Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distributed spatial Sensemaking on the augmented reality sandbox

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://arsandbox.ucdavis.edu

  2. Worthington Direct, iSandbox, Topobox, etc.

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

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

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

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

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa, Israel, Haifa, Israel

    Yotam Hod & Daniel Twersky

Authors
  1. Yotam Hod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Twersky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yotam Hod.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hod, Y., Twersky, D. Distributed spatial Sensemaking on the augmented reality sandbox. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 15, 115–141 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09315-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09315-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation