When we talk we point at objects. When we talk on-line we should be able to do so too.
The problem / intent
Natural, face to face, discourse
makes extensive use of physical artefacts: we gesture towards objects
that mediate the activity to which the discussion refers. This
dimension of human interaction is often lost in computerized interfaces.
The context
This pattern is relevant to computerized interfaces which allow learners to converse about a common activity.
accessibility:
both a challenge and a potential for people with disabilities.
Need to make sure that the conversation medium, and specifically the
objects used in conversation are accessible to all.
Platform
typically mixed media. Personalisation should allow users as much
flexibility as possible in bringing in their artefacts.
The pattern
Learning activities involve the use or construction
of artefacts. When providing tools for learners to discuss their
experience, either as part of the activity or at a reflective
meta-level, allow them to easily include these artefacts in the scope
of their discussion. If the activity is mediated by or aims to produce
digital artefacts, then the discussion medium should allow embedding of
these artefacts. Whatever the nature of the objects, the medium should
support a visual (graphical, symbolic, animated or simulated) 1:1
representation of these objects.
In Guess my robot players exchange ToonTalk objects as
challenges and responses. These objects then participate in the
players' on-going discourse, during the game and Post ludus.
References
Gerry Stahl and Alan Zemel and Johann Sarmiento and Murat
Cakir and Stephen Weimar and Martin Wessner and Martin Mühlpfordt
(2006), Shared referencing of mathematical objects in chatpresented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2006), 2006.