Abstract
In this paper we examine how two groups of middle school students arrive at shared understandings of and solutions to mathematical problems. Our data consists of logs of student participation in the Virtual Math Teams (VMT) system as they work on math problems. The project supports interaction both through chat and through a virtual whiteboard. We have examined in detail, the sequential work these students do to constitute and specify ‘the problem’ on which they are working in the ways they produce whiteboard objects and text postings. Solutions emerge as students come to understand the problem on which they are working. This understanding is achieved through gradual respecification of the math problem on which they are working.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
Azevedo, F. S., diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 270–289. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.003.
Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623–643.
Cakır, M. P. (2009). How online small groups co-construct mathematical artifacts to do collaborative problem solving. (Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University). Retrieved from http://dspace.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/3122/1/Cakir_Murat.pdf.
Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 115–149.
Danish, J. A., & Enyedy, N. (2007). Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education, 91, 1–35. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X.
Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). Representational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first?grade students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2069–2094. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.525798.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385–398
Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 405–441.
Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science constructed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 131–158.
Greiffenhagen, C. (2008). Unpacking tasks: The fusion of new technology with instructional work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 35–62. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/N0760P8P725N2266.pdf.
Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (2005). Gestures in the blackboard work of mathematics instruction. Paper presented at the 2nd Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies (Interacting Bodies), Lyon France. Retrieved from http://gesture-lyon2005.ens-lsh.fr/IMG/pdf/Greiffenhagen-Gesture.pdf
Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey’s cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 209–238.
Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hanks, W. F. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (Vol. 11, pp. 43–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder: Westview.
Hanks, W. F. (2000). Intertexts: Writings on language, utterance, and context. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hester, S., & Hester, S. (2010). Conversational actions and category relations: An analysis of a children’s argument. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 33–48. doi:10.1177/1461445609347233.
Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kirschner, P. A., & Van Bruggen, J. (2004). Learning and understanding in virtual teams. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 135–139.
Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2009). Optical pulsars and black arrows: Discoveries as occasioned productions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 200–246.
Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2011). “So that’s the ureter”. The informal logic of discovery work. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 34–46. Retrieved from http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/sociology/about/events/ethnography/journal/issue12/documents/koschmann-zemel.pdf.
Livingston, E. (1986). The ethnomethodological foundations of mathematics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Livingston, E. (1987). Making sense of ethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Livingston, E. (1999). Cultures of proving. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 867–888.
Livingston, E. (2000). The availability of mathematics as an inspectable domain of practice through the use of origami. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local education order (pp. 245–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lonchamp, J. (2009). A three-level analysis of collaborative learning in dual-interaction spaces. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 289–317. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/c8344h6738426463.pdf.
Lonchamp, J. (2011). Deixis in synchronous CSCL systems. Proceedings from 3rd Conference on Computer Supported Education - CSEDU 2011.
Lynch, M. (1985). Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 37.
Lynch, M. (1994). Representation is overrated: Some critical remarks about the use of the concept of representation in science studies. Configurations, 2(1), 137–149. Retrieved from http://www.petajwhite.net/Uni/910/Legit and Representation/Representation Precis/Lynch.doc.
Lynch, M. (2011). Credibility, evidence, and discovery: The case of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 78–105.
Macbeth, D. (2011). Understanding understanding as an instructional matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 438–451. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.006.
Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2008). Bringing representational practice from log to light.
Mühlpfordt, M. (2006). Dual interaction Spaces: Integration Synchroner Kommunikation und Kooperation. 4. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik.
Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2005). Explicit referencing in chat supports collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning: The next 10 years! (pp. 460–469). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2009). The integration of dual-interaction spaces. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 281–293). New York: Springer.
Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(1–2), 1–43.
Parnafes, O. (2010). Representational practices in the activity of student-generated representations (SGR) for promoting conceptual understanding.
Psathas, G. (2007). Lebenswelt origins of the sciences. Hum Stud, 30(1), 1–2. doi:10.1007/s10746-007-9047-8.
Rochelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry. In D. L. Day & D. K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, communication and mental models (pp. 13–25). London: Taylor & Francis.
Rochelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning, NATO ASO Series F: Computer and system sciences (Vol. 128) (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.
Schegloff, E. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720.
Schönfeldt, J., & Golato, A. (2003). Repair in chats: A conversation analytic approach. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 241–284.
Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (2011). Discovering a practical impossibility: The internal configuration of a problem in mathematical reasoning. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 47–58.
Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.
Stahl, G., Zhou, N., & Toledo, R. (2006). The Virtual Math Teams project: A global math discourse community. Proceedings from International Conference on Computers and Education (ICCE ’06), Bei**g, China. Retrieved from http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/pub/icce2006.pdf
Suchman, L. A. (1988). Representing practice in cognitive science. Human Studies, 11(2), 305–325.
Suchman, L. A. (2006). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives) (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suthers, D. D. (2005). Collaborative knowledge construction through shared representation. 38th Hawai’i International Conference on the System Sciences,.
Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. Proceedings from International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Dordrecht, NL. Retrieved from http://metheny.ics.hawaii.edu/papers/2003/Suthers-et-al-CSCL2003.pdf
Van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177―204). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 121–138.
van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 575–602. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.024.
Vergnaud, G. (1998). A comprehensive theory of representation for mathematics education. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 167–181. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0364021399800573.
White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.
Woolgar, S. (1988). Time and documents in researcher interaction: Some ways of making out what is happening in experimental science. Human Studies, 11(2), 171–200.
Zemel, A., & Cakir, M. (2009). Reading’s Work in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying Virtual Math Teams (pp. 261–276). New York: Springer Publishing.
Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. J. (2008). “What are we missing?” Usability’s indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17, 63–85.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zemel, A., Koschmann, T. Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment. Computer Supported Learning 8, 65–87 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9164-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9164-5