Analysing an Interactive Problem-Solving Task Through the Lens of Double Stimulation

Margarida Romero; Sylvie Barma

doi:10.21432/cjlt28170

Authors

Margarida Romero
Sylvie Barma Université Laval https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3603-2552

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28170

Keywords:

conflict of motives, conflict of stimuli, double stimulation, educational robotics, decision forming apparatus, problem-solving

Abstract

Problem-solving activities have been studied from a diversity of epistemological perspectives. In problem-solving activities, the initial tensions of a problematic situation led to a cognitive dissonance between conflicting motives and instruments to reach the activity goal. We analyze problem-solving in the continuation of Sannino and Laitinen’s (2015) approach to the analysis of a decision-forming apparatus. The originality of this study is in consideration of the materialistic nature of double stimulation that appears during the activity of the CreaCube problem-solving task. This activity engages the participant in solving tasks with interactive robotic instruments. To solve a task, the subject is required to build interactive robotic modules into a specific configuration which will cause the artifact to move from an initial position to a predetermined final position. The conflict of stimuli in the CreaCube is strong and observable because of the tangibility of the artifact, which is manipulated by the participant into different configurations with the goal of solving the task. We discuss double stimulation in relation to the artifactual interactive affordances of educational robotics.

Author Biographies

Margarida Romero

Margarida Romero is a full professor at Université Côte d’Azur in France and an associate professor at Université Laval in Quebec, Canada. After starting her career at Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona where she was awarded the best doctoral thesis in psychology, she continued her career in Canada and France.

Sylvie Barma, Université Laval

Sylvie Barma is full professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning Studies at Laval University, Sylvie Barma is interested in science and technology teachers who question and renew their teaching practice. After a long experience as a high school science teacher, she participated in the drafting of the Quebec Science and Technology and Technological and Scientific Applications programs for four years. Her experience as a practitioner and that of a curriculum writer are now used in her research. These focus on the contextual and systemic dimension of pedagogical innovation in teaching and on the development of 21st century digital skills in science classrooms. She considers the activity of the teacher as a responsibility shared by the various actors of a community.

References

Barma, S., Lacasse, M., & Massé-Morneau, J. (2015). Engaging discussion about climate change in a Quebec secondary school: A challenge for science teachers. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 4, 28-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.07.004

Charron, S., & Koechlin, E. (2010). Divided representation of concurrent goals in the human frontal lobes. Science, 328(5976), 360-363. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183614

Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of Generalization in Instruction: Logical and Psychological Problems in the Structuring of School Curricula. Soviet Studies in Mathematics Education. Volume 2. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1906 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091.

Dewey, J. (1933) How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised Ed.). D. C. Heath.

Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1-2), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030701307689

Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139814744

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2009.12.002

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368-387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132758

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2013). La volition et l’agentivité transformatrice: perspective théorique de l’activité. Revue international du CRIRES: Innover dans la tradition de Vygotsky. https://doi.org/10.51657/ric.v1i1.41017

Fichtner, B. (1999). Activity theory as methodology: The epistemological revolution of the computer and the problem of its societal appropriation. Learning Activity and Development, 71-92. https://www.bildung.uni-siegen.de/mitarbeiter/fichtner/dokumente/englisch/activity_theory_as_methodology.pdf

Hopwood, N., & Gottschalk, B. (2017). Double stimulation “in the wild”: Services for families with children at-risk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 13, 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.003

Hutchins, E. L., Hollan, J. D., & Norman, D. A. (1985). Direct manipulation interfaces. Human–Computer Interaction, 1(4), 311-338. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0104_2

Ilyenkov, E. V. (2007). Our schools must teach how to think! Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 45(4), 9-49. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405450402

Leontyev, A. (2009). Activity and consciousness. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/activity-consciousness.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2021

Ludvigsen, S., Cress, U., Law, N., Stahl, G., & Rosé, C. P. (2018). Multiple forms of regulation and coordination across levels in educational settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9274-1

Nersessian, N. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6187-6

Ness, D., & Farenga, S. J. (2016). Blocks, bricks, and planks: Relationships between affordance and visuo-spatial constructive play objects. American Journal of Play, 8(2), 201-227. https://www.museumofplay.org/app/uploads/2022/01/8-2-article-blocks-bricks-and-planks.pdf

Norman, D. A. (1986) User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-computer Interaction. In: Norman, D.A. and Draper, S.W., Eds., Cognitive Engineering (pp. 31-61). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Norqvist, M., Jonsson, B., Lithner, J., Qwillbard, T., & Holm, L. (2019). Investigating algorithmic and creative reasoning strategies by eye tracking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 55, 100701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.03.008

Nuttall, J., & Brennan, M. (2016). Teacher education as academic work: The affordances of a materialist analysis. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 364-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2016.1144712

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2015 draft collaborative problem solving framework. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

Parekh, P., & Gee, E. R. (2019). Tinkering alone and together: Tracking the emergence of children's projects in a library workshop. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22, 100313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.04.009

Passamonti, C., Frissen, I., & Ladavas, E. (2009). Visual recalibration of auditory spatial perception: two separate neural circuits for perceptual learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(6), 1141-1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06910.x

Polya, G. (1985). How to solve it. Princeton University Press.

Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies. Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Armand Colin.

Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Montague, P. R. (2008). A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature reviews neuroscience, 9(7), 545-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357

Romero, M. (2019). Analyzing Cognitive Flexibility in Older Adults Through Playing with Robotic Cubes. In J. Zhou & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Social Media, Games and Assistive Environments. HCII 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11593. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22015-0_42

Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.01.001

Sannino, A., & Laitinen, A. (2015). Double stimulation in the waiting experiment: Testing a Vygotskian model of the emergence of volitional action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 4, 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LCSI.2014.07.002

Vygotsky, L. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 17(4), 3-35. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-040517043

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Lectures on psychology, Lecture 6: The problem of will and its development in childhood. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of General Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 351–358). New York: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of development of higher mental functions, Chapter 12: Self-control. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. The history of the development of higher mental functions (Vol. 4, pp. 261–281). New York: Plenum.

Yew, E. H., & Goh, K. (2016). Problem-based learning: An overview of its process and impact on learning. Health Professions Education, 2(2), 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HPE.2016.01.004