Rodríguez-Triana, Luis P. Prieto, Tobias Ley, Ton de Jong, Denis Gillet</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A Scaled Analysis of How Minecraft Gamers Leverage YouTube Comment Boxes to Participate and Collaborate</td><td>440</td></tr><tr><td>Justice Walker, Stefan Slater, Yasmin Kafai</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>How Teachers Implement Active Learning: Typologies of Orchestrational Flow</td><td>448</td></tr><tr><td>Elizabeth Charles, Jim Slotta, Robert Cassidy, Michael Dugdale, Chao Zhang, Kevin Lenton</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cross-boundary Interaction for Sustaining Idea Development and Knowledge Building With Idea Thread Mapper</td><td>456</td></tr><tr><td>Guangji Yuan, Jianwei Zhang, Mei-Hwa Chen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Embodiment of Computational Thinking During Collaborative Robotics Activity</td><td>464</td></tr><tr><td>Theodore Kopcha, Ceren Ocak</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bugs as a Nexus for Emergent Peer Collaborations: Contextual and Classroom Supports for Solving Problems in Electronic Textiles</td><td>472</td></tr><tr><td>Deborah Fields, Gayithri Jayathirtha, Yasmin Kafai</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Supporting Collaborative Curriculum Customizations Using the Knowledge Integration Framework</td><td>480</td></tr><tr><td>Korah Wiley, Allison Bradford, Marcia Linn</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Affordable Touchy Feely Classroom: Textbooks Embedded with Manipulable Vectors and Lesson Plans Augment Imagination, Extend Teaching-Learning Practices</td><td>488</td></tr><tr><td>Durgaprasad Karnam, Harshit Agrawal, Priyanka Borar, Sanjay Chandrasekharan</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Evaluating an Adaptive Equity-Oriented Pedagogy on Student Collaboration Outcomes Through Randomized Controlled Trials</td><td>496</td></tr><tr><td>Andrew Phuong, Judy Nguyen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Effectiveness of Publicly vs. Privately Assigned Group Leaders Among Learners in Rural Villages in Tanzania</td><td>504</td></tr><tr><td>Judith Uchidiuno, Evelyn Yarzebinski, Emilio Vargas-Vite, Ken Koedinger, Amy Ogan</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Taking the Patch Perspective: A Comparative Analysis of a Patch Based Participatory Simulation</td><td>512</td></tr><tr><td>Lauren Vogelstein, Corey Brady</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Understanding the Effect of Group Variance on Learning</td><td>520</td></tr><tr><td>Sinan Yavuz, Michael Forkner, Dana Gnesdilow, Catherine Dornfeld Tissenbaum, Jee-Seon Kim, Sadhana Puntambekar</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Arguing about Synthetic Biology in 140 Characters or Less: Affordances of Microblogging for High School Students Discussions of Socioscientific Issues</td><td>526</td></tr><tr><td>Mia Shaw, Justice Walker, Yasmin Kafai</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Developing Productive Discourse through Collective Inquiry of Knowledge-Building Principles</td><td>534</td></tr><tr><td>Yuyao Tong and Carol Chan</td><td></td></tr></table>

## Volume 2

### Short Papers

<table><tr><td>Co-Design for Learner Help-Giving Across Physical and Digital Contexts</td><td>545</td></tr><tr><td>Ishrat Ahmed, Victor Girotto, Areej Mawasi, Amanda Whitehurst, Ruth Wylie, Erin Walker</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>College Goes Online With Avatars: Extended Learning in a Middle School</td><td>549</td></tr><tr><td>Martine Gadille, Maria Antonietta Impedovo</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Moving Between Experience, Data and Explanation: The Role of Interactive GIS Maps in Elementary Science Sensemaking</td><td>553</td></tr><tr><td>Kathryn Lanouette, Sarah Van Wart</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Young Interpreters: The Situated as Supportive</td><td>557</td></tr><tr><td>Kevin Johnstun, Heather Leary, Bryant Jensen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Collaboration Script Appropriation in a Science Class</td><td>561</td></tr><tr><td>Si Zhang, Wenli Chen, Yun Wen, Chee-Kit Looi, Aileen S.W. Chai, JL Ang</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Understanding the Connections of Collaborative Problem Solving Skills in a Simulation-based Task Through Network Analysis</td><td>565</td></tr><tr><td>Mengxiao Zhu, Jessica Andrews Todd</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Video Annotation for Content-Focused Coaching</td><td>569</td></tr><tr><td>Julie Amador, Jeffrey Choppin, Cynthia Carson, Ryan Gillespie</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Negotiating Uncertainty to Develop a Joint Deepening Focus in Knowledge Building Discourse</td><td>573</td></tr><tr><td>Simona Pesaresi, Jianwei Zhang</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Foundations of Community in an Online, Asynchronous Professional Development Website</td><td>577</td></tr><tr><td>Genevieve Henricks, Victoria Jay, Shereen Beilstein, Michelle Perry, Meg Bates, Cheryl Moran, Joseph Cimpian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exploring Teaching and Course Assistants' Interventions with Groups During Collaborative Problem-Solving</td><td>581</td></tr><tr><td>Saadeddine Shehab, Emma Mercier</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Students' Funds of Knowledge and Knowledge Creation During STEM Learning in a Computer-supported Makerspace</td><td>585</td></tr><tr><td>Anu Kajamaa, Kristiina Kumpulainen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Children's Interactive Strategies Around Digital Technology in Collaborative Learning Environments</td><td>589</td></tr><tr><td>Dhvani Toprani, Mona Alqahtani, Marcela Borge</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Examining the Educative Value of Person-to-person Knowledge Sharing on Social Media: The Case of YouTube as a Site of CSCL?</td><td>593</td></tr><tr><td>Ilana Dubovi, Iris Tabak</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Designing Epistemic Scaffolding in CSCL</td><td>597</td></tr><tr><td>Feng Lin, Sadhana Puntambekar</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Collaborative Remembering, temporal cement of Collaborative Learning: An Exploration<br>Lucas Bietti, Michael Baker</td>
      <td>601</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Social Media in the Science Classroom: Bridging Funds of Knowledge to Scientific Concepts<br>Kelly Mills, Elizabeth Bonsignore, Tamara Clegg, Jason Yip, June Ahn, Daniel Pauw, Caroline Pitt</td>
      <td>605</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>An Initial Look at the Developing Culture of Online Global Meet-ups in Establishing a Collaborative, STEM Media-Making Community<br>Danielle Espino, Seung Lee, Brendan Eagan, Eric Hamilton</td>
      <td>608</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Application of the IBE-UNESCO Global Competences Framework in Assessing STEM-focused, Global Collaborative Learning Within a Digital Makerspace Environment<br>Danielle Espino, Seung Lee, Lauren Van Tress, Eric Hamilton</td>
      <td>612</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>SciGirls Code: Computational Participation and Computer Science with Middle School Girls<br>Cassie Scharber, Lana Peterson, Yu-Hui Chang, Sarah Barksdale, Ramya Sivaraj, Angelina Constantine, Jennifer Englund</td>
      <td>616</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>A Systematic Review of the Quantification of Qualitative Data in Proceedings of International Conferences on CSCL from 2005 to 2017<br>Yu Xia, Marcela Borge</td>
      <td>620</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Reflective Assessment for Idea Improvement Through Collective Concept Mapping<br>Hyejin Park, Jianwei Zhang</td>
      <td>624</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Mapping Individual to Group Level Collaboration Indicators Using Speech Data<br>Cynthia D'Angelo, Jennifer Smith, Nonye Alozie, Andreas Tsiartas, Colleen Richey, Harry Bratt</td>
      <td>628</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Advancing Elementary Students' Reading Comprehension Through Knowledge Building<br>Pei-Yi Lin, Huang-Yao Hong, Leanne Ma</td>
      <td>632</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Using Digital Interrupted Case Studies for Whole Class Inquiry in Life Sciences<br>Leslie Schneider, Berri Jacque, Dr. Jim Slotta, Emily Kate McDonough, Jessica Henry</td>
      <td>636</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Longitudinal Analysis and Visualization of Participation in Online Courses Powered by Cohesion Network Analysis<br>Maria-Dorinela Sirbu, Mihai Dascalu, Scott Crossley, Danielle McNamara, Stefan Trausan-Matu</td>
      <td>640</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>The Impacts of Online Peer Feedback Supported by Argumentation Instruction and Argumentative Scripts on Students' Learning Outcomes<br>Saeed Latifi, Omid Noroozi, Javad Hatami, Harm Biemans</td>
      <td>644</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Embedding Microblogging Technology to Support Classroom Dialogue<br>Anja Amundrud, Ingvill Rasmussen</td>
      <td>648</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>BacToMars: A Collaborative Video Game for BioDesign<br>Clarissa Verish, Amanda Strawhacker, Lauren Westendorf, Christina Pollalis, Amanda Sullivan, Anna Loparev, Marina Bers, Orit Shaer</td>
      <td>652</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Digital Badges for Capturing, Recognizing, Endorsing, and Motivating Broad Forms of Collaborative Learning<br>Daniel T. Hickey, Christopher Andrews, Grant Chartrand</td>
      <td>656</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Embodied Collaboration to Foster Instrumental Genesis in Mathematics<br>Anna Shvarts, Rosa Alberto, Arthur Bakker, Michiel Doorman, Paul Drijvers</td>
      <td>660</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Collaborative Uncertainty Management While Solving an Engineering Design Problem<br>Navneet Kaur, Aastha Patel, Chandan Dasgupta</td>
      <td>664</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Understanding Climate Change Through Collaborative Versus Individual Inquiry With Constructive or Example-Based Scaffolds<br>Sarah Bichler, Sonya Richards, Lisa Hasenbein, Marcia Linn, Frank Fischer</td>
      <td>668</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Emergent Roles, Collaboration, and Conceptual Outcomes for Two Eighth-Grade Groups in CSCL Science Classes</td>
      <td>672<br/>Catherine Dornfeld Tissenbaum, Dana Gnesdilow, Nicole Martin, Sadhana Puntambekar</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Examining How Scientific Modeling Emerges Through Collective Embodied Play</td>
      <td>676<br/>Xintian Tu, Joshua Danish, Chris Georgen, Megan Humburg, Bria Davis, Noel Enyedy</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>See the Collaboration Through the Code: Using Data Mining and CORDTRA Graphs to Analyze Blocks-Based Programming</td>
      <td>680<br/>Mike Tissenbaum, Vishesh Kumar</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Towards Automatic and Pervasive Physiological Sensing of Collaborative Learning</td>
      <td>684<br/>Kshitij Sharma, Ilias Pappas, Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Michail Giannakos</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Scaffolding Inclusivity Through Making: A Preliminary Analysis of Diverse Learners' Meaning Making Through Designing Complex Systems</td>
      <td>688<br/>Gabriela Richard, Sagun Giri, Robert Ashley, Nakisha Whittington</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Exploring Group' Design Thinking Patterns in a Principe-based Knowledge-Building Environment</td>
      <td>692<br/>Pei-Yi Lin, Huang-Yao Hong</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Perspective Taking in Participatory Simulation-based Collaborative Learning</td>
      <td>696<br/>Fengfeng Ke, Xin Yuan, Mariya Pachman, Zhaihuan Dai, Raymond Naglieri, Xinhao Xu</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Using A Virtual Design Studio to Support Collaborative Studio Instruction</td>
      <td>700<br/>Jessica Briskin, Susan Land</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Maggie Mars: Theatrical Modeling and the Phenomenological Understanding of Solar Systems</td>
      <td>704<br/>Jackson Reimers, Corey Brady</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Impact of Choice on Students' Use of an Experimentation Model for Investigating Ideas About Thermodynamics</td>
      <td>708<br/>Jennifer King Chen, Marcia Linn</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>What Can Be Learned About Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning From a Bibliographic Coupling Analysis?</td>
      <td>712<br/>Heisawn Jeong, Sujong Seo, Jiyeon Jeong, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Sebastian Grauwin</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

## Symposia

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Group Formation in the Digital Age: Relevant Characteristics, Their Diagnosis, and Combination for Productive Collaboration</td>
      <td>719<br/>Dimitra Tsovaltzi, Armin Weinberger, Lara Schmitt, Henrik Bellhäuser, Adrienne Müller, Johannes Konert, René Röpke, hannie gijlers, Elise Eshuis, Tessa Eysink, Melanie Erkens, Sven Manske, H. Ulrich Hoppe, Daniel Bodemer, Sreecharan Sankaranarayanan, Cameron Dashti, Christopher Bogart, Xu Wang, Majd Sakr, Michael Hilton, Carolyn Rosé</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Ghost in the Machine: A Symposium on Collaboration Between Human and Computerized Agents in Educational Contexts</td>
      <td>727<br/>Matthias Stadler, Frank Fischer, Art Graesser, Pantelis M. Papadopoulos, Anika Radkowitsch, Ralf Schmidmaier, Martin Fischer, Haiying Li, Jiangang Hao, Samuel Greiff</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>A Wide Lens on Learning in a Networked Society: What Can We Learn by Synthesizing Multiple Research Perspectives?</td>
      <td>735<br/>Yael Kali, Iris Tabak, Dani Ben-Zvi, Christopher Hoadley, Hava Ben-Horin, Dror Angel, Keren Aridor, Osnat Atias, Ayelet Baram-Tsabari, Maya Benichou, Oren Golan, Yaela N Golumbic, Yotam Hod, Carmel Kent, Adi Kidron, Hana Manor, Nakhi Mishol-Shauli, Carmit Pion, Sheizaf Rafaeli, Amit Rechavi, Malka Shacham, Amit Schejter, Noam Tirosh, Patrice L. Weiss, Oren Zuckerman</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Computerized Text Analysis: Assessment and Research Potentials for Promoting Learning</td>
      <td>743<br/>Hee-Sun Lee, Danielle McNamara, Zoë Buck Bracey, Ou Lydia Liu, Libby Gerard, Bruce Sherin, Chris Wilson, Amy Pallant, Marcia Linn, Kevin C. Haudek, Jonathan Osborne</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Technology-Mediated Teacher-Researcher Collaborations: Professional Learning Through Co-Design............751
Susan Goldman, Andrea Gomoll, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Allison Hall, Monlin Ko, Angela Fortune, Eleni Kyza, Andria Agesilaou, Kimberley Gomez, Louis Gomez, Emily Pressman, Katherine Rodela, Iris Tabak

Tools and Methods for ‘4E Analysis’: New Lenses for Analyzing Interaction in CSCL................................759
Rolf Steier, Ben Shapiro, Dimitra Christidou, Palmyre Pierroux, Jacob Davidsen, Rogers Hall

The Roles of Knowledge in Knowledge Creation ................................................................................................767
Carl Bereiter, Carol Chan, Huang-Yao Hong, Jiyeon Lee, Ahmad Khanlari, Pei-Yi Lin, Ching Sing Chai, Chin-Chung Tsai, Marlene Scardamalia, Seng Chee Tan, Yuyao Tong, Jan van Aalst, Jianwei Zhang, Yibing Zhang

Theorizing and Measuring Collective Productive Disciplinary Engagement................................................775
Britte Cheng, Melissa Gresalfi, Amanda Bell, Corey Brady, Lauren Vogelstein, Crina Damsa, Tuire Palonen, Toni Rogat, Anne Traynor, Temitope Adeoye, Andrea Gomoll, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Dan Hickey, Christopher Andrews, Grant Chartrand, Rebecca Itow, Patrik Lundh, Sten Ludvigsen

Understanding CSCL Through the Lens of Research Syntheses................................................................783
Freydis Vogel, Heisawn Jeong, Susan Yoon, Stian Håklev, Leonore Valentine Guillain, Nour Ghalia Abassi, Sally Wai Yan Wan, Sancia Wai-San Wan, Anika Radkowitsch, Frank Fischer, Cindy Hmelo-Silver

Designing for Productive Problem Posing in Informal STEM Spaces ................................................................791
Katherine Chapman, Lara Jasien, Paul Reimer, Lauren Vogelstein

Personal Embodiment, Social Enactment: Collaborative Learning With Body Technology .................................799
Deborah Fields, Cynthia Carter Ching, Victor Lee, Breanne Litts, Chase Mortensen, Joshua Danish, Megan Humburg, Bria Davis, Xintian Tu, Debora Lui, Mia Shaw, Gayithri Jayathirtha, Yasmin Kafai, Lindsay Lindberg, Robb Lindgren, James Planey, Jason Morphew, Katie Headrick Taylor Taylor, Adam Bell, Erin Riesland, Maria Hays, Deborah Silvis, Ilana Dubovi, Noel Enyedy, Rogers Hall

## Posters

Effects of a Digital Guided Peer Feedback System on Student Learning and Satisfaction ................................809
Omid Noroozi, Arash Bayat, Javad Hatami

StandUp: Engaging Professionals to Coach Design Projects ................................................................................811
Daniel Rees Lewis, Matthew Easterday, Elizabeth Gerber

Scaling Dialogic Peer Feedback via Learning Analytics and Scripts ................................................................813
Erkan Er, Yannis Dimitriadis, Dragan Gasevic

A Case Study on the Development of Pre-Service Teachers’ Design Thinking....................................................815
Chih Hui Seet, Huang-Yao Hong, Ching Sing Chai

Rural Students' Cultural Assets During Science Argumentation................................................................................817
Jingjing Sun, Brian W. Miller, Michael Finlay

Assessing Iterative Planning for Real-world Design Teams ................................................................................819
Daniel Rees Lewis, Elizabeth Gerber, Matthew Easterday

Perceptions of Online Professional Development: Do Newer and Experienced Teachers Differ?......................821
Denise Bressler, Susan Yoon, Katherine Miller, Jooeun Shim, Daniel Wendel, Ilana Schoenfeld, Emma Anderson, David Reider

Leveraging the Power of Collaborative Reflection to Promote Learning Through Clinical Practice....................823
Rupal Jain, Meredith Moore

Development of Girls’ Interests and Identities in Computer Sciences Within an CSCL Environment............825
Yu-Hui Chang, Sarah Barksdale, Lana Peterson, Cassie Scharber

Using Participatory Design to Facilitate In-service Teacher Learning of Computational Thinking....................827
Shamya Karumbaiah, Sugat Dabholkar, Jooeun Shim, Susan Yoon, Betty Chandy, Andy Ye
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>A Review of the Evolving Definition of Orchestration: Implications for Research and Design<br><i>LuEttaMae Lawrence, Emma Mercier</i></td>
      <td>829</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Conceptualizing and Analyzing the Instructor-Student Collaboration<br><i>Fan Ouyang</i></td>
      <td>831</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Conflicts and Collaboration: A Study of Upper Elementary Students Solving Computer Science Problems<br><i>Jennifer Tsan, Jessica Vandenberg, Xiaoting Fu, Jamieka Wilkinson, Danielle Boulden, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Collin Lynch, Eric Wiebe</i></td>
      <td>833</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Social Media and Personal Histories: Practices, Identities, and Algorithms in the Age of Digital Nostalgia<br><i>Sarah Burriss</i></td>
      <td>835</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Initial Knowledge and the Intensity of Online Discussion<br><i>Miikka Turkkila, Henri Lommi, Ismo Koponen</i></td>
      <td>837</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>An Innovative Social-Cognitive Engagement Network Representation<br><i>Fan Ouyang, Yu-Hui Chang</i></td>
      <td>839</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Reinforce Context Awareness in Augmented Reality-based Learning Design<br><i>Yun Wen, Chee-Kit Looi</i></td>
      <td>841</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Citizen Science in Schools: Supporting Implementation of Innovative Learning Environments Using Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships<br><i>Maya Benichou, Osnat Atias, Ornit Sagy, Yael Kali, Ayelet Baram-Tsabari</i></td>
      <td>843</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Designing for ESM-Mediated Collaborative Science Learning<br><i>Sugat Dabholkar, Uri Wilensky</i></td>
      <td>845</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Contribution to the Integration of MOOC in a Hybrid-Learning Project in the Moroccan University<br><i>Bouchaib Riyami</i></td>
      <td>847</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>From Face-to-Face to Online: Considerations for a Social Capital Design to Scale Science Teacher Access to High-Quality PD<br><i>Susan Yoon, Kate Miller, Jooeun Shim, Daniel Wendel, Ilana Schoenfeld, Emma Anderson, David Reider</i></td>
      <td>849</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Epistemic Frames of Idea Evaluation in Collaboration<br><i>Shono Ikeda, Jun Oshima, Ritsuko Oshima</i></td>
      <td>851</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Collaborative Knowledge Construction Mediated by Technology<br><i>Afaf Baabdullah</i></td>
      <td>853</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Online Mob Programming: Bridging the 21st Century Workplace and the Classroom<br><i>Sreecharan Sankaranarayanan, Xu Wang, Cameron Dashti, Haokang An, Clarence Ngoh, Michael Hilton, Majd Sakr, Carolyn Rosé</i></td>
      <td>855</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Moving Beyond the “Façade of Participation”: Using Choice-based Design to Enhance Online Discussions<br><i>Valerie Barbaro</i></td>
      <td>857</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Making the Design of CSCL Analytics Interfaces a Co-design Process: the Case of Multimodal Teamwork in Healthcare<br><i>Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Vanessa Echeverria, Doug Elliott, Carmen Axisa, Tamara Power, Simon Buckingham Shum</i></td>
      <td>859</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Examining the Role of Emotion Awareness and Sharing Emotions during Collaborative Learning<br><i>Maedeh Kazemitabar, Elise Lavoué, Susanne Lajoie, Rubiella Carrillo, Tenzin Doleck</i></td>
      <td>861</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Computer-based Problem Solving to Prepare for Adaptive Consolidation<br><i>Antje Boomgaarden, Katharina Loibl, Timo Leuders</i></td>
      <td>863</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>The Relationship Between Young Students’ Attitudes Toward Collaboration and Team Satisfaction in a STEAM-based Program</td>
      <td>865</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Theorizing and Operationalizing Social Engagement as a Precursor to Productive Disciplinary Engagement in Collaborative Groups</td>
      <td>867</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Toni Kempler Rogat, Britte Cheng, Andrea Gomoll, Temitope Adeoye, Anne Traynor, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Patrik Lundh</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Embedding Computational Thinking in the Elementary Classroom: An Extended Collaborative Teacher Learning Experience</td>
      <td>869</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Diane Jass Ketelhut, Emily Hestness, Kelly Mills</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Visualizing Representations of Interaction States during CSCL</td>
      <td>871</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Saadeddine Shehab, Emma Mercier</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Exploration of Scaffolding in Teachers' Dialogue Analysis</td>
      <td>873</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Moegi Saito, Shinya Iikubo, Hajime Shirouzu</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>How Embodied Interactions Manifest Themselves During Collaborative Learning in Classroom Settings</td>
      <td>875</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Zuzanna Lechelt, Yvonne Rogers, Nicolai Marquardt</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Enhancing Free-text Interactions in a Communication Skills Learning Environment</td>
      <td>877</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Raja Lala, Marcell van Geest, Stefan Ruseti, Johan Jeuring, Mihai Dascalu, Jordy van Dortmont, Gabriel Gutu-Robu, Michiel Hulsbergen</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Collaboration Within Mathland: What Do We Become Together</td>
      <td>879</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Isaac Nichols-Paez, Corey Brady</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Using Epistemic Network Analysis to Explore Ways of Contributing to Knowledge Building Discourse</td>
      <td>881</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Leanne Ma, Yoshiaki Matsuzawa, Marlene Scardamalia</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Identifying Learning Leaders in Collaborative Learning</td>
      <td>883</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Yinying Wang, Min Kyu Kim</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supporting Meaningful Revision of Scientific Ideas in an Online Genetics Unit</td>
      <td>885</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Emily Harrison, Libby Gerard, Marcia Linn</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Use of Spatial Sensemaking Practices in Spatial Learning</td>
      <td>887</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Abha Vaishampayan, Julia Plummer, Patricia Udomprasert, Susan Sunbury</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Teacher Perceptions on Collaborative Online Professional Development for In-Service Teachers on a MOOC Platform</td>
      <td>889</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Katherine Miller, Susan Yoon, Jooeun Shim, Daniel Wendel, Ilana Schoenfeld, Emma Anderson, David Reider</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Shall We Learn Together in Loud Spaces? Towards Understanding the Effects of Sound in Collaborative Learning</td>
      <td>891</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Milica Vujovic, Davinia Hernández-Leo</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving in the Context of a Game-based Learning Environment</td>
      <td>893</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Asmalina Saleh, Yuxin Chen, Abeera Rehmat, Karyn Housh, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Krista Glazewski, James Lester</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Structure for Agency: Possibilities and Challenges for Adaptive Collaborative Learning Support in Educational Equity Projects</td>
      <td>895</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Suraj Uttamchandani, Cindy Hmelo-Silver</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Conceptualizations of Learning in ijCSCL</td>
      <td>897</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Jonan Donaldson</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>The Role of Asynchronous Digital Feedback in Youth Maker Projects</td>
      <td>899</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Erica Halverson, Amy Mueller, Zhaohui Dai</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Using Collaborative Agent-based Modeling to Explore Complex Phenomena with Elementary Preservice Science Teachers</td>
      <td>901<br/>Tony Petrosino, Maximilan Sherard, Corey Brady</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Robots to Help Us Feel Safe: A Problem-Based CSCL Experience</td>
      <td>903<br/>Andrea Gomoll</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>An Exploration of Female Engagement and Collaboration in the Bricks and Bits Maker Project</td>
      <td>905<br/>Ezequiel Aleman, Pryce Davis</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>The Development and Application of a Social Reading Platform and the Double-level Scaffolding</td>
      <td>907<br/>Xiangdong Chen, Chen Guo</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Imagination in Adolescents' Collaborative Multimodal Science Fictions</td>
      <td>909<br/>Maria Kolovou, Ji Shen, Blaine Smith</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Telepresence Robots as Embodied Agents in the Classroom</td>
      <td>911<br/>Penny Thompson, Yam Chaivisit</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Child-Material Computing: Material Collaboration in Fiber Crafts</td>
      <td>913<br/>Anna Keune, Kylie Peppler</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Dialogic Intervisualizing: Rethinking Text-Discourse-Learning Relations in Multimodal Problem-based Learning</td>
      <td>915<br/>Susan Bridges, Lap Ki Chan, Judith Green, Asmalina Saleh, Cindy Hmelo-Silver</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Exploring the Potential of IVR Technology to Promote Collaborative Learning in Science Experiences</td>
      <td>917<br/>Omar Ceja-Salgado, Sara Price</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Using Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) for Global Curriculum Inquiry: A Case Study in Hong Kong</td>
      <td>921<br/>Sally Wai Yan Wan</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>A Qualitative Analysis of Joint Visual Attention and Collaboration with High- and Low-Achieving Groups in Computer-Mediated Learning</td>
      <td>923<br/>Tonya Bryant, Iulian Radu, Bertrand Schneider</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>An Interactive Visualization to Enhance Social Learning Practices in MOOC Platforms</td>
      <td>925<br/>Philip Tubman, Phil Benachour, Murat Oztok</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Revision Analysis of Students' Position-Time Graphs</td>
      <td>927<br/>Emily Harrison, Elizabeth McBride, Marcia Linn</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Research as Learning From Youth: Leveraging Collaborative Digital Tools to Position Youth as Experts on Themselves</td>
      <td>929<br/>Cynthia Graville, Joseph Polman, Taylor Morgan, Claire Englander, Jordan Fair, Kurt Lott, Tessa McGartland, BriYana Merrill, Kennedy Morganfield, Darby Moore, Annie O'Brien, Adam Rush, Patrick Shanahan, Erik Swenson, Ben Sylar, Michael Teasedale, Erikah White</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Mezclado: History of Our Neighborhoods in Augmented Reality</td>
      <td>931<br/>Kit Martin</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Studying Computational Thinking Practices Through Collaborative Design Activities with Scratch</td>
      <td>933<br/>Joey Huang, Kylie Peppler</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning and Learning Sciences Research in EducMap</td>
      <td>935<br/>Heisawn Jeong, Joomi Kim, Kristine Lund, Sebastian Grauwin</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Using a Resource Activation Lens to Understand Classroom Enactments of Computationally-Based Science Curricula</td>
      <td>937<br/>Jooeun Shim, Susan Yoon, Noora Noushad</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Assessing Collaborative Online Inquiry and Social Deliberation in Digital Environments</td>
      <td>939</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Alyssa Wise, Baruch Schwarz, Sten Ludvigsen, Nikol Rummel, Yotam Hod, Ornit Sagy, Yael Kali, Marcela Borge, Emma Mercier, Pierre Tchounikine

IAALDE Best Paper Session and Panel Discussion ..................................................................................................................977
Rémi Venant, Kshitij Sharma, Pierre Dillenbourg, Phillipe Vidal, Julien Broisin, Jennifer Olsen, Vincent Aleven, Nikol Rummel, Alyssa Wise, Carolyn Penstein Rosé, Gaëlle Molinari, Danielle McNamara, Wenli Chen, Stephanie Teasley

What Can 4E Cognition Tell Us About the Successes and Failures of CSCL Implementation ..................................................978
Claire Polo, Andri Ioannou, Didier Bottineau, Jean-Michel Roy, Magali Ollagnier Beldame

## Interactive Events

RoomCast: Distributing Digital Resources in the Classroom of Things ..................................................................................981
Tom Moher, Alessandro Gnoli

Computational Action in App Inventor: Developing Theoretical and Technological Frameworks for Collaboration and Empowerment ..................................................................................................................................................985
Mike Tissenbaum, Josh Sheldon

Toccata: A Multi-Device System for Activity Scripting and Classroom Orchestration .................................................................989
Valentin Lachand, Aurélien Tabard, Christine Michel

Bridging Concepts as Intermediary Knowledge in Design: Productive Dialogues and the Talkwall Microblogging Tool..................................................................................................................................................993
Ole Smørdal, Ingvill Rasmussen

ElectroVR: An Electrostatic Playground for Collaborative, Simulation-Based Exploratory Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality ..................................................................................................................................................997
Scott W. Greenwald, Wiley Corning, Gavin McDowell, Pattie Maes, John Belcher

The CUBE: A Tangible for Embodied Learning, Balanced Engagement, and Classroom Orchestration ............1001
Pantelis M. Papadopoulos

Synergy: An Online Platform for Dialogic Peer Feedback at Scale ..................................................................................1005
Erkan Er, Yannis Dimitriadis, Dragan Gasevic

Lines We Trace: Comparing Data Displays to Support Youth Sailing ..................................................................................1009
Katherine Chapman, Ben Rydal Shapiro

FROG, A Tool to Author and Run Orchestration Graphs: Affordances and Tensions..................................................1013
Stian Håklev, Louis Faucon, Jennifer Olsen, Pierre Dillenbourg

Mission HydroSci: Meeting Learning Standards Through Gameplay..................................................................................1017
James Laffey, Joseph Griffin, Justin Sigoloff, Troy Sadler, Sean Goggins, Andrew Womack, Eric Wulff, Sean Lander

Project Bloks: Embodied and Collaborative Learning With Tangible Interfaces for Young Children ............1021
Veronica Lin, Paulo Blikstein

The Power of Network Analysis Tool for Collaborative Learning..................................................................................1025
Haesol Bae, Kalani Craig, Joshua Danish, Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Suraj Uttamchandani, Maksymilian Szostalo, Ann McCranie

Supporting Collaborative Problem Solving in a Game-Based Learning Environment..................................................1029
Asmalina Saleh, Yuxin Chen, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Krista Glazewski, Bradford Mott, Robert Taylor, Jonathan Rowe, James Lester

## Workshops

EPCAL: Studying Synchronous Online Collaboration at Scale ..................................................................................1035
Jiangang Hao, Diego Zapata-Rivera, Jessica Andrews-Todd, Mengxiao Zhu, Piotr Mitros
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Experiencing and Analysing Embodied Design Thinking in CSCL<br>Penny Wheeler, Stefan Trausan-Matu, Amanda Barany, Jonan Phillip Donaldson</td>
      <td>1036</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Theories and Methods for Researching Interdisciplinary Learning<br>Lina Markauskaite, Hanni Muukkonen, Crina Damsa, Peter Reimann, David Williamson Shaffer, Kate Thompson, Yael Kali, Adi Kidron, Monika Nerland</td>
      <td>1037</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Designing Embedded Phenomena<br>Tom Moher, James Slotta, Brenda Lopez Silva, Michelle Lui, Beth Sanzenbacher</td>
      <td>1038</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Posthumanist Perspectives on Learning<br>Kylie Peppler, Anna Keune, Karen Wohlwend, Jennifer Rowsell, Robert Goldstone</td>
      <td>1039</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Theorizing and Analyzing Productive Disciplinary Engagement as a Collaborative Phenomenon<br>Toni Kempler Rogat, Britte Haugan Cheng</td>
      <td>1040</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Making the Learning Sciences Count: Impacting Association for Computing Machinery Communities in Human-Computer Interaction<br>Jason C. Yip, June Ahn, Elizabeth Bonsignore, Tamara Clegg, Elizabeth DiSalvo</td>
      <td>1041</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Creating, Refining, and Validating Automated Discourse Codes: An Introduction to nCoder and Rho<br>Amanda Siebert-Evenstone, Brendan Eagan, Zachari Swiecki, Seung Bok Lee, Eric Hamilton</td>
      <td>1042</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Creating Common Ground for Teaching Designs in Learning Sciences Programs: Building on CSCL Research and Practice<br>Freydis Vogel, Marcela Borge, Crina Damsa, Pryce Davis, Julia Eberle, Frank Fischer, Daniel Sommerhoff</td>
      <td>1043</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>International Workshop on Collaboration Analytics: Making Learning Visible in Collaborative Settings<br>Roberto Martinez Maldonado, Marcelo Worsley, Bertrand Schneider, Ahmed Kharrufa</td>
      <td>1044</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Understanding New Assessment and Environment for Knowledge Building: Triangulating Features of Discourse Platform, Multimodal Learning Analytics and Text-based Learning Analytics<br>Chew Lee Teo, Elizabeth Koh, Marlene Scardamalia, Jianwei Zhang, Mei-Hwa Chen, Carol Chan, Sambit Praharaj, Esther Tan, Aloysius Ong</td>
      <td>1045</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Publishing in the Learning Sciences: A Journal Writers' Workshop<br>Mitchell J. Nathan, Carol Chan, Sten Runar Ludvigsen, Joshua Radinsky, Jeremy Roschelle, Susan Yoon, Jan van Aalst</td>
      <td>1047</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Mid-Career Workshop: Empowering Women in the Learning Sciences<br>Stephanie D. Teasley, Carol Chan, Susan R. Goldman, Kimberley Gomez, Janet L. Kolodner, Marcia C. Linn, Nichole Pinkard, Nikol Rummel</td>
      <td>1048</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

## Early Career Workshop

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>CSCL 2017 Early Career Workshop<br>Julia Eberle, Nancy Law, Victor R. Lee</td>
      <td>1051</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>An Embodied Conjecture Approach Towards Designing Games Using Problem-based Learning<br>Asmalina Saleh</td>
      <td>1052</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supporting Youth in Exploring and Expressing Disciplinary Identities With Learning Technologies<br>Shiyan Jiang</td>
      <td>1054</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Cultivating an Orientation to Care in Computing Education<br>Ben Rydal Shapiro</td>
      <td>1056</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Talking to Learn Across Digital and Face-to-face Settings in a High School English Classroom<br>Jennifer Higgs</td>
      <td>1058</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Improving Feedback for Learning Real-world Design</td>
      <td>1060</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Daniel Rees Lewis

Supporting Student Understanding of Engineering: Using Hands-on Projects and Interactive Computer Models
Elizabeth McBride
1062

Devising an Interactive Social Learning Analytics Tool to Foster Online Collaborative Learning
Fan Ouyang
1064

Combining Machine Learning and Learning Analytics to Provide Personalized, Adaptive Scaffolding
Irene-Angelica Chounta
1066

Towards the Development of an Evidence-based Framework for Immersion in Digitally Enhanced Learning Environments
Yiannis Georgiou
1068

Conceptualizing and Scaling Dialogic Peer Feedback
Erkan Er
1070

Learner Modeling of Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes for Complex Collaborative Learning Tasks
Shitanshu Mishra
1072

Towards Personally-Relevant Learning: Bridging In-School and Out-of-School Learning Through Wearable Technologies
Sharon Lynn Chu
1074

Flexible Scripting and Orchestration for Synchronous Learning
Stian Håklev
1076

Doctoral Consortium

The CSCL 2017 Doctoral Consortium Workshop
Yotam Hod, Katerine Bielaczyc, Heisawn Jeong, Joshua Danish, Mimi Recker
1079

Learning in the City: Joint Pursuits in Relational Pivot Points
Adam Bell
1082

Teacher Identity and the Co-Design of CSCL That Creates Change
Andrea Gomoll
1084

Modeling and Modes: Broadening Participation in Science Practices for Emerging Bilingual Students
Ashlyn Pierson
1086

Sustaining Knowledge Building Across Communities With Boundary Objects
Guangji Yuan, Jianwei Zhang
1088

Emergent Leadership in Student-led Collaborative Activity in a School-based Makerspace
Jasmiina Korhonen
1090

Temporal Patterns and Visualizations of Peer Talk: Toward Understanding the Process and Performance of Dialogic Collaborative Problem-Solving
Liru Hu, Gaowei Chen, Carol K.K. Chan
1092

Interplay of Different Group Awareness Information for Improving Collaborative Learning in Social Media
Lisa Ollesch, Daniel Bodemer
1094

Weaving Together: Exploring How Pluralistic Mathematical Practices Emerge Through Weaving
Naomi Thompson
1096

Implicit Guidance, Explicit Guidance, or Both? Examining the Differential Effects of Collaboration
Prompts and Group Awareness Tools on Students' Regulation of Online Collaboration 1098
Sebastian Strauß

Towards Equitable Learning Futures: Sociopolitical Discourses, Practices, and Joint Work in an
LGBTQ+ Youth Group 1100
Suraj Uttamchandani

Modeling the Contributions of Individuals to Collaborative Problem Solving Using
Epistemic Network Analysis 1102
Zachari Swiecki, David Williamson Shaffer

## Indexes

Author Index...................................................................................................................A1-A7

Keyword Index ...................................................................................................................K1-K3
Keynote Presentations
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
# Integrating Theorizing on Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Cognition to Augment CSCL Research

Stephen Fiore, University of Central Florida, sfiore@ist.ucf.edu

**Abstract:** The metaphor of the blind men and the elephant is often used to describe how one's narrow perspective on an issue leads to misperceptions about some complex issue. Interdisciplinary research is no stranger to this parable; so much so that it has become clichéd. With the advent of the embodied, enactive, extended, and embedded cognition perspectives, we arrive at a place where we must avoid misconceptions about learning and cognition and discuss how to address these developments in the context of CSCL. Said most succinctly, through the embodiment thesis, one considers cognition as inextricably linked to the sensory-motor system with which one has been endowed. Via the enactive thesis, one considers cognition as tightly coupled between interactor and the environment. With the extended thesis, one considers cognition as existing as much in the world as it is in the head. In the embedded thesis, one considers cognition as best understood when situated within a particular context. On the one hand, like the blind men and the elephant, we could embrace these fractionalizations and pursue independent lines of inquiry to understand how technology can support distinct forms of learning and cognition. On the other hand, we could pursue a more holistic approach that integrates these varied theoretical perspectives to consider how technologies can augment the study of learning and cognition. In this talk I discuss how new tools and technologies allow us to embrace the latter approach via a multi-method, multi-conceptual approach with the group as the focal point. This is made possible through advances in interdisciplinary research allowing us to instrument and/or observe the world of interaction in ways never before possible. Importantly, though, we are observing interaction not just within, but also across, multiple levels. I discuss how this provides the opportunity to integrate levels of interaction for studying learning and cognition and provide representative research issues for CSCL to explore.

**Dr. Stephen M. Fiore** is Director of the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, and Professor with the University of Central Florida's Cognitive Sciences Program in the Department of Philosophy and Institute for Simulation & Training. He is Past-President of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research and a founding committee member for the annual Science of Team Science Conference. He maintains a multidisciplinary research interest that incorporates aspects of the cognitive, social, organizational, and computational sciences in the investigation of learning and performance in individuals and teams. His primary area of research is the interdisciplinary study of complex collaborative cognition and the understanding of how humans interact socially and with technology.
Negotiating Knowledge, Expertise, Connoisseurship and Taste in
Social Interaction

Lorenza Mondada, University of Basel, lorenza.mondada@unibas.ch

**Abstract:** How knowledge is manifested in social interaction is a key issue for understanding and documenting how knowledge is possibly negotiated, recognized, and learned in actual settings and activities. Recent work in interactional studies has debated how knowledge in interaction can be not only claimed but also displayed by self, how it can be attributed to self by others, how it can be intersubjectively recognized and negotiated (Heritage, 2012, Stivers, Mondada, Steensig, 2011). This might be observed in ordinary life, as well as in institutional contexts: in the latter case, institutional asymmetries might enhance epistemic asymmetries – for instance between lay persons and experts– but also be the arena for epistemic re-negotiations and competitions –for instance between amateurs, connoisseurs and professionals. These recalibrations of knowledge claims and attributions are central in settings that are not devoted to formal learning but that are relevant for socialization into knowledge, culture, and expertise. Empirically the talk focuses on an exemplary setting of ordinary life in which these issues are observable and documentable in actual video recordings of situated practices. Encounters in specialized gourmet shops, in particular in cheese shops, constitute an arena in which participants engage not only in buying, but in displaying their identity as gourmet connoisseurs; an arena in which clients go not just for shopping but for learning how to taste and also how to speak about sophisticated food items. Knowledge, expertise and taste concern in this case both propositional knowledge (information about the products) and praxeological and embodied knowledge (know how to taste and to assess the products). The paper discusses different types of knowledge, verbal and embodied, and the way they are embedded in specific activities and sequential contexts. It offers methodological hints about their analysis, providing for both situated and systematic patterns, showing how they are expressed and enacted in situ, in negotiations that crucially involve talk and bodies, constructing social and epistemic identities.

**Professor Lorenza Mondada** holds an appointed Chair of General and French Linguistics at the University of Basel. She is a leading worldwide expert in the field of linguistics, who has published widely on the interrelationship of language, embodiment, space and mobility. In 2001 she was awarded the National Latsis Prize – a prize awarded annually in Switzerland to the top researcher under 40. Her empirical studies of multimodal interaction in a wide range of activities – from rallying to cheese tasting – have been instrumental in viewing human language as a dynamic resource. Since January 2015 she is a Finnish Distinguished Professor at the University of Helsinki, where she develops a project entitled “Revisiting Language through Multimodality in Interaction”.
# Designing Opie Robots as Learning Companions: Insights, Interactions and Interdependencies

Janet Wiles, University of Queensland, j.wiles@uq.edu.au

**Abstract:** This talk will present a series of case studies in technology design, based on the child-friendly robots in the ongoing Opal project and analysis tools for interaction dynamics. Opie robots are primarily designed for physically-embodied social presence, enabling children and adults to touch, hold, or hug the robot, and to use its solid frame as a physical support. The key design issues start with safety of the users, which affects movement and speed; and safety of the robot from rough play by children. These capabilities enable different kinds of studies to those of commonly available commercial robots which are too fragile for rough use, or in danger of falling over, with potential for damage to themselves and a danger to children. The second design consideration for Opie robots is the speed of interaction, and how that can impact on human social engagement, which occurs in timescales of hundreds of milliseconds. Case studies will include Opie robots as story tellers in public spaces, such as science museums and technology showcases; Indigenous language robots as language assistants in classrooms and language centres; Lingodroids that evolve their own languages; and chatbots used for surveys and conversation. Insights from the development of multi-lingual robots include the critical role of embedding robots in communities and the extended nature of the robots' influence within and beyond a classroom. The Opie real-world case studies enable us to reflect on fundamental questions about design decisions that affect when a robot is considered to be a social being; whether a robot could understand the grounded meanings of the words it uses; and practical questions about what is needed for a robot to be an effective learning companion in individual and group settings. The talk will conclude with an overview of two computational tools for analysing human-human and human-robot interactions, including conceptual recurrence analysis of turn-taking in conversations using Discursis and the timing of interactions using Calpy's pausecode.

**Dr. Janet Wiles** is Professor at the School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ITEE) in the Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology, with the University of Queensland. She is research leader of the Co-Innovation group in UQ's ITEE School, and UQ node leader for the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language. Her current research projects focus on Human-robot interactions, Indigenous language technologies, bio-inspired computation, visualisation and artificial intelligence. Previous projects have been in complex systems modeling in biology and neuroscience, human memory, language and cognition.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
Full Papers
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
# Analysis of Touchscreen Interactive Gestures During Embodied Cognition in Collaborative Tabletop Science Learning Experiences

Nikita Soni, Alice Darrow, Annie Luc, Schuyler Gleaves, Carrie Schuman, Hannah Neff, Peter Chang, Brittani Kirkland, Amanda Morales, Kathryn A. Stofer, Lisa Anthony
nsoni2@ufl.edu, aldarrow@ufl.edu, annieluc@ufl.edu, schuylergleaves@ufl.edu, carrie.schuman@ufl.edu, hannahneff@ufl.edu, pchang27@ufl.edu, bgkirkland@ufl.edu, mondily@ufl.edu, stofer@ufl.edu, lanthony@cise.ufl.edu
University of Florida

Jeremy Alexandre (9th author)
jeremy.alexandr@gmail.com
City University of New York—Brooklyn College

**Abstract:** Previous work has used embodied cognition as a theoretical framework to inform the design of large touchscreen interfaces for learning. We seek to understand how specific gestural interactions may be tied to particular instances of learning supported by embodiment. To help us investigate this question, we built a tabletop prototype that facilitates collaborative science learning from data visualizations and used this prototype as a testbed in a laboratory study with 11 family groups. We present an analysis of the types of gestural interactions that accompanied embodied cognition (as revealed by users' language) while learners interacted with our prototype. Our preliminary findings indicate a positive role of cooperative (multi-user) gestures in supporting scientific discussion and collaborative meaning-making during embodied cognition. Our next steps are to continue our analysis to identify additional touchscreen interaction design guidelines for learning technologies, so that designers can capitalize on the affordances of embodied cognition in these contexts.

## Introduction

Large touchscreen interfaces like multi-touch tabletops have become increasingly widespread, particularly in informal learning environments such as science museums (Geller, 2006). For example, science educators and researchers are using large touchscreen interfaces to support learning about complex global phenomena such as Earth's ocean system (Cheek, 2010). Yet, many visitors have trouble understanding the information presented on these interfaces, let alone interacting with the interfaces to develop a deeper understanding of the information (Cheek, 2010). Previous interaction design research has used *embodied cognition* as an underlying theoretical framework to inform the design of large touchscreen interfaces for learning (Lin et al., 2016; Piper et al., 2012). Embodied cognition theory posits that cognition is not solely based in the mind, but also in the body, i.e., some of our cognitive processes occur through “perceptually-guided motions” (Wilson & Golonka, 2013). Learning around a shared interactive display like a touchscreen tabletop with direct-touch gestures draws on the affordances of embodiment. These interactive gestures play an important role in how learners explain abstract ideas and promote scientific discussion (Piper et al., 2012). Although embodiment theories consider sensorimotor activities like direct-touch gestures to be integral to learning, the community has noted that there is still no “conceptually coherent and empirically validated design framework” to inform the design of embodied learning experiences (Abrahamson et al., 2018, p.1243). Prior research that has explored the design of touchscreen interfaces for learning from the viewpoint of embodied cognition has assumed that embodied cognition is driving learning during any motion or interaction, without considering how *specific* interactions may influence particular instances of learning. If we could identify the types of touchscreen interactions being used when people are engaged in embodied cognition during a learning episode, we could design learning experiences that explicitly support and encourage touchscreen interactions directly linked to learning.

In this paper, we analyze touchscreen gestural interactions that accompany linguistic cues of embodied cognition during collaborative learning (Kirschner et al., 2018), in the context of science learning about data visualizations of Earth's global ocean system. We built a tabletop application prototype to support collaborative learning and used this prototype as a testbed in a lab study with 11 family groups. Throughout this paper, we use the term “learning” to reflect *meaning-making*, that is, the process of integrating new knowledge and coordinating it with existing beliefs and knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978), rather than its traditional use to reflect “knowledge acquisition.” Based on previous research that has shown conceptual metaphors are a type of embodiment language (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003), we relied on identifying the three main conceptual metaphors
(metonymy, orientation, and ontology) in groups' utterances as cues to the occurrence of embodied cognition. We then analyzed participants' gestures that co-occurred with these utterances and linked these gestures to how people were making meaning at that moment. Specifically, we investigated the following research questions: (RQ1) When groups' utterances reveal that embodied cognition is occurring, what gestures are they making, during learning with an interactive tabletop? (RQ2) How can we support and encourage these types of gestural interactions in the design of computer-supported collaborative learning experiences on an interactive tabletop, to afford embodied cognition more directly? Our preliminary findings indicate a positive role of cooperative (multi-user) touchscreen gestures in supporting collaborative learning on tabletops during embodied cognition. This paper outlines two initial themes and touchscreen interaction design guidelines for affording embodied cognition, to inform the design of future tabletop experiences for science learning.

## Embodied cognition in designing tabletop applications for learning

Prior work investigating collaborative learning around multi-touch tabletops has already used embodied cognition as a theoretical framework to design these learning experiences (Lin et al., 2016; Piper et al., 2012). Embodied cognition provides an ideal framework for understanding interactions with multi-touch technology because it considers direct hands-on interactions with the digital content to be integral to cognition (Kirsh, 2013). Lin et al. (2016) used embodied cognition as their theoretical basis to design a tabletop application to promote collaborative thinking among high school students. Their findings show that externalizing learners' thinking by adding scaffolding such as sticky notes made it easier for groups to share and reflect on their thoughts collaboratively. They note that being able to enlarge or zoom sticky notes facilitated joint reading and group thinking, implying that touchscreen gestures and collaborative thinking are intertwined. Piper and Hollan (2009) compared affordances of tabletops and pen-paper material for supporting scientific discussions with undergraduate students and noted that tabletops better supported understanding of abstract science concepts, such as how a neuron fires. Learners used bimanual and collaborative whole-handed gestures over various parts of the axon during scientific discourse. On the other side, prior work has also explored how to design direct-touch interaction generally to support science learning activities around tabletops (Horn et al., 2009; Shaer et al., 2011), although not explicitly from the standpoint of embodied cognition. Horn et al. (2009) developed an information visualization tool (Involv) for exploring the Encyclopedia of Life to help groups of adults effectively interact with large datasets on the tabletop. Shaer et al. (2011) explored tabletop interactions for classroom science learning and found that multi-touch tabletops encourage reflection and foster collaboration. However, these studies focus more broadly on the role of interaction in supporting science learning, rather than looking at specific interactions that augment scientific discussion and collaborative learning. Our work builds upon both of these lines of prior work. In addition to using embodied cognition as our conceptual framework, we analyze the gestures that are co-occurring with instances of embodied cognition (as signaled by the users' language) to understand the role of gestures in facilitating the collaborative science learning process.

## Language as demonstration of embodied cognition

The theory of embodied cognition posits that learning occurs not only within the mind, but also in the body, through the learner's movements and interactions with the environment (Wilson & Golonka, 2013). Lakoff and Johnson (2003) discussed language as one signal of embodiment, specifically the use of “conceptual metaphors” for space and place, outlining three types (Table 1). *Orientational metaphors* use spatial words for ideas that are not inherently spatial. *Ontological metaphors* allow an abstract idea, such as an experience, to represent a concrete substance like an object. A specific example is *personification*: giving objects human-like qualities so we can relate experiences through human characteristics. *Metonymy* is when one idea stands in for another similar idea, as when someone speaks about a location they are not physically in as “here”. Wilson and Golonka (2013) have critiqued some embodied cognition research, however, suggesting that linguistic expression of metaphors found in much embodied cognition research (including this paper) is at best a precursor to true embodied cognition, as language still occurs in the mind. The tasks investigated so far that Wilson and Golonka

<table><caption>Table 1: Examples of the three types of conceptual metaphors from Lakoff and Johnson (2003).</caption><thead><tr><td>Conceptual Metaphors</td><td>Examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Orientational</td><td>When we use “up” to describe feeling <i>happy</i>, e.g., “I’m feeling <i>up</i>.” (p.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>When a physical object is described as “talking” or “giving” as if it were a person, e.g., “His religion <i>tells</i> him that he cannot <i>drink fine French wines</i>.” (p.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Metonymy</td><td>When we use the name of one location to describe our experience associated with the events at that physical location, such as using the term “Grand Central Station” to mean “a crowded place,” e.g., “It’s been <i>Grand Central Station</i> here all day.” (p.32)</td></tr></tbody></table>
suggest represent “true” embodied cognition tasks, such as catching a fly baseball, are considerably less “representation hungry” than our more abstract task of learning from data visualizations. Our task deals with thinking about data that is not concretely present in the learner’s environment (Kiverstein & Rietveld, 2018). For examine, one part of our task is understanding what the colors in the data visualizations depict, another part is determining the pattern(s) of the colors, and a third part is ascribing meaning to the patterns. Decomposing our meaning-making task into elements that engage embodied cognition as Wilson and Golonka do is a question outside the scope of this paper. The specific conceptual metaphors learners use are likely to be influenced by the specific science domain; however, our focus is not to categorize the types of conceptual metaphors used by learners in this domain. Instead, we focus on linking the touchscreen gestures during embodied cognition to the learning that is occurring. These insights will inform the design of future touch-interactive learning experiences to more successfully capitalize on the affordances of embodied cognition in data visualization tasks.

## Our prototype application for learning about Earth's ocean system

To study our research questions, our team, which consisted of both human-computer interaction experts and learning scientists, designed a touch-interactive tabletop prototype for science data visualizations to engage family groups in collaborative meaning-making. The application ran on a Samsung SUR40 tabletop computer. The resolution was 1920 x 1080 (55 DPI), and the display size was 40 inches, measured diagonally. We created the interface with the Open Exhibits Software Development Kit (SDK) (1).

To aid groups in the collaborative meaning-making process, we provided scaffolding (Stofer, 2016), e.g., cognitive affordances that can help non-expert users understand the ocean temperature data visualizations better, such as audience-appropriate color schemes and geographic labels. We used two map views with color

scaffolding designed by NASA (2). The visualizations we used are similar to the NASA Earth Observations visualizations, which have been deployed in nearly 100 museums worldwide (3). Our prototype consisted of two “maskviewer” interface elements, each containing a set of ocean data visualizations from the year 2015 on top of a base Earth map with land maps and blue oceans (4) (Figure 1). The first visualization used a pink-to-purple color scale that showed baseline ocean temperatures, and the second visualization used a red-to-blue color scale to represent the extremes of the temperature difference (e.g., anomaly) from baseline

(Stofer, 2016). The maskviewers implemented “layers” of information which could be zoomed, rotated, or dragged to allow users to flexibly control them and facilitate shared communication. To help participants recognize the difference between the two maskviewers, we attached a temperature legend and title directly to the maskviewers. Each visualization contained six continent hotspots that, when tapped, would pop-up an information box with content about El Niño, an ocean phenomenon affected by temperature, which could then be zoomed, rotated, or dragged in relation to that continent. We chose the content for these information boxes from international weather and climate organizations (5) to supplement the content shown on the data visualizations. Finally, to enable participants to explore how baseline temperatures or temperature anomalies changed over a year, our prototype contained a “time slider” (yellow bar in Figure 1). When the user performed a hold (long tap) anywhere on the map, the time slider would pop up, and the user could slide their finger horizontally along it to change the months and observe the continuous temperature changes. The time slider had tick marks for each month, labels at either end of the slider, and the current month displayed above the user’s finger. We used this prototype as a testbed to identify interactive touchscreen gestures that co-occurred with instances of embodied cognition while groups engaged in a scientific discussion about ocean temperatures.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Prototype design with the red/blue maskviewers on a base Earth map, along with a time slider (yellow bar) to change months. Text labels have been enlarged for legibility.</figcaption></figure>

## Participants and study design

A total of 30 participants in 11 family groups participated in our study (16 female). Each group consisted of at least one child (ages 8 to 13, M: 10.07 yrs, SD: 1.49 yrs, 15 children total) and one parent or guardian (max group size: four). We recruited participants via an email sent to a faculty list and flyers distributed at a local science museum. Our protocol was approved by our Institutional Review Board. After obtaining informed consent and assent, we instructed groups in how to use the think-aloud process (Greenberg et al., 2011) to
expose what they were thinking while completing the learning activity. We also did a practice think-aloud with them as a group to solve a two-column addition problem. During the study, we asked each group to perform these four tasks in order, while thinking aloud: (1) Explore this interactive visualization as you would if you saw it in a science museum. We are interested in seeing what people do. Tell us what you find out about the ocean. (2) Open the information box for South America and tell us how the information there compares to the ocean data displayed in general. (3) Find the Gulf of Mexico and tell us how ocean temperatures there change month to month. (4) Find the Eastern Pacific Ocean basin and tell us how ocean temperatures in the basin compare to long-term baseline ocean temperatures for that basin.

The order of tasks increased in difficulty, with the aim that, as participants explored the prototype, they would be better able to answer the more involved questions. After the tasks, participants completed a demographics questionnaire. Most of our participants (over 85%) were frequent science museum visitors (e.g., three to twelve times per year). Each family group received a $30 grocery store gift card for participating.

## Data collection and analysis

During the study, we video recorded participants using cameras placed at a side angle and directly overhead. Session lengths (excluding break time between tasks) ranged from 14 minutes (min) 30 seconds (sec) to 27 min 45 sec (average duration: 21 min 43 sec, just under 6 min per task). We transcribed the groups' utterances from the videos. One group spoke some Spanish during their interaction, and we asked a colleague to assist with translation. To understand how specific interactions may be tied to particular instances of learning supported by embodiment, we first identified the set of learning "episodes" in which groups' utterances signaled embodied cognition (e.g., from the presence of conceptual metaphors). As mentioned, the three main types of conceptual metaphors are *metonymy*, *orientation*, and *ontology* (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Three researchers reviewed the transcripts to identify utterances containing these conceptual metaphors. We then analyzed the participants' touchscreen gestures (e.g., tap, pinch to zoom, etc.) that co-occurred with these utterances during each learning episode, to help us understand the role of these gestures in supporting collaborative making-meaning, as facilitated by embodied cognition. Our team conducted a thematic analysis on these examples, in which we discussed themes that emerged in terms of which types of gestures most often accompanied the conceptual metaphors and seemed to be essential in affording embodied cognition during collaborative meaning-making.

## Findings

We present two over-arching themes that illustrate the types of gestures groups used to facilitate collaborative meaning-making when engaged in embodied cognition in our study.

### Gestures for orienting the group

We observed that participants' interactions with the interface elements guided their thinking process and helped them orient themselves and the group to the science content displayed on the prototype. We saw that the physical affordances offered by the maskviewer element, such as being able to resize and move it around the tabletop, allowed participants to focus the group's attention on how temperatures change at various geographic locations. Segment 1 (Figure 2) is an example of this theme. We identified it as an instance of embodied cognition based on lines 4, 5, and 6. These utterances illustrate the use of *metonymic* conceptual metaphor, in which P2 and P3 [Group597] are speaking as if placing themselves physically into the world represented by the prototype: they are talking about the temperature change as if it was actually occurring, saying that *"It's really cold!"* and using words *"...out here in like the middle..."* even though P2 is not in the middle of the ocean himself. This segment shows how participants are dragging the maskviewer element to incrementally build their understanding of the temperature visualization by promoting discussion about temperature variations at specific geographic locations. In their gestures, P2 is dragging the baseline ocean temperature maskviewer element over the Indian Ocean, as he says, *"So check that out, that's very cold right there."* P2 further drags the maskviewer near the middle of the Pacific Ocean to compare the temperature patterns for the Indian and Pacific Oceans, as he says, *"So out here in like the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it looks like it's upwards of 88 degrees."*

We also observed that resizing the maskviewer helped focus the group's attention and facilitate collaborative meaning-making. Segment 2 (Figure 2) is an example of this theme. We identified it as an instance of embodied cognition based on line 2, which exemplifies a common type of ontological metaphor called personification: P2 [Group912] treats the prototype as a "storyteller" by saying that the prototype is "telling" them something. In their gestures, we see the group resizing the maskviewer to focus the group's attention and facilitate meaning-making. Initially, P2 [Group 912] directs P1 to re-size the maskviewer in order to focus on a specific geographic location, as he says: *"Let me see Florida ... Ya, shrink it and put it like right over the north east ... So, it tells what different temperatures are here or ..."*. At this moment, P1 is using the maskviewer
element as a tool to help direct the group's attention onto Florida and analyze how the temperature changes near it: "*Pretty warm.*" The above examples show dragging and zooming gestures co-occurring with the utterances signifying embodied cognition. Thus, we can infer that participants were using the maskviewer element as an embodied lens for comparing temperature patterns through physical interactions with the prototype. Without the maskviewer, the data visualization would encompass the entire interface, making it more difficult to direct the group's attention and focus on subcomponents of the dataset before the group is ready to think at a higher level. Dragging and zooming the maskviewer and attending to what temperature patterns they reveal for different geographical locations seemed to push participants to focus on a subset of the data at a time as their conceptual understanding is constructed piece by piece. Therefore, future touchscreen interfaces for learning should support interactions that bring key aspects of the science content gradually into focus in this way.

## Cooperative gestures for facilitating collaborative meaning-making

Another theme frequent in our analysis was participants using cooperative (multi-user) gestures to facilitate collaborative meaning-making. Morris et al. (2006) defined cooperative gestures as interactions in which the interface interprets the simultaneous gestures of more than one user as contributing to a single command. We observed that the interaction constraints offered by our time slider, in that it required simultaneous gestures (either using two hands or by two users at the same time), encouraged participants to actively participate in collaborative meaning-making through cooperative gestures. Segment 3 (Figure 3) is an example of this theme. We identified it as an instance of embodied cognition based on lines 5 and 6, which illustrates the use of metonymic conceptual metaphor: saying “...go to...” and “...go ahead...” to stand in for manipulating time within the visualization, as one cannot physically move to the time under discussion. This segment presents an example of how interface elements that allow users to interact cooperatively encourage group members to actively participate and contribute to the group’s shared knowledge. In this example, initially, we see that P3 is passively watching P1 and P2 [Group247] interact with the prototype and discuss their observations, instead of actively participating and contributing to the group’s understanding. We see later on (starting line 6) that since P1 is utilizing both of his hands (right hand for holding the slider and left hand to point towards the temperature pattern on the map), he looks at P3 to ask for help with changing months using the time slider by saying: “*Go to like, go to like May or June. That's April. Look how much warmer it's getting. That's June. Look how super warm it is.*” Though P3 was just helping P1 change months, directly manipulating the prototype content helps P3 to focus on the temperature trends P1 and P2 were discussing. While P3 changes the month on the slider, he

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Segment 1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

1. P1: Yeah, yeah let's do the Indian Ocean (*dragging the maskviewer to the Indian Ocean*).

2. P2: So, check that out, that's very cold right there* (*dragging the maskviewer towards Europe and the top of Africa*)

3. P1: Wooooow!

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

4. P2: Up in here it's pretty chilly too* †(*dragging the maskviewer towards the Pacific Ocean*).

5. P3: It's really cold†

6. P2: Find a really hot spot. So out here in like the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it looks like it's upwards of 88 degrees †
[Group 597]

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Segment 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

1. P1: Let me see Florida (*dragging maskview over Florida, then enlarging maskview*)
... (other talk)

2. P2: Ya, shrink it (P1 shrinks maskviewer) and put it like right over the north east* (P1 drags the maskviewer over Florida). Here you go. So, it tells what different temperatures are here ‡ or ... (P1 zooms in map over Florida)

3. P1: Pretty warm [Group 912]

**Figure 2.** Example of a family group using the maskviewer to compare temperature patterns for geographic locations. The zoomed in view of the image on the right shows details of participants' interaction with the prototype. Participants' utterances signifying conceptual metaphors are noted: *metonymic*†, *personification*‡. Utterances marked with an asterisk (*) co-occurred with the gestures shown in the images.
starts contributing to the group's understanding by making inferences about how temperature patterns change at different geographical locations, as he says: "But that's like in the middle. Here, let me show you." Gestures can serve as a mechanism for cognitive offloading; that is, by taking up some of the cognitive efforts of attention and focus, they allow a learner to focus cognitive resources on other aspects of a task such as drawing inferences (Goldin-Meadow & Beilock, 2010). Furthermore, when working collaboratively on a complex task, reducing individual cognitive load and encouraging group members to exchange knowledge helps in collaborative knowledge-building (Kirschner et al., 2018). In their gestures, the participants work together in order to operate the time slider. P2 holds his hand on the screen in order for the time slider to pop up, while P3 drags the slider to different months. Thus, instead of having one participant focus their cognitive resources on operating the time slider, the group collaboration reduces the amount of cognitive effort required by each participant. Then, the participants can use more of their cognitive resources to engage in science discussion, seen in the utterance by P3, "It's [temperature] near av- [average] that's where it was near average." The above example illustrates that using cooperative gestures facilitates collaborative meaning-making by encouraging group members to engage in a scientific discussion together in a more hands-on and active manner.

We also observed that interacting collaboratively allows group members to build upon each other's understanding of the temperature patterns. Segment 4 (Figure 3) is an example of this theme. We identified it as an instance of embodied cognition based on lines 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, which illustrate the use of *metonymic* conceptual metaphor: participants talk as if they are actually experiencing the time and temperature change portrayed within the prototype, by saying, "it's almost white now". In this example, we see that P1 and P2 [Group765] are collaboratively interacting with the time slider. As P2 changes months, she says, "It's definitely warm. June, warmer." P1 further builds upon the group's understanding of temperature by saying, "Definitely warm, it's getting closer to 95 [degrees]." The group continues to change months on the time slider and watch the temperature change within the visualization. Finally, P1 says, "it's almost white now." Segment 3 demonstrates that participants are using cooperative gestures to discover the mapping between different scientific variables of the visualizations (i.e., what temperature the colors depict and how temperature changes with time). Both of these examples show cooperative gestures co-occurring with utterances signifying embodied

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Segment 3</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

1. P2: No, that's a different. So wait no no no. So, oh yeah temperature wouldn't, this isn't precipitation.

2. P1: Well yeah, but I mean they are definitely related*. The issue that I see- (long tap gesture to activate time slider, then dragging time slider with middle finger)

3. P2: So warm and humid? So, if we move this over here (dragging the maskviewer).

4. P1: Yeah.

5. P2: And go to, it was May, June, and July right? † (deactivates time slider by stopping long tap gesture) That it said El Nino was? ‡

6. P1: Was it? Okay. So, if we go till, yeah go ahead* (long tap gesture to activate time slider) and January the temperature isn't that much of a difference.† Go to like, go to like May or June (P3 dragging time slider). That's April. Look how much warmer it's getting. That's June. Look how super warm it is. †

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

7. P2: Yeah but you would think if it's warm up there (pointing gesture) then that would cause rain over here because of warm humid air. †

8. P1: Depends on the wind pattern.

9. P3: But that's like in the middle (pointing gesture). Here, let me show you. (deactivates time slider by stopping long tap gesture) (other talk)

10. P1: July through October

11. P3: It's near av- that's where it was near average. [Group 247]

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Segment 4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

1. P2: Alright, what happens next? April.

2. P1: It's getting warmer* † (dragging the time slider) ...

3. P2: It's definitely warm. June, warmer...

4. P1: Definitely warm, it's getting closer to ninety-five. †

5. P2: Yeah that's pretty warm. †

6. P1: Oh! Dang, that's getting warmer. †

7. P2: July's pretty hot.

8. P1: It's almost white now ‡ [Group765]

<caption>**Figure 3.** Examples of family groups using cooperative gestures to construct collective working memory. The zoomed in view of the image on the right shows details of participants' interaction with the prototype.</caption>

Participants' utterances signifying conceptual metaphors are noted: *metonymic*†, *personification*‡. Utterances marked with an asterisk (*) co-occurred with the gestures shown in the images.
cognition. Thus, we can infer that participants are using these cooperative gestures as a mechanism for cognitive offloading, and to focus their cognitive resources on meaning-making and drawing inferences related to how both time and space affect ocean temperatures. Without the cooperative gesture required by the time slider, participants would not need to coordinate to change the time period shown, making it more difficult to keep the group's understanding aligned. Using cooperative gestures seemed to push participants to create a collective working memory and encouraged group members to exchange knowledge. Therefore, future interactive learning experiences should encourage interactions that afford group members to cooperatively manipulate the interface elements like the time slider to facilitate embodied-cognition-supported learning.

## Discussion, implications, and conclusion

Prior studies offer evidence in favor of using touchscreen interaction to encourage embodied-cognition-supported learning activities around tabletops, e.g., (Lin et al., 2016). However, these studies did not analyze what specific touchscreen gestures people make when engaged in embodied cognition, and whether these gestures are tied to particular instances of learning. We seek to understand how to support and encourage the types of gestures that accompany embodied cognition as revealed in learners' language. Based on Lakoff & Johnson (2003), in our study, we used linguistic cues from groups' utterances, in the form of *conceptual metaphors*, as signals that embodied cognition was occurring. We saw instances of embodied cognition reflected in groups' language in the use of both *metonymy* and *ontology* (i.e., *personification*): by speaking as if placing themselves physically into the world represented by the prototype and by speaking as if viewing the prototype as a "storyteller". During these types of utterances, groups made a variety of touchscreen gestures, including attention-focusing gestures and cooperative gestures. Groups used the maskviewer elements as an *embodied lens* to focus the group's attention on local areas of interest and guide their thinking process, by moving and re-sizing the maskviewers to reveal the underlying temperature patterns across different geographical locations. These interactions with the maskviewer pushed participants to focus on subsets of the dataset at a time as their conceptual understanding is constructed piece by piece. In the future, designers of such learning interfaces could consider ways to incorporate similar embodied lenses (not limited to maskviewers specifically) or even multiple embodied lenses within an application that bring key aspects of the science content into focus. These lenses could be manipulated by users to explore and compare multiple regions of multidimensional data visualizations through operations such as dragging and zooming (instead of just exposing the entire dataset at once) to facilitate scientific discussion. Also, cooperative touchscreen gestures add value to applications by increasing participation and enhancing the social aspects of an interactive experience (Morris et al., 2006). Our findings indicate a positive role of such cooperative gestures in supporting scientific discussion and collaborative meaning-making, from the viewpoint of embodied cognition. We saw that using cooperative gestures supports groups in creating a collective working memory by directing the group's attention towards the same focus point and encouraging group members to contribute to the meaning-making process. Thus, we believe our findings add to the field's understanding of the role of cooperative gestures in terms of showing both how they are involved in embodied cognition and how they support collaborative meaning-making. Future tabletop learning environments could encourage similar interactions that afford group members to cooperatively manipulate the interface elements to foster group learning, as in the case of multiple lenses above.

The instances of embodied cognition we identified in participants' language suggest that their interactions with the prototype and its data were immersive and sensory-based, as participants envisioned themselves as if they were physically "in" our prototype. This finding is consistent with theories of embodiment suggesting that learners' thoughts and understandings are shaped by their prior and ongoing physical interactions with the environment (Wilson & Golonka, 2013). The language metaphors and gestures we identified support future work into examining how embodied cognition underlies the interpretation of scientific content and processes in touchscreen-based learning environments. We disagree with Goldinger et al.'s (2016) critiques of embodiment utility as a theory. Those authors do not discuss learning, and we believe the value of being able to design affordances to support learning through embodiment will be strong. Our study points toward a need for a deeper investigation of designing with embodied cognition in mind, especially in the context of science content and practices. Identifying how embodied cognition actually manifests in both language and gestures in these types of experiences will allow us to design touchscreen interactions more targeted towards fostering embodied-cognition-supported learning. In our future work, we will continue to analyze our dataset for further themes, by considering other theories related to the role of both direct touch and in-air hand gestures in facilitating collaborative meaning-making (Goodwin, 2007). While our study presented a new view of designing tabletop interfaces by identifying the nature of gestures that occur during embodied cognition, future work should evaluate the effect of encouraging these gestures to determine how well they support learners'
underlying cognitive processes in a real learning environment and expand this inquiry into other learning
domains beyond data visualization and Earth's ocean temperature phenomena.

Endnotes

(1) http://openexhibits.org/downloads/sdk

(2) https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/

(3) https://sos.noaa.gov/What_is_SOS/sites.php

(4) https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/2915

(5) http://www.bom.gov.au/, http://www.grida.no/resources/7045

References

Abrahamson, D., Andrade, A., Bakker, A., Nathan, M. J., Walkington, C., Lindgren, R., ... Lindwall, O. (2018). Moving Forward: In Search of Synergy Across Diverse Views on the Role of Physical Movement in Design for STEM Education. In *International Society of the Learning Sciences* (pp. 1243–1250).

Cheek, K. A. (2010). Commentary: A Summary and Analysis of Twenty-Seven Years of Geoscience Conceptions Research. *Journal of Geoscience Education, 58*(3), 122–134.

Geller, T. (2006). Interactive Tabletop Exhibits in Museums & Galleries. *IEEE COMPUT GRAPH, 26*(5), 6–11.

Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2010). Action's Influence on Thought: The Case of Gesture. *PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI, 5*(6), 664–674.

Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. S., Hansen, W. A., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The Poverty of Embodied Cognition. *Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23*(4), 959–978.

Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In *Gestures and the Dynamic Dimensions of Language
(pp. 195–212). John Benjamins Publishing.
*

Greenberg, S., Carpendale, S., Marquardt, N., & Buxton, B. (2011). *Sketching User Experiences: The Workbook*. Elsevier.

Horn, M., Tobiasz, M., & Shen, C. (2009). Visualizing Biodiversity with Voronoi Treemaps. In *Proceedings of the International Symposium on Voronoi Diagrams* (pp. 265–270).

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano R., J. (2018). From Cognitive Load Theory to Collaborative Cognitive Load Theory. *INT J COMP-SUPP COLL, 13*(2), 213–233.

Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied Cognition and the Magical Future of Interaction Design. *ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI’13), 20*(1), Article No. 3.

Kiverstein, J. D., & Rietveld, E. (2018). Reconceiving Representation-Hungry Cognition: An Ecological-Enactive Proposal. *Adaptive Behavior, 26*(4), 147–163.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). *Metaphors We Live By* (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lin, M., Preston, A., Kharrufa, A., & Kong, Z. (2016). Making L2 Learners’ Reasoning Skills Visible: The Potential of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. *THINK SKILLS CREAT, 22*, 303–322.

Morris, M. R., Huang, A., Paepcke, A., & Winograd, T. (2006). Cooperative Gestures: Multi-User Gestural Interactions for Co-located Groupware. In *Proceedings of CHI’06* (pp. 1201–1210).

Piper, A. M., Friedman, W., & Hollan, J. D. (2012). Setting the Stage for Embodied Activity: Scientific Discussion around a MultiTouch Tabletop Display. *IJLT, 7*(1), 58–78.

Piper, A. M., & Hollan, J. D. (2009). Tabletop Displays for Small Group Study: Affordances of Paper and Digital Materials. In *Proceedings of CHI’09* (pp. 1227–1236).

Shaer, O., Strait, M., Valdes, C., Feng, T., Lintz, M., & Wang, H. (2011). Enhancing Genomic Learning Through Tabletop Interaction. In *Proceedings of CHI’11* (pp. 2817–2826).

Stofer, K. A. (2016). When a Picture Isn't Worth 1000 Words: Learners Struggle to Find Meaning in Data Visualizations. *Journal of Geoscience Education, 64*(3), 231–241.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). *Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes*. Harvard University.

Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied Cognition is Not What You Think It Is. *Frontiers in Psychology, 4*, Article No. 58.

Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant Awards #DRL-1612485 and #IIS-
1552598. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect these agencies' views. The authors also thank the Florida Museum of
Natural History for allowing us to recruit participants from their visitors. This work was conducted while author
Jeremy Alexandre was a summer intern at the University of Florida.
# "I Cannot Explain Why I Like This Shape Better Than That Shape":
## Intercorporeality in Collaborative Learning

Jacob Davidsen and Thomas Ryberg

jdavidsen@hum.aau.dk, ryberg@hum.aau.dk

Aalborg University – eLearning Lab

**Abstract:** While the exchange of utterances between collaborators have been viewed as the primary vehicle for meaning-making in CSCL, we have been encouraged by the CSCL19 theme to expand this understanding to include intercorporeality as way of foregrounding bodies in collaborative learning. We find that collaboration, meaning-making and problem solving is also occurring even when collaborators are lacking words for expressing their thoughts in talk. Thus, we promote the idea of viewing CSCL as a field concerned with intercorporeality in meaning-making practices. Through a detailed analysis of a group of architectural engineering students, we unpack how they prepare for a critique session by building upon each other's utterances, gestures and manipulations of objects in their design studio thus displaying intercorporeal memory and understanding. Based on the analysis we discuss three themes related to incorporeality in CSCL: Ecologies of technologies, Historical development of the bodily-material resources and Subtle manifestations of intercorporeal understandings.

## Introduction

In recent years, we have witnessed a re-newed interest in embodied aspects of interaction in CSCL (Davidsen & Ryberg, 2017; Flood, Neff, & Abrahamson, 2015). To some extent this development has been driven by the advent of technologies for supporting collaborative learning such as interactive tabletops (Higgins, Mercier, Burd, & Hatch, 2011), but also from theoretical and methodological orientations towards embodied interaction analysis (Streeck, Goodwin, & LeBaron, 2011). To some degree, the theoretical pillars of CSCL have included and mentioned multimodal and embodied elements of interaction (e.g. Teasley & Roschelle, 1993), but the analysis of the role of the body, the environment and the relations between bodies and environment have been backgrounded in comparison to talk. Encouraged by the CSCL19 theme of 4E learning (Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded), we add to the re-newed interest in this more ‘holistic’ research agenda of CSCL by presenting a study on the intercorporeality of collaborative learning in ‘architecture and design’ education. Based in our study we suggest that intercorporeality offers a fresh methodological and theoretical stance on collaborative learning by zooming in on how bodies affect each other in collaboration. Thus, this is an attempt to foreground bodies in collaborative learning widening the talk-based focus in CSCL to include and emphasize intercorporeal memory and understandings.

In this paper, we study a ‘design studio’ featuring collaborative activities amongst students in the ‘architecture and design’ program at Aalborg University. The setting and collaborative activities are highly multimodal and composed of both talk, bodies and materials. While many of the activities in the studio are supported by digital technologies, and other highly specialized technologies, we want to broaden the perspective of CSCL by focusing on the material surroundings, bodies, talk, digital and analogue technologies supporting the collaborative activities. The group of six students are in midst of preparing design concepts for an upcoming critique seminar with fellow student groups and teachers. In doing so, they are working together in different collaborative constellations – as a whole group and in pairs depending on the type of activity and work tasks they face. To get a better understanding of how the students are collaboratively preparing for a critique seminar, we study their intercorporeal work in the studio – integrating the Embodied, Enactive, Extended and Embedded aspects into one analysis. Further, we suggest that intercorporeality can function as a theory highlighting the intimate and ‘inter-kinesthetic’ relations between bodies in collaborative learning.

In the paper we are focusing intercorporeality and in particular on how collaboration, meaning-making and problem solving is possible even when the participants lack words for expressing their ideas and arguments. This includes showing how bodies, technologies, objects, gestures, touches, and other bodily-material resources are contributing to the formulation and understanding of ideas and design concepts in creative collaborative design processes between students.

## From talk to embodiment to intercorporeality in CSCL
Since the early years of CSCL, researchers have studied the subtle processes constituting collaborative learning with technologies in face-to-face settings and online learning environments. Much work have focused on talk (spoken or written) between the collaborators, but there is also a growing body of studies integrating embodied elements in the analysis of collaboration. Basically, we see a development in the focus of CSCL studies from talk to embodiment, but our goal with this paper is to add an additional perspective to these established analytical foci by introducing the idea of intercorporeality in collaborative learning as a way of focusing on the intimate, ‘inter-kinesthetic’, and affective bodily aspects of collaboration.

As CSCL is concerned with collaborative activities in both online and physical environments, there is a range of different methodological and theoretical stances available for analyzing and designing for collaborative learning (Wise & Schwarz, 2017). On a general level CSCL is divided between three types of studies: experimental, design and naturalistic (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006). Across the types of studies and characteristics of the learning environments (e.g. face-to-face or online), there is a strong orientation towards analyzing talk. Stahl (2006, p. 6 italics in original) suggested that “meaning is created across the utterances of different people”, emphasizing the interest in talk and text in CSCL. However, as argued by Flood, Neff and Abrahamson (2015) there is a need for CSCL to develop ways of “representing and cataloguing choreographies of embodied interaction” (2015, p. 96) in order to better design for collaborative embodied interaction in CSCL environments. One example of such a catalogue of embodied interaction in CSCL is found in Davidsen and Ryberg (2017), who explored children’s collaborative activities in front of a shared touch-screen. The authors suggested that bodily-material resources and in particular hands are used as resources for ‘communicating and illustrating’, as ‘cognitive auxiliary tools’ and as a way ‘shepherding’ each other.

Beyond the field of CSCL there is an extended and growing body of research focusing on embodiment and how the elements in the environment are used by the participants. While these studies are not addressing collaborative learning per se, they are focusing on the ways people accomplish tasks together in various settings and how they competently master a practice. For example, in a series of studies in the past 40 years Goodwin (2017) has shown how people build upon each other’s embodied interactions through different media and resources at archeological sites, court rooms, oceans vessels, etc. In addition, a recent collection of papers (Meyer, Streeck, & Jordan, 2017a) address the notion of intercorporeality in human interaction in diverse practices (e.g. families, self-defense training and auto repair workshops). The paradigm of intercorporeality is first of all rejecting a transmission view of interaction, but it is also opening up the field of embodied interaction by fleshing out that bodies are not alone – they are within an “inter-kinesthetic field” (Behnke, 2008). Meyer, Streeck and Scott (2017b) argue that intercorporeality is “not only the presences, movements, and micromovements of other (inanimate or animate) bodies in my peripersonal space, but also the sedimented traces of such presences and movements in the architectures and the artifacts around my body” (2017b, p. xvii) – what Fuchs (2017) refer to a intercorporeal memory. Meyer et al. (2017) further critique the use of established concepts (also frequently used in the CSCL literature) as ‘coordination’, ‘alignment’, ‘intersubjectivity’ and ‘joint attention’ as they are not doing justice to the synchronous, simultaneous, improvisational and bodily actions of the participants. For instance, in an analysis of ‘Intercorporeality at the motor block’, Alkemeyer, Brümmer and Pille (2017) find that the character and nature of movements in the situation fosters communication and understanding among the members of the practice. The authors suggest that “These respective movements can be understood as a collective way of thinking, reflecting and problem-solving by means of gestural demonstration and experimentation” (Alkemeyer et al., 2017, p. 227).

The paradigm of intercorporeality seems to offer a fresh perspective on collaborative learning mediated by technology. With intercorporeality the lens is widened in CSCL and it is a call to go beyond talk and embodiment to start focusing on the intertwined nature of bodies in collaborative activities. Integrating intercorporeality necessarily also requires a broader view on what can support collaborative learning in CSCL environments. Instead of solely studying interaction with one technology or application, it is necessary to follow the methodological and theoretical guidance from embodied interaction analysis and intercorporeality to study talk, bodies and material surroundings as one complex analytic unit.

## Context of the study and data collection

In this paper, we examine a group of ‘architecture and design’ students in their 5th semester at Aalborg University. The overall pedagogical idea of Aalborg University is based on Problem Based Learning (PBL). PBL is often considered a pedagogical approach supporting students in obtaining transversal competences such as collaboration, communication, critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Du, Emmersen, Toft, & Sun, 2013; Guerra, 2017). Each semester students will work on a group project supervised by a researcher. Besides receiving feedback and critique from the supervisor the group will also present, discuss and evaluate their project in formal critique sessions. The project is finally evaluated in a group exam where the group will
present, discuss and reflect upon their work together with the supervisor and an external examiner who will ultimately assess and grade the project.

Over a period of six weeks, we video observed three groups working in their open learning environment. We zoom in on one of the groups. The group was allocated a studio in a large open learning environment together with 13 other groups at the semester. Each group decorated and furnished the studio for their specific needs and the group we study in this paper used several notice boards and tables to support their collaborative activities (Figure 1). Each of the notice boards had different purposes, e.g. a shared calendar, a to-do-list, printed photos for inspiration, drawings, etc. On the center table, the students gathered for collective activities, but also to work in pairs or as individuals. On the table in the center, the students had their laptops, different drawings and styrofoam models. Next to the center table, a smaller table was placed for individual work. Over time the room would clutter with all sorts of materials in the studio, telling a unique story of the process of the individual group.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Photo of the group members at the center table.</figcaption></figure>

In the studio, we positioned 4 fixed video cameras and one of the students wore a chest-mounted GoPro on several occasions. As the collected data is extensive (+ 150 hours for this group alone), we have decided to limit our analysis to a period of two days where the group is preparing for an architectural critique session. Specifically, we analyze a 33 seconds long sequence, which serve the purpose of illustrating how they work together in the context of their design studio preparing for a presentation at the critique seminar. Previous studies have analyzed the pedagogical nature of critique sessions in architectural education (Lymer, 2009; Lymer, Ivarsson, & Lindwall, 2009), but in this paper we focus on the work the students do to prepare for the critique session. We find the preparation work particularly interesting for studying the intercorporeality of collaborative learning, as the students have to develop design concepts together for a shared presentation. In addition, the students are working under a certain time pressure, as there is fixed deadline. The preparation work requires working towards a somewhat shared idea of the design concept through collaborative activities managed independently by the students. One day prior to the critique session, the group is narrowing down the number of design concepts they will present. To scaffold this activity the student group split into three pairs – each pair developing a concept to present to the other group members. In this way they are simulating or rehearsing for the actual critique seminar. In the analysis, we zoom in 33 seconds where Heidi and Sine have just presented their new idea to the other group members, and now the others start critiquing their design concept.

## Contextualizing the sequence

Before the analysis of the interaction, we briefly present the overall structure of the sequence followed by a transcript (Figure 3). The transcript builds on conventions from Conversation Analysis (Jefferson, 2004) and in particular the work of Goodwin (2017) in relation to the use of frame grabs in the transcript. Thus, we have included frame grabs from the video footage in the transcript to make the intercorporeal and simultaneous aspects of the collaborative activity ‘somewhat’ visible – each photo is numbered (P.number) for reference in the analysis.

Heidi and Sine just finished presenting their design concept, and now the rest of the group members start critiquing the design concept. The phase of critiquing the design is both oriented towards highlighting ‘flaws’ and collectively developing better ideas.
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Shape of the building without the triangular tip (marked with the red circle) on the left, the original shape of the building in styrofoam on the right.</figcaption></figure>

Initially we want to draw attention to the main aspect of the re-design made by Heidi and Sine, who have changed the overall shape of the building by cutting off the triangular tip (see Figure 2 left). This is a quite dramatic change, as the group has been working with the other shape for a couple of days (see Figure 2 right). What follows is an extract of interaction, where the group is discussing the shape of the building and in particular what the triangular tip should accommodate. Ina is evaluating the re-design by picking up the styrofoam model to express her concerns. Ina is also pointing out that they could maintain the shape of the building by extending the window section following the original shape. Much of this discussion is oriented to both the design and the functionality of the triangular tip. While the triangular tip is 'fulfilling' the shape of the building it is also a difficult space to use. Ina suggests incorporating a staircase or a transparent elevator shaft in the triangular tip, but again the shape is obstructing her idea. Sven and Sine joke about a transparent elevator with a triangular shape. Now, Ina returns to her defense of the original concept.

Transcript of the extract

1 I so you like (.) cause I do really like that you like complete the shape in it

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

2 I cannot explain why I like this shape better than that shape

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

3 it is just cause I believe it completes the concept

4 H yes

5 I which I believe is very strong right now

6 S it could be like a raised platform over there

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

7 I yah it could be something wild growing in there

8 S it (.) there could also be something wild was growing
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Transcript of the sequence.</figcaption></figure>

## Analysis: "I cannot explain why I like this shape better than that shape"

While discussing Heidi and Sine's design concept they use a range of different materials in the environment (Embedded and Extended); a styrofoam model consisting of several separate layers, existing drawings on the tables, noticeboards, an Ipad, and pencils for adjusting drawings or making new ones. The ecology of resources supporting their collaborative activity is diverse and continually configured and arranged to the specific needs of the activity. The combination of materials, bodies and talk facilitate their preparation for the formal critique session. While talk is of course crucial for meaning making, it is also clear, as we shall show, that intercorporeality establishes dimensions of sociality and collective knowing not present in their talk.

In the beginning of the extract (line 1), Ina is stressing that she would like the shape 'to be completed' saying "so you like (.) cause I really do like that you like complete the shape of it", while simultaneously touching (almost embracing) the triangular tip of the styrofoam model with her right hand (P.1, 2 and 3). Actually, Ina repeats her touch of the figure twice, which indicates the importance of keeping the triangular tip and further illustrates what area of the building she is thinking of to the rest of the group members. In line 2, she says "I cannot explain why I like this shape better than that shape (.) it is just cause I believe it completes the concept" and then (p. 4) she separates the top layer of the styrofoam model from the rest by twisting it so the two-dimensional layout of the building is facing her fellow group members (p. 5 and 6). Ina is not utilizing any scientific or academic terms in trying to convince the other group members about keeping the triangular tip. Mostly, she is relying on everyday language combined with her bodily manipulation of the styrofoam model in front of the other group members. When she separates the layers and say "which I believe is very strong right now" (line 5), she is further linking the styrofoam model with the design concept developed by the group. The 'flat' two dimensional figure of the building is similar to the one on paper in front of Heidi and Sine, which could indicate that Ina is coupling the two different forms of the models.

The intercorporeal understanding between the students furthermore become visible as the other group members build on Ina's insistence on keeping the triangular shape of the building. First Sven, points to the drawing in front of Heidi saying "it could be like a raised platform over there" (line 6, P. 7), which is
establishing a connection between the styrofoam model in Ina's hands and the drawing on the paper in front of
Heidi. Then Ina adds the idea of something green, saying "yah it could be something wild growing in there" in
overlap with Sven saying "it (.) there could also be something wild was growing". Sven is further embodying
the idea of a tree by moving his hands up into the air showing the shape of a tree (P. 8-12). Ina replicates a
similar movement raising both her hands in the air looking in the direction of Sven (P. 10). The concrete
manifestation of the tree shows that their understanding is "based on embodied intersubjectivity" (Fuchs, 2017,
p. 17). Heidi accepts their suggestion saying "but that you could also do", but then Ina makes the suggestion
more concrete saying "or a tree", which is followed by Heidi saying "yes that that could damn well be a tree".
Sine then says "you just need to say green to Heidi" indicating that Heidi is favoring green/wild elements in
their design. In response to this Heidi, Sine and Sven starts laughing.

Then, in the final part of the sequence after Heidi, Sine and Sven laughed (line 13), Mette builds on the
interactional work by Ina, Heidi and Sven by referring to a previous drawing (made by Sine) hanging on the
notice board opposite to where the group is located. Mette says "it was actually (.) it is the one you have there
with Sines idea (.) that one with just like a round one" pointing to the area of the notice board (P. 13) (later - not
part of this sequence - Ina is including Sine's drawing again, but she walks to the noticeboard and points to the
drawing to integrate it into their discussion). Thus, the collective spatio-temporal history of the group is made
present and relevant for their current work on the functionality of the triangular tip of the building. The original
idea drawn by Sine is a cylinder shape going through the floors of a building (P. 13), which is now transformed
into an idea illustrating a possible functionality of the triangular tip. Mette elaborates "so if you just have that as
a square (.) square triangle (.) it could very well be good" while she is making imaginary cuts and
environmentally coupled gestures (Goodwin, 2007) on the styrofoam model with her left hand. The cuts are
detailing the triangular tip on the styrofoam model and the gestures are showing the idea of adding something
green going through the floors of the building. These imaginary cuts and gestures are repeated twice through P.
18-22 as a way of communicating and illustrating the connection between the drawing on the notice board and
the idea of adding something green (a tree) in the triangular tip.

Throughout the 33 seconds of interaction the 4Es are in play in several ways: the group is building on
the immediate presence of each other's bodies (Embodied) and the history Embedded in the material
surroundings (Extended and Enactive). In addition, it is visible that the students repeat their movements as a
way of arguing, problem solving and designing together. They display what could be referred to as an
intercorporeal form of knowing (Hindmarsh & Pilnick, 2007). As noted by Jornet and Steier (2015) such bodily
engagements constitute the 'infrastructure' supporting collaborative activities over time. Thereby, talk, bodies
and material surrounding mutually provide the ground for their collective designing and thinking - from the
initial idea of something green to something wild and then finally a tree. Further, it is also evident that the
students refer to and make use of an ecology of technologies - the infrastructure supporting their collaborative
activity is manifest in many different mediational resources.

Discussion

In the following sections, we broaden the analytical focus by discussing three themes, which could have an
impact on the CSCL research agenda: Ecologies of technologies, Historical development of the bodily-material
resources and Subtle manifestations of intercorporeal understandings.

Ecologies of technologies

As argued by Suthers (2006) CSCL is a field consisting of a learning element and a technology element. Based
in our analysis, it seems that CSCL should not only be concerned with digital technologies in collaborative
learning. In the sequence, the students are using many different technologies and materials to support their
collaborative activities. In line with the 4E agenda, it seems relevant that CSCL studies in "natural settings"
(Stahl et al., 2006) should open and widen the analytical focus to more than just one computer application. This
include studying and designing technologies embedded in a particular environment, but also to accept that
supporting collaborative learning is complex in nature, i.e. the computer application is not the only variable
influencing the processes of collaborative learning.

Historical development of the bodily-material resources

A crucial moment in the students’ collaborative activity is happening when Mette is referring to and including a
drawing made by Sine previously. To paraphrase Goodwin (2017) they are making use of materials made
available from the predecessors by re-instantiating the drawing in their current activity. This is in line with
Meyer et al. (2017a, p. xvii) arguing to incorporate the “sedimented traces of such presences and movements in
the architectures and the artifacts around my body” in analyzing intercorporeality. In these face-to-face settings
it seems highly relevant to study more than the “meaning (...) created across the utterances of different people”. (Stahl, 2006, p. 6 italics in original). Following the line of work informed by embodied interaction analysis (Streeck et al., 2011) and intercorporeality (Meyer et al., 2017a), we find it necessary to incorporate a more historical and developmental view of the bodily-material resources that collaborators integrate and build upon in their collaborative activities. In the sequence with the architecture and design students, we find that students are making certain bodily-material resources relevant in their interaction for supporting their collaborative work, e.g. Ina’s repeated touch of the triangular tip, Ina and Sven embodying the shape of a tree and Mette’s reference to the spatio-temporal resources in the studio. This indicates intercorporeal understanding and memory in the collaborative activities.

## Subtle manifestations of intercorporeal understandings

The subtle manipulation of the styrofoam model indicates an intercorporeal understanding among the students and it seems the imaginary cuts and gestures are arguments in their own right in this collaborative activity. While, the video is allowing access to the subtle bodily manifestations of intercorporeal understanding, we are still limited in our way of representing these details in a paper format. As argued by Flood et al. (2015) there is a need for CSCL to develop ways of “representing and cataloguing choreographies of embodied interaction” (2015, p. 96). In most CSCL studies the product of representation is manifested in a transcript (sometimes including frame grabs from the videos). In this paper, we also rely on a transformation from video to text, which is hardly showing the repeating gestures and touches on the styrofoam model. Thus, CSCL need to further develop ways of making the subtle manifestations of intercorporeal understandings visible to better understand the nature of collaborative learning and to design better environments for CSCL in the future.

## Conclusion

With this paper we seek to broaden the methodological and theoretical cartography of CSCL by introducing the concept of intercorporeality in collaborative learning. With intercorporeality we explore the relations between the Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded aspects of CSCL. Further, we are able to zoom in on the relations of bodies and how they affect each other – studying their ‘inter-kinesthetic fields’ (Behnke, 2008) in relation to collaborative activities. In the analysis, we have shown that the students in preparing for a collective presentation of design concepts are embodied and embedded in their local environment using materials to foster intercorporeal understandings. Furthermore, that the students are making sense through talk, bodies and the material surroundings which show signs of their intercorporeal understanding. Most importantly, we made visible that the students understand each other through their gestures and touches on the shared material (e.g. the styrofoam model). They are able to collaborate and problem solve even when they are lacking words for expressing their ideas. This aligns with the findings from Hahn and Jordan (2017), who suggested that objects could foster and extend bodily meaning-making processes.

Historically, CSCL has been concerned with “meaning and the practices of meaning making in the context of joint activity” (Koschmann, 2002, p. 20) manifested in primarily language. In the future, CSCL could be oriented towards unpacking the intercorporeal dimensions of collaboration, meaning-making and problem solving. We believe that this paper is a modest contribution in expanding the theoretical, methodological and analytical unit of CSCL to include and emphasize how collaborators make sense and solve problems in an intercorporeal modus. In future studies, it would be of great interest to revisit some of the established theories in CSCL (e.g. Group Cognition (Stahl, 2006) and Knowledge Building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994) through the lens offered by intercorporeality.

## References

- Alkemeyer, T., Brümmer, K., & Pille, T. (2017). Intercorporeality at the motor block - On the importance of a practical sense for social cooperation and coordination. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), *Intercorporeality: emerging socialities in interaction* (pp. 203–235). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

- 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.

- Behnke, E. A. (2008). *Interkinaesthetic Affectivity: A Phenomenological Approach*. *Continental Philosophy Review*, *41*(2), 143–161.

- Du, X., Emmersen, J., Toft, E., & Sun, B. (2013). PBL and critical thinking disposition in Chinese medical students – A randomized cross-sectional study. *Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 1*(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v1i1.275
Flood, V. J., Neff, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2015). Boundary Interactions: Resolving Interdisciplinary Collaboration Challenges Using Digitized Embodied Performances. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschmann, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), *Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: Opportunities and Challenges for CSCL* (Vol. Vol 1, pp. 94–100). Gothenburg: The international Society of the Learning Sciences.

Fuchs, T. (2017). Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), *Intercorporeality: emerging socialities in interaction* (pp. 3–23). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In D. McNeill, S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), * Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language: essays in honor of David McNeill* (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Goodwin, C. (2017). *Co-operative action*. Cambridge University Press.

Guerra, A. (2017). Engineering grand challenges and the attributes of the global engineer. *Proceedings of the 45th Sefi Annual Conference 2017*, 1222–1235.

Hahn, T., & Jordan, J. S. (2017). Sensible objects: Intercorporeality and enactive knowing through things. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), *Intercorporeality: emerging socialities in interaction* (pp. 267–287). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Higgins, S., Mercier, E., Burd, E., & Hatch, A. (2011). Multi-touch tables and the relationship with collaborative classroom pedagogies: A synthetic review. *International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning*, 6(4), 515–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9131-y

Hindmarsh, J., & Pilnick, A. (2007). Knowing Bodies at Work: Embodiment and Ephemeral Teamwork in Anaesthesia. *Organization Studies*, 28(9), 1395–1416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607068258

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), *Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation* (Vol. 125, pp. 13–34). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

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.

Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In *Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community* (pp. 17–22). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Lymer, G. (2009). Demonstrating Professional Vision: The Work of Critique in Architectural Education. *Mind, Culture, and Activity*, 16(2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030802590580

Lymer, G., Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2009). Contrasting the use of tools for presentation and critique: Some cases from architectural education. *International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning*, 4(4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9073-9

Meyer, C., Streeck, J., & Jordan, J. S. (Eds.). (2017a). *Intercorporeality: emerging socialities in interaction*. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Meyer, C., Streeck, J., & Jordan, J. S. (2017b). Introduction. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), *Intercorporeality: emerging socialities in interaction* (pp. xv–xlix). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. *Journal of the Learning Sciences*, 3(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3

Stahl, G. (2006). *Group cognition computer support for building collaborative knowledge*. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). CSCL: An Historical Perspective Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), *Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences* (pp. 409–426). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. D. LeBaron (Eds.), *Embodied interaction : language and body in the material world* (pp. 1–26). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. *International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning*, 1(3), 315–337.

Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a Joint Problem Space: The Computer as a Tool for Sharing Knowledge. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), *Computer-supported collaborative learning* (pp. 229–258). Springer New York.

Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: eight provocations for the future of the field. *International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning*, 12(4), 423–467.
# Effects of the Need for Cognitive Closure and Guidance on Contribution Quality in Wiki-Based Learning

Sven Heimbuch and Daniel Bodemer

sven.heimbuch@uni-due.de, bodemer@uni-due.de

University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

**Abstract:** Controversies based on opposing points of view and contradictory evidence can be fruitful to trigger individual elaboration processes. However, research showed that many wikis are not necessarily suited to make relevant content salient and thus users need further guidance. In an experimental laboratory study on wikis, we investigated two guidance types in conjunction with the Need for Cognitive Closure: (1) visual markers to highlight controversy status (implicit guidance) and (2) a collaboration script that directs users towards discussions (explicit guidance). We analysed the quality of N = 724 wiki contributions, namely final edits to an article and corresponding discussion replies. The results show that both guidance types do neither directly affect the user contributions to the wiki nor the learning outcome. In interaction with the individual Need for Cognitive Closure there was a meaningful effect on the quality of discussion contributions, matching previous research findings on the quantitative learning outcomes.

## Introduction and background

Working and learning productively and efficiently in groups is becoming increasingly important (Miller & Hadwin, 2015). Net-based communication can help by maintaining the benefits of offline communication, such as mutual knowledge sharing (McLoughlin, 2002), while reducing disadvantages, such as social inhibitions (Murray, 2003). However, it is not only possible to use net-based environments for communication, but it can also support users in their individual learning processes and (cooperative) knowledge construction (Cress & Kimmerle, 2008). A well-known and popular environment, which offers the possibility of cooperative knowledge construction, are wiki pages and the corresponding discussion pages. These allow participants to participate in existing discussions, i.e. express themselves or even clean up a topic, initiate new discussions about topics that are important to them, and finally make changes to the article, ideally based on the discussions about an article. Such collaborative article writing is one of the most common group activities (Schlichter, Koch, & Bürger, 1998). In a wiki environment, it is not unusual or unintended for conflicts or constructive controversies to occur (Johnson, Johnson, & Tjosvold, 2000) when the wiki information deviates from one's personal knowledge (Cress & Kimmerle, 2007). This makes it necessary to assimilate or accommodate internally from the user's perspective or externally from the wiki's perspective. This shows that precisely these conflicts can be particularly helpful for the knowledge construction and learning success of the individual (Piaget, 1977). Furthermore, they can also lead to partners being more motivated and using their expertise more effectively (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2000).

The Need for Cognitive Closure (NCC) is an important influence on people's behaviour in dealing with controversies. It is the need that people want to find an obvious solution, although it does not always have to be the right solution (Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, Kruglanski, & Schaper, 1996). People with a high NCC strive to achieve a quick solution and show insecure aversive behaviour. However, people with a lower NCC tend to prefer finding the best solution to ambiguity (Schumpe et al., 2017; Webster & Kruglanski, 1997). This difference between high and low NCC persons can also be measured in the speed of decisions, as people with high NCCs perceive ambiguity as unpleasant. Consequently, they tend to make decisions more quickly and use less information and anchor heuristics for judgment formation (Schlink & Walther, 2007). In contrast to that, people with a low NCC enjoy the uncertainty of ambiguous situations. Thus, they tend to postpone the decision and prefer weighing and finding more information (Schlink & Walther, 2007). In wiki-based learning settings, individuals with a low NCC are more likely to search purposefully for additional in-depth information about a topic in an ambiguous situation, whereas high NCC persons will more likely process the simplest information at hand. Although there are close ties between the NCC and inter-individual differences in learning and knowledge construction, there are only few studies in technology-enhanced learning addressing this construct.

With increasing complexity of digital learning environments with, it can become helpful that learners are further supported in dealing with controversial and ambiguous information with the help of supplemental *Cognitive Group Awareness* tools (Bodemer & Buder, 2006). Although minimal tacit guidance for learners has been questioned by others (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), we do not fully agree to such
floccinaucinhilipilification of implicit guidance. Cognitive group awareness tools that are focused on gathering and visualising knowledge-related contextual cues have been successfully implemented as implicit guidance measures to structure collaborative learning processes (Heimbuch & Bodemer, 2017). Another line of wiki-related research has proposed additional measures of explicit guidance to incorporate in wiki-based learning environments to improve the overall quality of knowledge artefacts and for better coordination processes of students. The implementation of collaboration scripts is one possible explicit guidance measure where the activities of writers and editors within a social system are coordinated and optimised. A script is a set of instructions that specifies the group formation, modes of interaction and task management between collaboration partners (Dillenbourg, 2002). Positive effects have been found for scripts with a special focus on article editing and revising that ultimately led to more coherent articles and fewer inaccurate articles (Wichmann & Rummel, 2013). Furthermore, it has also been shown that a certain level of coercion in the implemented collaboration script is recommended to produce content of higher quality (Papadopoulos, Demetriadis, & Weinberger, 2013).

In previous analyses of the underlying study data, we could show that test persons in the experimental study groups (implicit vs. explicit or high vs. low NCC) showed no meaningful differences in the process variables with the log data that we measured (e.g., topic selection, time to contribute, topic reply frequency), as assumed in the hypotheses (Heimbuch & Bodemer, 2018). Likewise, there was no direct effect of the guidance type on the performance in the knowledge test. The in-depth investigation of the interaction of guidance type and NCC confirmed the hypothesised pattern. Evidence suggested that subjects with a low NCC achieved higher test scores with explicit guidance (collaboration script) and accordingly subjects with a relatively high NCC achieved better scores with implicit guidance (controversy awareness highlights). These findings support our claim that implicit guidance provides a quick, non-restrictive way to find a solution, which is preferred by those persons with a high NCC. Explicit guidance can be beneficial to people with a low NCC, as it can support them to find a better solution rather than just the quickest. To complete our previous analyses on the quantitative part, we were left with the question if we can find promising effects on the quality of contributions when we specifically investigate implicit and explicit guidance in the interplay with the Need for Cognitive Closure. Thus, we were interested in two main research questions:

*RQ 1:* What kind of contributions would we find in either the implicit guidance or the explicit guidance wiki group, and how can these be translated into a quality measure?

*RQ 2:* Does the type of guidance directly or indirectly influence the quality of contributions and learning outcomes, and how does the NCC moderate potential effects?

# Method

## Participants and study design

The *N* = 181 participants were mostly undergraduate students at the University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany) in their first semester. Students were recruited via the university's social media channels and on-site. Their age range spanned from 17 to 33 years (*M* = 20.59, *SD* = 2.59). We have randomly assigned students to one of two experimental learning environments about different forms of energy (e.g., nuclear power, fossil fuels, renewable energy). This was either a wiki with added controversy awareness highlights for implicit guidance or a wiki with a collaboration script for explicit guidance. Thus, this variation of wikis was our main independent variable. Furthermore, we have assessed the Need for Cognitive Closure with the German short scale 16-NCCS (Schlink & Walther, 2007) of each participant and used this as a second factor for analytical purposes. Our main dependent variable was the article and discussion quality of each student's contribution. Moreover, we have also measured numerous process variables through data logging and learning outcomes with knowledge tests.

## Study procedure

We conducted the experiment in an individual setup with up to four participants at the same time, separated by divider panels. Participants performed all the experiment's stages individually in their own wiki instance. After participants were briefed with standardised written instructions on the computer screen and had given consent to participate in the study, they were first asked a few basic socio-demographics as well as interest in and prior knowledge of the study's subject matter (forms of energy). This was followed by a short mandatory introduction to the specific wiki environment. We asked the participants to click through a mock-up environment with "lorem ipsum" texts to familiarize with the general wiki structure. In addition to the general orientation in a wiki, this tutorial phase also served to familiarize with the specific additions we added to the experimental wikis (controversy highlighting vs collaboration script) to ensure that participants have a common ground about their wiki environment's mechanics (Figure 1).
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** In the floating upper left part of the figure, we illustrate the wiki's talk page table of contents with controversy status highlights for implicit guidance. On the right, we illustrate a collaboration script representation as used for the explicit guidance wiki.</figcaption></figure>

Both groups had the same task of contributing to an initial Wikipedia-like base article about different forms of energy and participating in up to three of the corresponding discussions. Participants received the information that the discussions contain enough arguments and evidence to enrich the original article, since we did not provide any other additional material regarding the subject matter elsewhere. We gave no further instructions on how to start their wiki task (e.g., reading the article or any discussion first) or what kind of reply they should make to a self-selected discussion. This was the experiment's main stage where participants had a loose total time limit of 21 minutes for finishing all article edits and discussion replies. After the time for a contribution phase was up, they the environment automatically prompted them to finish their contributions in the wiki and proceed further. Followed by the wiki contribution stage, we provided them with the questionnaires to determine their individual levels of their Need for Cognitive Closure (16-NCCS). After filling out these questionnaires participants had to answer a multiple-choice test about the study's contents. As an additional manipulation check, we asked participants to sum up briefly in open text fields why they have selected certain discussions to comment on and what led to the final decisions for the resulting article edits. Finally, to gain insights about how participants evaluate the additions we made to the wikis we asked them to fill out the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) by Laugwitz, Held, & Schrepp (2008).

## Wiki contribution coding

In total, we had to analyse *N* = 181 article edits and *N* = 543 replies to the article's discussions. We decided to start our content categorisation deductively with previously discussed categorisations of user types in wikis who participate in the co-evolution of knowledge (Cress & Kimmerle, 2008). The first two categories for edits to the article that we have derived where *Accommodators* and *Assimilators*. The former is mainly characterised as a user whose contributions are mostly restructuring and synthesizing tasks, whereas the latter in the simplest form is purely adding new content to the wiki and not caring much about purposeful integration (Majchrzak, Wagner, & Yates, 2006). With further inductively derived categorisations for article edits, we added four additional categories: *Reformulator*, *Reformulator-shortener*, *Shortener* and *No edit*. Subsequently, we used these final six article editing categorisations for our quality assignments (Table 1). A second trained coder was asked to categorise and rate a random sample of 12 articles and resulted in a *K* = .79, which is an adequate level of concordance (Mayring, 2015).

As a second step of our quality analyses, we had to work through the discussion replies and assign adequate categories to these contributions. We decided to work fully inductive with the material in multiple iterations, because we had to expect a large diversity in reply content and quality. Finally, we ended up with seven discussion reply categories: *No statement*, *Repetition*, *Addition*, *Compromise*, *Other (related) topic*, *Personal criticism*, *Other*. Furthermore, we arranged the discussion reply categories in a flat hierarchy. Therefore, we created two higher-level categories for participants' replies, namely test persons who contributed
to the course of the discussion with their comments and those who replied to discussion threads without advancing the discussion by any means (Figure 2).

<table><caption>Table 1: Assignment of categories to article quality ranks (with justifications)</caption><thead><tr><th>Quality rank</th><th>Designation</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6</td><td>Much accommodation</td><td>- Major revisions<br>- More article structuring</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Little accommodation</td><td>- Minor revisions<br>- Minor article structuring</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Much assimilation</td><td>- Added more content</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Little assimilation</td><td>- Added some content</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Reformulated and shortened</td><td>- Combined reformulation and shortening of sections</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Reformulated or shortened</td><td>- Minor reformulation of sections<br>- Minor shortening of sections</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>No edit</td><td>- No visible text changes</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Orange = lower quality, yellow = medium quality, green = higher quality

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Schematic representation of the hierarchy of the categories into two main categories and a total of seven subcategories.</figcaption></figure>

In contrast to the quality assignments for the final article edits, we assigned quality ranks to discussion patterns. The order in which the categories appeared in the three discussions that each participant had to contribute was irrelevant. In order to obtain a quality score for a participant over the course of three discussion contributions, in a next step, we further examined the patterns occurring in the discussion. As can be seen in Table 2, we assigned the highest quality level (rank 9) to a person who brought three new arguments as *Additions* into the discussions. A second trained coder was asked to categorise and rate a random sample of 15 discussion contributions and resulted in a K = .74, which is again an acceptable level of concordance.

<table><caption>Table 2: Assignment of categories to quality ranks for discussion triads</caption><thead><tr><th>Quality rank</th><th>Discussion triad (order irrelevant)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9</td><td>- Addition – Addition – Addition / Repetition / Compromise</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>- Addition – Addition – Other (related) topic / No contribution</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>- Compromise – Compromise – Compromise / Addition / Repetition</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>- Compromise – Compromise – Other (related) topic / No contribution</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>- Addition – Compromise – Repetition / No contribution</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>- Addition – Repetition – Other (related) topic / No contribution</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>- Repetition – Repetition – Repetition / Addition / Compromise</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>- Repetition – Repetition – Other (related) topic / No contribution<br>- Other (related) topic – Other (related) topic – Addition / Compromise / Repetition</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>- Repetition – Other (related) topic – Compromise / No contribution</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>- No contribution – No contribution – Addition / Repetition</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Orange = lower quality, yellow = medium quality, green = higher quality

## Path analysis

Since this study had a serial process in the action steps of the test persons (three separate iterations of discussing and editing), a path analysis in form of a serial mediation offered itself for the investigation of the effects (Hayes, 2018; Hayes, Montoya, & Rockwood, 2017). Thus, we investigated the path effects of the quality assignments as serial mediators in a row on the effect of the independent variable (type of additional
wiki guidance) on the knowledge test scores as learning outcome, which has been previously analysed in a different context (Heimbuch & Bodemer, 2018).

The score in the knowledge test achieved by the test persons served as the dependent variable. The knowledge test consisted of 18 multiple-choice questions (up to three distractors, at least one attractor) relating to the subject matter of energy sources as presented in the discussions and the wiki article. Furthermore, in order to investigate potential influences of the Need for Cognitive Closure, we performed a moderated serial mediation with discussion quality as first mediator and article edit quality as second mediator. We have chosen this mediator order after investigating the log files and confirming that all participants started with a discussion before an article edit was performed.

## Results and discussion

In order to provide a brief insight into the relationship between the quality allocations of the systems, Table 3 presents an excerpt of the results of both category systems side by side. two category systems side by side. Even at first glance, a wide variety of combinations of quality ranks can be determined based on the colour coding of the quality ranks. For example, there are similarities between the two quality assignments, as in the case of test person 97, who contributed on a high-quality level in both cases (both green). A match of the quality assignments can also be found with person 9 (both orange) or 96 (both yellow). But there are also differences, as in the case of person 99, whose contributions to the discussion were classified as high quality (green) but the discussion replies were classified as low quality (orange). Overall, in the whole coded dataset we see a relatively even distribution of ranks and user type classifications across both types of guidance.

<table><caption>Table 3. Sample section of the quality assignments in both category systems side by side</caption><thead><tr><th>Person</th><th>Guidance type</th><th>Rank of article quality</th><th colspan="2">Rank of discussion quality</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Implicit</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Implicit</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Implicit</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Implicit</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Implicit</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Implicit</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Implicit</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Implicit</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Implicit</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">...</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>Explicit</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>93</td><td>Explicit</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>Explicit</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>Explicit</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Explicit</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>97</td><td>Explicit</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>98</td><td>Explicit</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>99</td><td>Explicit</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">...</td></tr></tbody></table>

The assigned user categories showed us that the most frequently assigned category was that of *assimilators*, which translated into a high frequency of medium quality contributions to the final article. We assume that social inhibitions could also exist in such a web-based study setting and that the test person must get used to the situation before he or she is "ready" for collaborative knowledge construction (Cole, 2009; Kump, Moskaliuk, Dennerlein, & Ley, 2013). This may have had an influence on the procedure of the test persons to the extent that they did not want to make any more far-reaching changes to the article. As outlined in Table 3, there are no major quantitative differences between the groups with implicit or explicit support in terms of corresponding quality distribution. This is further supported by the results of the path analysis in the following subsection. The path effect of the guidance type on the article editing quality was very small and far from any acceptable level of significance (cf. Figure 2, path *d*), which means that the guidance type had no meaningful direct effect on the final article quality. It should be noted, of course, that since these results were based on a qualitative content analysis, they depend very much on the underlying data. However, since similar categories
have already been found in other studies (e.g., Majchrzak et al., 2006), this indicates that there is a certain generalisability.

When we further investigated the discussion categorisations, we saw the highest frequencies of discussion replies as *additions* and *repetitions*, corresponding to higher and medium quality ranks in our assignments. On the one hand, a high number of persons in the *repetition* category could be explained by superficial processing that would require a rather small amount of cognitive effort (Vertzberger, 1990) to reiterate the arguments of the other participants and thus to write one's own statement. Therefore, if the subjects had not been sufficiently motivated (Cole, 2009) or involved to engage in high cognitive (Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1995), they might have relied on behaviour that required only low cognitive effort. On the other hand, the high number of persons in the category *additions* could be explained by the fact that at least some of our test persons were interested and motivated to engage in deeper, more complex behaviour and could therefore ultimately participate in higher quality discussions (Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1995). In addition, they may have already had previous knowledge or a firm opinion on the subject in question and have written their reply accordingly.

## Path analysis

For analysing the potential moderating influences of the NCC on contribution quality and learning outcomes, we have calculated a moderated serial mediation with both discussion quality and article editing quality as mediating variables. These serial mediations were calculated using Model 85 in PROCESS (v3.1) for SPSS (Hayes, 2018). Figure 3 shows the results of the paths in this model where we show that only one of the unmoderated paths has become significant, namely the path from the article editing quality to the knowledge test score with a regression weight of *c* = .51, *p* = .007. From this it can be concluded that there is a meaningful regression of the article editing quality on the knowledge test score, translating into a test score improvement of approximately 0.5 for each raise in the quality rank. Furthermore, one of the paths moderated by the NCC in this analysis was identified to be of further interest. We found a moderating effect of the NCC on the connection between the guidance type and discussion quality, *g* = -.09, *p* = .023.

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Representation of the path analysis as moderated serial mediation.</figcaption></figure>

In addition to the above model, we further investigated the simple slopes of the moderations on the paths *a* and *d* (Figure 4). Implicit guidance together with a high NCC and explicit guidance in conjunction with a low NCC can lead to a higher quality of discussion contributions. This matches to the results that were previously presented in the quantitative analyses of the process variables and the learning outcomes (Heimbuch & Bodemer, 2018). This finding can be explained by theories on the NCC and backed by empirical evidence, where persons with a higher NCC want to find rather quick solutions and tend to prefer simpler signals and cue heuristics, whereas low NCC persons enjoy to find better answers and solutions through information seeking and more elaborate discussions (Schlink & Walther, 2007; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994, 1997). The same pattern can also be seen for the article editing quality, although to a much weaker extent. It is reasonable to assume that the effect on this article editing is less obvious, because the NCC refers to dealing with controversies and decision-making situations (Dijksterhuis et al., 1996), which were not necessarily present during the article editing phase. That could be a valid reason why the NCC level had no meaningful moderating effect on the article editing slope.
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Representations of the moderator effects of the NCC on both quality rank assignments. -1 = low NCC; 1 = high NCC.</figcaption></figure>

## Conclusions

Qualitative content analysis itself was often criticized because of the restriction to rather fixed categories and that this would take the focus from the wholeness of the texts and direct it to paraphrases in the text (Ramsenthaler, 2013). This criticism, however, is debatable and has been refuted by others, since the categories would be re-examined and re-evaluated repeatedly (Mayring, 2014). In our analysis, we categorised entire articles and discussion contributions, which in turn ensured a more holistic view of the text. Thus, we think that through our analytic method, we were able to validly categorise and assign quality ranks to the wiki contributions. Our main finding, that stands in line with previously reported findings on quantitative data (Heimbuch & Bodemer, 2018), is that a generally useful type of additional guidance for technology-enhanced learning may not be enough. Depending on the task, it can be necessary to consider adequate individual personality variables. In this case the Need for Cognitive Closure was valid research subject, since we were explicitly interested in the processing of ambiguous information and if people produce better learning and knowledge construction outcomes when guided either implicitly or explicitly. In future analyses, it might be interesting to consider the constellations of both categorisation systems, as outlined in Table 3, and the type of provided guidance in order to take a closer look at possible correlations between these two variables. In addition, the test persons in this study had the opportunity to leave comments about their contributions to the discussion and choice of topic. For future analyses, it may be interesting to determine how the selection of topics was justified and whether there was a correlation between the justification and the contribution to the discussion.

## References

* Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2006). Supporting collaborative learning with augmented group awareness tools. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), *Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society* (pp. 77–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

* Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. *Computers & Education, 52*(1), 141–146.

* Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2007). A theoretical framework of collaborative knowledge building with wikis: A systemic and cognitive perspective. In *Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning* (pp. 156–164). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

* Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. *International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3*(2), 105.

* Dijksterhuis, A., van Knippenberg, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Schaper, C. (1996). Motivated Social Cognition: Need for Closure Effects on Memory and Judgment. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32*(3), 254–270.

* Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. *Three Worlds of CSCL. Can We Support CSCL?, 61–91.

* Hayes, A. F. (2018). *Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach* (Second edition). New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F., Montoya, A. K., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. *Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ)*, 25(1), 76–81.

Heimbuch, S., & Bodemer, D. (2017). Controversy awareness on evidence-led discussions as guidance for students in wiki-based learning. *The Internet and Higher Education*, 33(2017), 1–14.

Heimbuch, S., & Bodemer, D. (2018). Interaction of guidance types and the Need for Cognitive Closure in wiki-based learning. *PeerJ*, 6, e5541.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Constructive controversy: The educative power of intellectual conflict. *Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning*, 32(1), 28–37.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Tjosvold, D. (2000). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), *The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice* (pp. 65–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. *Educational Psychologist*, 41(2), 75–86.

Kump, B., Moskaliuk, J., Dennerlein, S., & Ley, T. (2013). Tracing knowledge co-evolution in a realistic course setting: A wiki-based field experiment. *Computers & Education*, 69, 60–70.

Laugwitz, B., Held, T., & Schrepp, M. (2008). Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. In A. Holzinger (Ed.), *HCI and Usability for Education and Work* (pp. 63–76). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Corporate wiki users: results of a survey. In *Proceedings of the 2006 international symposium on Wikis - WikiSym '06* (p. 99). Odense, Denmark: ACM Press.

Mayring, P. (2014). *Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution*. Klagenfurt.

Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Background and Procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), *Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education: Examples of Methodology and Methods* (pp. 365–380). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

McLoughlin, C. (2002). Computer supported teamwork: An integrative approach to evaluating cooperative learning in an online environment. *Australasian Journal of Educational Technology*, 18(2).

Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. *Computers in Human Behavior*.

Murray, M. H. (2003). Managing teamwork online. In *A forum for engaging, designing, assessing, and collaborating in online learning and teaching* (pp. 75–82). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.

Papadopoulos, P. M., Demetriadis, S. N., & Weinberger, A. (2013). ‘Make it explicit!’: Improving collaboration through increase of script coercion. *Journal of Computer Assisted Learning*, 29(4), 383–398.

Piaget, J. (1977). *The development of thought: equilibration of cognitive structures*. Viking Press.

Ramsenthaler, C. (2013). Was ist „Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse?“. In M. Schnell, C. Schulz, H. Kolbe, & C. Dunger (Eds.), *Der Patient am Lebensende* (pp. 23–42). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Schlichter, J., Koch, M., & Bürger, M. (1998). Workspace awareness for distributed teams. In W. Conen & G. Neumann (Eds.), *Coordination Technology for Collaborative Applications* (Vol. 1364, pp. 199–218). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Schlink, S., & Walther, E. (2007). Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit. *Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie*, 38(3), 153–161.

Schumpe, B. M., Brizi, A., Giacomantonio, M., Panno, A., Kopetz, C., Kosta, M., & Mannetti, L. (2017). Need for Cognitive Closure decreases risk taking and motivates discounting of delayed rewards. *Personality and Individual Differences*, 107, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.039

Vertzberger, Y. Y. (1990). The world in their minds: Information processing, cognition, and perception in foreign policy decisionmaking.

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 67(6), 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1997). Cognitive and Social Consequences of the Need for Cognitive Closure. *European Review of Social Psychology*, 8(1), 133–173.

Wichmann, A., & Rummel, N. (2013). Improving revision in wiki-based writing: Coordination pays off. *Computers & Education*, 62, 262–270.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Manon-Lea Laudien, B.Sc. for preparing the data in the course of her Bachelors' thesis.
# Expansively Framing Social Annotations for Generative Collaborative Learning in Online Courses

Christopher D. Andrews, Grant T. Chartrand, and Daniel T. Hickey
andrewch@indiana.edu, gchartra@indiana.edu, dthickey@indiana.edu
Indiana University

**Abstract:** This study extends the use of *expansive framing*, a discursive pedagogical practice for supporting generative (i.e., transferable) collaborative learning, to a fully online undergraduate Educational Psychology course. This study examined how students expansively framed their engagement in a social annotation activity across the semester. Quantitative analysis confirmed the extent to which interactions in the annotation activity were expansively framed and found a significant correlation between expansive framing and open-ended exam performance. Qualitative analyses confirmed that expansively framed interactions made numerous connections between disciplinary course knowledge and nascent disciplinary teaching practices. More generally, the study showed that expansive framing can be easily and successfully used to support generative collaborative learning in online courses.

## Introduction

Expansive framing (Engle, 2006; Engle, Lam, Meyer, & Nix, 2012) is a recent framework for explaining and encouraging generative learning—learning that is more likely to transfer to subsequent contexts. The research on transfer is plentiful and has traditionally focused on learners' abilities to create abstract mental representations of the content to be transferred (Day & Goldstone, 2012). Engle (2006) argued that, from a situative perspective, “transfer is more likely to occur to the extent that learning and transfer contexts have been framed to create what is called *intercontextuality* between them” (p. 456).

Intercontextuality is created when learners make enough connections back and forth between a learning context and a transfer or imagined future context (Engle et al., 2012). This intercontextuality indicates that the social context—the who, when, where, how, and why—expands to encompass both the learning context and the transfer context. According to Engle (2006), “When this [intercontextuality] occurs . . . the content established during learning is considered relevant to the transfer context” (p. 456). If learners perceive the learning context and the transfer context to be relevant to each other, it is more likely that transfer will occur. Engle suggested that this intercontextuality can be created through what she referred to as *expansive framing*.

Expansive framing uses prompts or cues (usually from the instructor) that position learners as authors of their own ideas and encourage learners to frame their immediate learning context across time (relevance of prior learning to current learning context and relevance of current learning to potential future contexts), places, topics, and participants. These “meta-communicative signals” (Engle, 2006, p. 456) create intercontextuality by helping learners see prior learning as relevant to immediate learning contexts and the potential for current learning to be useful in other contexts and situations. Expansive framing pushes learners to (a) be publicly recognized as authors of the connections they are making to other learning contexts, (b) be held accountable for their contributions, and (c) feel encouraged to adapt and generate new connections. Expansive framing contrasts with *bounded framing* which (a) focuses on the contexts defined and/or provided by the instructor, (b) discourages learners from making connections or considering other contexts of use, and (c) expects learners to explain the ideas of a text or the teacher (Engle et al., 2012).

This study aims to extend the work of expansive framing in three innovative ways. First, studies of expansive framing have primarily focused on the instructors' use of expansive framing in classrooms such as an elementary classroom (Engle, 2006), tutoring sessions (Engle et al., 2011), a secondary science classroom (Engle et al., 2012), and a hybrid second language undergraduate course (Mendelson, 2010). More recent research has acknowledged the role of the learner and examined whether learners' perceptions and beliefs aligned with expansive framing (Lam, Mendelson, Meyer, & Goldwasser, 2014); however, few studies examined whether students took up expansive framing in their own discourse within a course (e.g., Fasso & Knight, 2015). While expansive framing was originally conceived as a *pedagogical* tool used by teachers to encourage learning, we reconceptualized expansive framing as a *learning* tool used by students to promote their own generative learning. This view also prioritizes students' agency in taking up expansive framing for learning. One aim of this study is to examine how and to what extent *students* took up expansive framing.

Second, we argue that expansive framing is relatively easy to implement in asynchronous online settings and would likely support generative learning in those settings. A search of the literature returned few
instances of expansive framing in fully online settings. Fasso and Knight (2015) incorporated expansive framing into a study of adult learning in a hybrid a/synchronous professional development course for teachers from various contexts (e.g., P-12 education, vocational training, and higher education). Their study found that “expansive framing of the discussions led to broadened perspectives, enhanced collaboration and sharing, and evidence of the transfer of ideas across contexts that served to enrich the ideas of others” (p. 279). Hickey and Rehak (2013) and Jaber, Dini, Hammer, and Danahy (2018) successfully implemented elements of expansive framing in asynchronous online settings by encouraging learners to connect disciplinary knowledge to their relevant disciplinary practices; however, their studies were based off Engle’s prior work of productive disciplinary engagement (Engle & Conant, 2002). Therefore, a second aim of this study is to examine expansive framing in a completely asynchronous online setting.

Finally, this study extends expansive framing by combining it with the use of a social annotation tool. Annotation tools are well known in the CSCL community for supporting anchored discussions, or discussions anchored to an artifact such as a course reading (van der Pol, Admiraal, & Simons, 2006). Novak, Razzouk and Johnson’s (2012) literature review found mixed results from using social annotation tools for learning. Most of those studies, however, focused on attitudes rather than learning outcomes. Social annotation has been shown to foster elaborated discussions (Eryilmaz, van der Pol, Ryan, Clark, & Mary, 2013; Gao, 2013). Social annotation aligns with expansive framing because it allows learners to layer their own expansively framed contexts directly on top of content discussions and readings. The third aim of this study examines whether social annotation tools can support the use of expansive framing.

## Research questions and methods

This study asked (1) to what extent were students’ interactions expansively framed, (2) how was expansive framing related to individual learning outcomes, and (3) what was it about expansively framed interactions that appeared generative.

## Context and participants

This study took place in an online undergraduate Educational Psychology course for pre-service teachers which took place in the Spring 2018 semester at a large Midwestern university. The first author was the lead instructor for this course. There were 17 student participants from four different majors (visual arts education, n=10; world language education, n=4; physical education, n=2; dietetics, n=1). During the 16-week course, students annotated 23 course readings using the online social annotation tool *Hypothesis* (https://web.hypothes.is/). Hypothesis allows students to select portions of text and directly annotate it by adding their own comments. Hypothesis allows users to engage in further conversation via threaded comments on the direct annotations. The course readings consisted of academic articles that discussed key theoretical principles from several major learning theories. The students were asked to engage in the annotation activity but were not graded on their participation in the annotations. Students were, however, asked to reflect on peers’ and their own annotations on a weekly reflection which was graded. The prompt for engaging in the annotation activity was deliberately worded to encourage students to expansively frame their engagement and their annotations (see Table 1).

<caption>Table 1: Annotation activity prompt</caption>

Before you start reading, you should think about a specific context for your engagement in the reading and annotations. To do this, you should:

1. Pick a developmental level (e.g., Elementary, Middle, Secondary, etc.) you are interested in teaching.

2. Pick a content standard(s) from the State Standards that you are interested in focusing on.

As you read and make web annotations, consider the relevance of the reading and annotations as applied to your context. At the end of most units, you will be designing a lesson plan that you could actually use in a current or future classroom as part of our Theory/Practice Workshops. Picking a developmental level and content-area standard(s) should help you think about how what you are learning applies to the Theory/Practice Workshops as well as other potential future contexts (e.g., classroom, student teaching, other classes, etc.).

In this class we will be using web annotations using a web tool called Hypothes.is to participate in a larger discussion of articles that we will read as well as facilitate making connections to other content such as other articles we are reading in the class or content you may read or interact with outside of class. The web annotations can also help us make connections to prior experiences you may have had, current experiences you are having, or potential future experiences you may have (e.g., your field experience, future classroom, or work-related experiences).
At the end of the course, students took a written exam that included two different prompts relating to learning theory. One prompt provided students with an op-ed article written in the New York Times arguing for the pedagogical practice of lecturing. Students were asked to analyze that article from two different theoretical perspectives of their choice. For each theory, students needed to (1) describe what learning looks like in that theory, (2) describe a specific concept or aspect of that theory, (3) explain how that theory and concept would disagree with the article, and (4) provide an appropriate link to the course readings to back up their argument. The second prompt asked students to (1) design an assessment and two activities for a specific academic standard in their content area provided for them by the instructor, (2) describe how a particular learning theory informed their design, and (3) provide an appropriate link to the course readings. The exam was designed to assess students' understanding of the major learning theories discussed in the course and their ability to apply it to classroom design. Within the constraints of a typical teacher education course, this exam was a reasonable proxy for a transfer measure that was indicative of generative learning and was likely to transfer to subsequent educational and professional contexts.

<table><caption>Table 2: Coding scheme for aspects of expansive framing</caption><thead><tr><td>Code</td><td>Description</td><td>Example</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Time Past</td><td>Refers to a past time that what was learned then can, should be, or has been used.</td><td>"I had an English teacher senior year..."<br>"This reminded me of last semester..."</td></tr><tr><td>Time Future</td><td>Refers to a future time in which what is learned can, should be, or would be used.</td><td>"In my future classroom I'd like to..."<br>"Teachers need to..."</td></tr><tr><td>Place</td><td>Refers to another place outside of the course in which what is learned can, should be, or has been used.</td><td>"In my field experience..."<br>"At the high school..."<br>"At home..."</td></tr><tr><td>Topic</td><td>Refers to a non-course topic in which what is learned can, should be, or has been used.</td><td>"In my content area of visual arts..."<br>"My Pluralism in Education course talked about this..."</td></tr><tr><td>Participants</td><td>Refers to person(s) other than the teacher that one can, should be, or has communicated what one has learned.</td><td>"Pre-service teachers could use this to..."<br>"This really applies to students..."</td></tr><tr><td>Accountability</td><td>Holds others accountable for sharing knowledge by directly engaging others with questions to encourage threaded discussion and/or responding directly to a peer's statement by answering and/or referring to a specific question/comment.</td><td>"How would you...?"<br>"Leslie's comment helped me think about..."<br>"I agree with your claim that..."</td></tr><tr><td>Authorship</td><td>Presents themselves as authoring knowledge.</td><td>"I think this is important..."<br>"We also should consider..."</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Data collection and analysis

All of the annotations during the course of the semester were exported from Hypothesis. This data included the text of students' annotations, the annotated text from the article (if applicable), the level of the annotation (for threaded comments), and other metadata.

To address the first research question, these annotations were first coded for enlistment of expansive framing using the coding scheme in Table 2 following from Engle et al. (2012). This coding revealed the proportion of annotations that were expansively framed with each aspect. To determine how expansive those annotations were, we developed a second coding scheme (Table 3). For this degree of expansiveness coding scheme, the first two authors coded 20% of the annotations separately and achieved an inter-rater reliability of 0.70 using Cohen's Kappa. The first author then coded the remaining annotations alone.

To address the second research question and determine whether students' engagement in expansive framing appeared to be generative to a transfer task, we ran a Pearson correlation between students' mean expansive framing score (i.e., degree of expansiveness) and student scores on the written final exam. Two students dropped the course before the final exam and thus were not included in this analysis. To address the third research question, we drew upon discourse analysis (Wooffitt, 2005) to identify what students were actually doing in their annotations that might lead to generative learning. Looking across the dataset, we were