Understanding children's interactions in synchronous shared environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional computer technology offers limited support for face-to-face, synchronous collaboration. As a result, children who wish to collaborate using computers must adapt their interactions to the single-user paradigm most personal computers are based on. More recently, co-located groupware systems offering support for concurrent, multi-user interactions around a shared display have become technologically feasible. Unlike traditional groupware systems that provide multi-user interaction through the use of separate computers, these systems share the physical workspace, as well as the virtual workspace. These systems provide a unique mechanism through which children can interact with each other. However, ways to best utilize the technology in this manner has not been fully evaluated. This paper investigates how technological support for children's synchronous interactions facilitates their collaborative activities. In particular, we examined whether a shared workspace facilitates the development of a shared understanding during a computer-based collaborative activity. We present a field study that observed pairs of children playing an educational game in several display configurations. The findings from this research suggest strengths and weaknesses of various types of support for synchronous interactions and discusses issues related to the design and development of more effective computer systems to support children's face-to-face interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".