• AlAgha, I., Hatch, A., Ma, L., & Burd, L. (2010). Towards a teacher-centric approach for multi-touch surfaces in classrooms. InProceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2010 (ITS 2010) (pp. 187–196). New York: ACM.

• Al-Qaraghuli, A., Zaman, H., Olivier, P., Kharrufa, A., & Ahmad, A. (2011). Analysing Tabletop Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Data through Visualization. InProceedings of the Visual Informatics 2011 (IVIC 2011) (pp. 329–340). Berlin: Springer.

  Google Scholar 

• Anaya, A., & Boticario, J. (2009). Clustering learners according to their collaboration. InProceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD 2009) (pp. 540–545). Washington: IEEE.

• Anaya, A., & Boticario, J. (2011). Application of machine learning techniques to analyse student interactions and improve the collaboration process.Expert Systems with Applications, 38(2), 1171–1181.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Baker, R. S., & Yacef, K. (2009). The State of Educational Data Mining in 2009: A Review and Future Visions.Journal of Educational Data Mining (JEDM), 1(1), 3–17.

  Google Scholar 

• Baraldi, S., DelBimbo, A., & Valli, A. (2006). Bringing the Wiki Collaboration Model to the Tabletop World. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo 2006 (ICME 2006) (pp. 333–336). Washington: IEEE.

• Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J. D. (2008). Next step: Consolidating the cmappers community. InProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Concept Mapping 2008 (CMC 2008) (pp. 532–539). Tallinn: OÜ Vali Press

• Dillenbourg, P. (1998). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? InCollaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

  Google Scholar 

• Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. InNew science of learning (pp. 525–552). New York: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Dillenbourg, P., Zufferey, G., Alavi, H., Jermann, P., Do-Lenh, S., & Bonnard, Q. (2011). Classroom orchestration: The third circle of usability. InProceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2011 (CSCL 2011) (pp. 510–517). ISLS.

• Dimitracopoulou, A., Mones, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Morch, A., Ludvigsen, S., & Harrer, A. (2004). State of the art on interaction analysis: Interaction analysis indicators. 1–148 Available online:http://ltee.org/adimitr/?page_id=64.

• Dimitrakopoulou, A., Petrou, A., Martinez, A., Marcos, J. A., Kollias, V., Jermann, et al. (2006). State of the art of interaction analysis for Metacognitive Support and Diagnosis. 1–119.Deliverable D.31.1. Available online:http://ltee.org/adimitr/?page_id=64.

• Do-Lenh, S., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Paper-based concept map: The effects of tabletop on an expressive collaborative learning task. InProceedings of the British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2009 (BCH HCI 2009) (pp. 149–158). Cambridge: British Computer Society.

  Google Scholar 

• Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 299–319.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Falcao, T. P., & Price, S. (2009). What have you done! the role of ‘interference’ in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Sollaborative Learning (CSCL 2009) (pp. 325–334). ISLS.

• Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994).Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.

• Fleck, R., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., Marshall, P., Carr, A., Rick, J., et al.. (2009). Actions Speak Loudly with Words: Unpacking Collaboration Around the Table. InProceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2009 (ITS 2009) (pp. 189–196). New York: ACM.

• Gao, H., Shen, E., Losh, S., & Turner, J. (2007). A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what is next?Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4), 479–492.

  Google Scholar 

• Harrer, A., Martínez-Monès, A., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2009). Users’ data: Collaborative and social analysis. InTechnology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 175–193). Netherlands: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Harris, A., Rick, J., Bonnett, V., Yuill, N., Fleck, R., Marshall, P., & Rogers, Y. (2009). Around the table: Are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children’s collaborative interactions? InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2009) (pp. 335–344). ISLS.

• Hilliges, O., Butz, A., Izadi, S., Wilson, A. D., & 221. (2010). Bringing the Physical to the Digital. InTabletops - Horizontal Interactive Displays (p. 189). London: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). An Overview of CSCL Methodologies. InProceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) (pp. 920–921). ISLS.

• Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., Schneider, B., Lucci, A., Lepine, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Physical space and division of labor around a tabletop tangible simulation. InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2009) (pp. 345–349). ISLS.

• Jiang, L., & Hamilton, H. (2003). Methods for Mining Frequent Sequential Patterns. InAdvances in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2671, p. 992). Berlin: Springer.

  Google Scholar 

• Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom.Science and Children, 24(2), 31–32.

  Google Scholar 

• Johnson, D. M., Sutton, P., & Poon, J. (2000). Face-to-Face vs. CMC: Student communication in a technologically rich learning environment. InProceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE 2000) (pp. 509–520). Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.

• Kharrufa, A. S. (2010).Digital tabletops and collaborative learning. Doctoral Dissertation, Newcastle University. (EThOS Persistent ID: uk.bl.ethos.525036).

• Kinnebrew, J. S., Loretz, K. M., & Biswas, G. (2012). A contextualized, differential sequence mining method to derive students’ learning behavior patterns.Journal of Educational Data Mining (JEDM), 5(1), 190–219.

  Google Scholar 

• Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning.Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 1–9.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research.Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Leonard, S., Mary Elizabeth, S., & Samuel, S. D. (1997). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

  Google Scholar 

• Marshall, P., Hornecker, E., Morris, R., Sheep Dalton, N., & Rogers, Y. (2008). When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. InProceedings of the Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, 2008 (TABLETOP 2008). (pp. 33–40). Washington: IEEE.

• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2010). Collaborative concept mapping at the tabletop. InProceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS 2010) (pp. 207–210). New York: ACM.

• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Collins, A., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2011a). Who did what? who said that? Collaid: An environment for capturing traces of collaborative learning at the tabletop. InProceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS2011) (pp. 172–181). New York: ACM.

• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., Wallace, J., & Yacef, K. (2011b). Modelling symmetry of activity as an indicator of collocated group collaboration. InProceedings of the International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2011) (pp. 196–204). Berlin: Springer.

• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., Kay, J., Kharrufa, A., & Al-Qaraghuli, A. (2011c). Analysing frequent sequential patterns of collaborative learning activity around an interactive tabletop. InProceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining 2011 (EDM 2011) (pp. 111–120). IEDMS.

• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Dimitriadis, Y., Kay, J., Yacef, K., & Edbauer, M.-T. (2012a). Orchestrating a multi-tabletop classroom: From activity design to enactment and reflection. InProceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS 2012) (pp. 119–128). 2396655: New York: ACM.

• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., Kay, J., & Schwendimann, B. (2012b). An interactive teacher’s dashboard for monitoring multiple groups in a multi-tabletop learning environment. InProceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2012 (ITS 2012) (pp. 482–492). Berlin: Springer.

• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., Kay, J., & Schwendimann, B. (2012c). Unpacking traces of collaboration from multimodal data of collaborative concept mapping at a tabletop. InProceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2012 (ICLS 2012) (pp. 241–245). ISLS.

• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2013). An automatic approach for mining patterns of collaboration around an interactive tabletop. InProceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education 2013 (AIED 2013) (pp. 101–110). Berlin: Springer.

• Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 63–86.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mercier, E., Higgins, S., Burd, E., & Joyce-Gibbons, A. (2012). Multi-Touch Technology to Support Multiple Levels of Collaborative Learning in the Classroom. InProceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2012 (ICLS 2012) (pp. 187–191). ISLS.

• Molinari, G., Sangin, M., Nüssli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Effects of knowledge interdependence with the partner on visual and action transactivity in collaborative concept mapping. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008 (ICLS 2008) (pp. 91–98). ISLS.

• Müller-Tomfelde, C., & Fjeld, M. (2012). Tabletops: Interactive Horizontal Displays for Ubiquitous Computing.Computer (February), 78–81.

• Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Heuristics. InUsability Engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

• Novak, J. (1995). Concept mapping to facilitate teaching and learning.Prospects, 25(1), 79–86.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Novak, J., & Cañas, A. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use ThemTechnical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006–01. Available online:http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryCmaps/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.htm.

• Olson, J. S., Teasley, S., Covi, L., & Olson, G. (2002). The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work. InDistributed work: New research on working across distance using technology (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Oppl, S., & Stary, C. (2011). Effects of a Tabletop Interface on the Co-construction of Concept Maps. InProceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction 2011 (INTERACT 2011) (pp. 443–460). Berlin: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Perera, D., Kay, J., Koprinska, I., Yacef, K., & Zaiane, O. (2009). Clustering and sequential pattern mining of online collaborative learning data.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(6), 759–772.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Piper, A. M., & Hollan, J. D. (2009). Tabletop displays for small group study: affordances of paper and digital materials. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2009) (pp. 1227–1236). New York: ACM.

• Race, P. (2001).A briefing on self, peer and group assessment. (Assessment, Vol. 9). York Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre.

• Rick, J., Harris, A., Marshall, P., Fleck, R., Yuill, N., & Rogers, Y. (2009). Children designing together on a multi-touch tabletop: An analysis of spatial orientation and user interactions. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children 2009 (IDC 2009) (pp. 106–114). New York: ACM.

• Rick, J., Marshall, P., and Yuill, N. (2011). Beyond one-size-fits-all: How interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. InProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC 2010) (pp. 109–117). 1999043: ACM.

• Rogers, Y., & Lindley, S. (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: Which way is best?Interacting with Computers, 16(6), 1133–1152.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Roman, F., Mastrogiacomo, S., Mlotkowski, D., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012). Can a table regulate participation in top level managers’ meetings? InProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP 2012) (pp. 1–10). New York: ACM.

• Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving. InComputer Supported Collaborative Learning. (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.

• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. d. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. InProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2012) (pp. 252–254). New York: ACM.

• Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Soller, A., Wiebe, J., & Lesgold, A. (2002). A machine learning approach to assessing knowledge sharing during collaborative learning activities. InProceedings of the International Conference on Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2002 (CSCL 2002) (pp. 128–137). ISLS.

• Soller, A., Martinez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261–290.

  Google Scholar 

• Stahl, G. (2006).Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press

• Stahl, G. (2013). Transactive discourse in CSCL.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 145–147.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Talavera, L., and Gaudioso, E. (2004). Mining Student Data to Characterize Similar Behavior Groups in Unstructured Collaboration Spaces. InProceedings of the Workshop on artificial intelligence in CSCL - European Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2004 (ECAI 2004) (pp. 17–23).

• Tanenbaum, K., and Antle, A. N. (2009). Using Physical Constraints to Augment Concept Mapping on a Tangible Tabletop. InProceedings of the International Conference on Education and Information Technology 2009 (ICEIT 2009) (pp. 539–547). San Francisco: IAENG.

• Tang, A., Pahud, M., Carpendale, S., and Buxton, B. (2010). VisTACO: Visualizing tabletop collaboration. InProceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2010 (ITS 2010) (pp. 29–38). New York: ACM.

• Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1–28.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yu, Z., & Nakamura, Y. (2010). Smart meeting systems: A survey of state-of-the-art and open issues.ACM Computing Surveys, 42(2), 1–20.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning?Communications ACM, 47(5), 75–79.

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references