Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment

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

Abstract

In vision-based augmented-reality (AR) environments, users view the physical world through a video feed or device that augments the display with a graphical or informational overlay. Our goal in this manuscript is to ask how and why these new technologies create opportunities for learning. We suggest that AR is uniquely positioned to support learning through its ability to support students in developing “conceptual blends”—which we propose extend beyond cognitive spaces to include the layering of multiple ideas and physical materials, often supplied by different conversation participants. We document one case study and trace how the narrative structure of a board game, the physical floor materials (e.g. linoleum), a student’s first-person embodied experiences, the third-person live camera feed, and the augmented-reality symbols become integrated in the activity. As a result, students’ conceptualization of force and friction become fused with a diverse set of intellectual resources. We conclude by suggesting that the framework of liminal blends may inform the design of future AR learning environments and in particular help generate predictions about the ways in which the juxtaposition of certain resources may otherwise produce unexpected results.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 175–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danish, J. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 100–148.

  • Dudis, P. G. (2004). Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

    Article  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). doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9150-3

  • Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J., & Hall, R. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey’s cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 209–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented Learning: Research and Design of Mobile Educational Games. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liddell, S. K. (1998). Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 283–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R. & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445–452.

  • Nemirovsky, R., & Monk, S. (2000). “If you look at it the other way…” An exploration into the nature of symbolizing. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 177–221). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A. (2008). Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2, 151–171.

  • Ochs, E., Gonzalez, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). When I come down, I’m in a domain state: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physics. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parill, F. (2012). Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective (pp. 97–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parrill, F., & Sweetser, E. (2004). What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. Gesture, 4(2), 197–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell, J. (2011). The epistemics of make-believe. In T. Stivers & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 131–156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, F., & Owens, S. (2001). Evolution’s pedagogy: An adaptationist model of pretense and entertainment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1(4), 289–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner. (2014). The origin of ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. F. (2006). Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. F. (2008). Guided conceptualization: Mental spaces in instructional discourse. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DRL- 0733218). This project would also not be possible without the help from members of our team who are not authors on this paper Fabian Wagmister, Jeff Burke and Alessandro Marianantoni. Finally we would like to thank Sylvia Gentile who taught the lessons and led the students in some remarkable discussions of force and motion.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noel Enyedy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Enyedy, N., Danish, J.A. & DeLiema, D. Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 10, 7–34 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9207-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9207-1

Keywords

Navigation