Top

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Published in:

14-03-2020

Distributed spatial Sensemaking on the augmented reality sandbox

Authors: Yotam Hod, Daniel Twersky

Published in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Issue 1/2020

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This research examines small group collaboration on the Augmented Reality (AR) Sandbox, an interactive, real-time topographical simulator that provides a color layer of augmentation showing depths and height, contour lines, and hydrology vis-a-vis the terrain of sand in a box. Prior research has focused on AR Sandbox activity designs, outcome measures, and user’s perceptions of different usability functions. No research to date has examined the situated processes by which groups engage in CSCL activities on the AR Sandbox as they participate in authentic forms of topographical studies. Taking a dialogic stance to examine CSCL using AR, in this study we draw on previous scholarship about distributed spatial sensemaking to analyze the way groups interact over material, social, and activity contexts. Based on an Interaction Analysis methodology, our findings point to the different resources that are coordinated with the use of the AR Sandbox; the different ways that turn-taking during distributed spatial sensemaking occurs; and the intricacy and speed by which multimodal resources are used to advance spatial thinking. The implications of this research broaden views of distributed spatial sensemaking, provide novel methodological tools to examine this phenomena, and suggest different levels of analysis and expectations for studies on the AR Sandbox.

previous article Unpacking the relationship between existing and new measures of physiological synchrony and collaborative learning: a mixed methods study

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

https://arsandbox.ucdavis.edu

Worthington Direct, iSandbox, Topobox, etc.

Refers to the DSS types in the constellation tables (Figure 5).

Square brackets with number preceded with an “i” refer to the illustration in the accompanying figure.

Parentheses refer to the line number of the expression in the accompanying act.

Square brackets within text refer to the type of spatial thinking listed in the accompanying act and illustrated in the constellation tables (Figure 5).

Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. J. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 349–365). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–185.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (VW McGee, trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1979).

Bandrova, T., Kouteva, M., Pashova, L., Savova, D., & Marinova, S. (2015). Conceptual framework for educational disaster center “save the children life”. The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 40(3), 225–234.

Berger, R., & Hänze, M. (2016). The jigsaw method in 12th-grade physics classes–impact of the group’s ability composition on academic performance. International Journal of Modern Education Research, 3(5), 28–36.

Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2014). “What comes to mind when you think of science? The perfumery!”: Documenting science-related cultural learning pathways across contexts and timescales. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 260–285.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Carbonell, C., & C., & Asensio, L. A. B. (2017). Augmented reality as a digital teaching environment to develop spatial thinking. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 44(3), 259–270.

Chinn, C. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2014). Microgenetic methods. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 171–190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.

Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 557–569.

Danish, J. A., DeLiema, D., & Enydey, N. (2015). Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 7–34.

Darley, N. T., Tavares, T. A., Costa, V., Collares, G., & Terra, V. (2017). Tangible interfaces: An analysis of user experience using the AR sandbox project. In Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 65). ACM.

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Overscripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Netherlands: Open University.

Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012). Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 347–378.

Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., & DeLiema, D. (2015). Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 7–34.

Evans, M., Fleming, B., Thwala, Z., & Drennan, G. (2018). Can the augmented reality sandbox help learners overcome difficulties with 3-D visualization? Terrae Didática, 14(4), 389–394.

Florinsky, I. (2016). Digital terrain analysis in soil science and geology. Amsterdam, NE: Elsevier Academic Press.

Giorgis, S., Mahlen, N., & Anne, K. (2017). Instructor-led approach to integrating an augmented reality sandbox into a large-enrollment introductory geoscience course for non-majors produces no gains. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(3), 283–291.

Goldin-Meadow, S., Levine, S. C., Zinchenko, E., Yip, T. K., Hemani, N., & Factor, L. (2012). Doing gesture promotes learning a mental transformation task better than seeing gesture. Developmental Science, 15(6), 876–884.

Hod, Y., & Sagy, O. (2019). Conceptualizing the designs of authentic computer-supported collaborative learning environments in schools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(2), 143–164.

Ishii, H. (2008). The tangible user interface and its evolution. Communications of the ACM, 51(6), 32–36.

Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

Keifert, D., & Stevens, R. (2019). Inquiry as a members’ phenomenon: Young children as competent inquirers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 240–278.

Koschmann, T. (2018). Ethnomethodology; studying the practical achievement of intersubjectivity. In F. Fischer, C.E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.). International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 465–474). Routledge.

Kreylos, O. (2016). Augmented Reality Sandbox. Retrieved from the Institute for Data Analysis and Visualization (IDAV).

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, L. (2018). Supporting informal STEM learning with technological exhibits: An ecosystemic approach. In F. Fischer, C.E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman & P. Reimann (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 234–245). New York: Routledge.

Markoski, B. (2018). Basic principles of topography. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Geography.

Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: New typology, new assessments. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 179–192). New York, NY: Springer.

Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about the spatial world matter? Developmental Science, 14(6), 1417–1430.

Ramey, K. E., & Uttal, D. H. (2017). Making sense of space: Distributed spatial sensemaking in a middle school summer engineering camp. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 277–319.

Reed, S. E., Kreylos, O., Hsi, S., Kellogg, L. H., Schladow, G., Yikilmaz, M. B., & Sato, E. (2014). Shaping watersheds exhibit: An interactive, augmented reality sandbox for advancing earth science education. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 1, 1–29.

Richardson, R., Sammons, D., & Delparte, D. (2018). Augmented affordances support learning: Comparing the instructional effects of the augmented reality sandbox and conventional maps to teach topographic map skills. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 29(2), 231–248.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What's become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psychologist, 50(10), 859.

Sánchez, S. Á., Martín, L. D., Gimeno-González, M. Á., Martín-Garcia, T., Almaraz-Menéndez, F., & Ruiz, C. (2016). Augmented reality sandbox: A platform for educative experiences. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 599-602). ACM.

Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schack, E. O., Fisher, M. H., & Wilhelm, J. A. (Eds.). (2017). Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks. Cham: Switzerland: Springer.

Şengül, S., & Katranci, Y. (2014). Effects of jigsaw technique on mathematics self-efficacy perceptions of seventh grade primary school students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 333–338.

Stahl, G. (2012). Theories of CSCL. In J. Haake, G. Schwabe, & M. Wessner (Eds.), CSCL-kompendium 2.0 (pp. 16–30). Frankfurt, Germany: Oldenburg.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Steinhardt, L. (1998). Sand, water, and universal form in sand play and art therapy. Art Therapy, 15(4), 252–260.

The National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

The National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402.

Vaughan, K. L., Vaughan, R. E., & Seeley, J. M. (2017). Experiential learning in soil science: Use of an augmented reality sandbox. Natural Sciences Education, 46(1), 1–5.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Woods, T. L., Reed, S., Hsi, S., Woods, J. A., & Woods, M. R. (2016). Pilot study using the augmented reality sandbox to teach topographic maps and surficial processes in introductory geology labs. Journal of Geoscience Education, 64(3), 199–214.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Yoon, S. A., & Wang, J. (2014). Making the invisible visible in science museums through augmented reality devices. TechTrends, 58(1), 49–55.

Yoon, S., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 519–541.

Yoon, S., Anderson, E., Elinich, K., Park, M., & Lin, J. (2018). How augmented reality, text-based, and collaborative scaffolds work synergistically to improve learning in a science museum. Research in Science and Technology Education, 3(36), 261–281.

Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.

Title: Distributed spatial Sensemaking on the augmented reality sandbox
Authors: Yotam Hod
Daniel Twersky
Publication date: 14-03-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Electronic ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09315-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts

Unpacking the relationship between existing and new measures of physiological synchrony and collaborative learning: a mixed methods study

Learning in embodied activity framework: a sociocultural framework for embodied cognition

Experiencing CSCL: from motivation to the embodied experience and beyond

Premium Partner