Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fourth graders’ dyadic learning on multi-touch interfaces—versatile effects of verbalization prompts

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-touch interfaces allow for direct and simultaneous input by several co-present learners and afford hands-on learning experiences. Additional scaffolding for strategic behavior and/or verbalizations may constructively complement collaborative learning with a multi-touch device. In this study, the tablet app “Proportion” is supposed to enable two novices (about 10 years old) to collaboratively construct an understanding of proportional relations. In a 2 × 2 factorial design (n = 162), effects of enriching Proportion with strategy prompts (with/without) and verbalization prompts (with/without) on multi-modal processes as well as near and far transfer learning gains have been investigated. The process variables include task focus, positive and negative emotions, and quality of dialogue (transactivity, epistemic quality). We found a general improvement in near transfer task types over all conditions without the two prompt types further affecting learning gains. While the strategy prompts did not significantly affect processes or outcomes, the verbalization prompts had versatile effects on learning processes: On one hand, quality of talk was improved, on the other hand, task focus and emotions were negatively affected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson, D. (2017). Embodiment and mathematics learning. In K. Peppler (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (pp. 247–252). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, C., Brown, C., & Nussbaum, M. (2011). Comparative study of netbooks and tablet PCs for fostering face-to-face collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 834–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 399–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borge, M., & White, B. (2016). Toward the development of socio-metacognitive expertise: An approach to developing collaborative competence. Cognition and Instruction, 34(4), 323–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, T. W., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Development of proportional reasoning: Where young children go wrong. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1478–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, D., van Riesen, S. A. N., Álvarez, S., Nussbaum, M., De Jong, T., & Alario-Hoyos, C. (2014). The effects of whole-class interactive instruction with single display groupware for triangles. Computers & Education, 70, 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1201–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25(4), 471–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106, 1047–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish, J. A., Enyedy, N., Saleh, A., Lee, C., & Andrade, A. (2015). Science through technology enhanced play: Designing to support reflection through play and embodiment. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschman, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: The computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 332–339). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deater-Deckard, K., El Mallah, S., Chang, M., Evans, M. A., & Norton, A. (2014). Student behavioral engagement during mathematics educational video game instruction with 11–14 year olds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(3), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting 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). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, S., Klahr, D., & Siegler, R. S. (1993). Effects of feedback and collaboration on changes in children’s use of mathematical rules. Paper presented at the Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.

  • Falloon, G., & Khoo, E. (2014). Exploring young students’ talk in iPad-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 77, 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A. (2016). Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: Bridging the gap between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, R., Cohen, M., & Hartnett, P. (1989). To know mathematics is to go beyond thinking that “Fractions aren’t numbers.” In C. A. Maher, G. A. Goldin, & R. B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 29–67). New Brunswick, NJ.

  • Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Ainsworth, S., & O’Malley, C. (2011). Guided reciprocal questioning to support children’s collaborative storytelling. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 577–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 427–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, J. M., Bouchet, F., Hussain, M. S., Azevedo, R., & Calvo, R. (2015). A multi-componential analysis of emotions during complex learning with an intelligent multi-agent system. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 615–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI (pp. 187–194). Los Angeles, CA: ACM Press.

  • Jitendra, A. K., Star, J. R., Rodriguez, M., Lindell, M., & Someki, F. (2011). Improving students’ proportional thinking using schema-based instruction. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 731–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupers, E., van Dijk, M., & van Geert, P. (2017). Changing patterns of scaffolding and autonomy during individual music lessons: A mixed methods approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 131–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, B., Matthews, M., D’Mello, S., & Person, N. (2008). What are you feeling? Investigating student affective states during expert human tutoring sessions. In B. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 50–59). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T., Smith, C. P., Forsgren, N., Aghababyan, A., Janisiewicz, P., & Baker, S. (2015). Learning fractions by splitting: Using learning analytics to illuminate the development of mathematical understanding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(4), 593–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, E. M., Higgins, S. E., & da Costa, L. (2014). Different leaders: Emergent organizational and intellectual leadership in children’s collaborative learning groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(4), 397–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (1999). Early fraction calculation ability. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 164–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottmar, E., & Landy, D. (2017). Concreteness fading of algebraic instruction: Effects on learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 51–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinholz, D. L., Trninic, D., Howison, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2010). It’s not easy being green: Embodied artifacts and the guided emergence of mathematical meaning. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 6, pp. 1488–1496). Columbus, OH: PME-NA.

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regionalverband Saarbrücken. (2012). 1. Bildungsbericht für den Regionalverband Saarbrücken. Saarbrücken, Germany: Regionalverband Saarbrücken.

  • Rick, J. (2012). Proportion: A tablet app for collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Interaction Design and Children Conference, IDC (pp. 316–319). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  • Rick, J., Kopp, D., Schmitt, L., & Weinberger, A. (2015). Tarzan and Jane Share an iPad. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschman, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: The computer supported collaborative Learning (CSCL) conference 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 356–363). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rick, J., Rogers, Y., Haig, C., & Yuill, N. (2009). Learning by doing with shareable interfaces. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(1), 320–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., et al. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sakr, M., Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2014). The semiotic work of the hands in scientific enquiry. Classroom Discourse, 5(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakr, M., Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2016). Mobile experiences of historical place: A multimodal analysis of emotional engagement. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(1), 51–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneps, M. H., Ruel, J., Sonnert, G., Dussault, M., Griffin, M., & Sadler, P. M. (2014). Conceptualizing astronomical scale: Virtual simulations on handheld tablet computers reverse misconceptions. Computers & Education, 70, 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schooler, J. W. (2002). Verbalization produces a transfer inappropriate processing shift. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(8), 989–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015). Scaffolding mathematical modelling with a solution plan. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1241–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M., Scanlon, E., Ainsworth, S., Anastopoulou, S., Collins, T., Crook, C., et al. (2015). Personal inquiry: Orchestrating science investigations within and beyond the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 308–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sim, G., Cassidy, B., & Read, J. C. (2013). Understanding the fidelity effect when evaluating games with children. In IDC 2013 (pp. 193–200).

  • Sim, G., MacFarlane, S., & Read, J. (2006). All work and no play: Measuring fun, usability, and learning in software for children. Computers & Education, 46(3), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, A. M., Gijlers, H., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education. Instructional Science, 42(3), 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H., ter Vrugte, J., Vandercruysse, S., de Jong, T., & Elen, J. (2015). The role of curiosity-triggering events in game-based learning for mathematics. In J. Torbeyns, E. Lehtinen, & J. Elen (Eds.), Describing and studying domain-specific serious games. Advances in game-based learning (pp. 191–207). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jochen Rick for designing and programming the Proportion app and the various student assistants supporting the research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saarland University, Campus C5 4, 66123, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Lara Johanna Schmitt & Armin Weinberger

Authors
  1. Lara Johanna Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Armin Weinberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lara Johanna Schmitt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmitt, L.J., Weinberger, A. Fourth graders’ dyadic learning on multi-touch interfaces—versatile effects of verbalization prompts. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 519–539 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9619-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9619-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation