Visualization Forms in the Cross-cultural Collaborative Activities of Design and Development of a Digital Resource for Education

Abstract

Recent studies have demonstrated the integration of visualization technology to support collaboration and stimulate learning performance. The use of visualization tools during the collaborative activities of international students is a worthy topic for further exploration. Based on grounded and activity theories, this research uses observation and qualitative behavior analysis to determine how participants use visualization tools to distinguish the behavior features of learners and to explain the role of these tools in a telecollaborative project. The analysis distinguishes three major types of visualization forms: shaped, diagramed, and tabled presentations, which serve particular epistemic and social demands of collaborative tasks. Findings indicated that visualization forms and tools can enhance collaborative activities by helping international members visualize their thoughts, comprehension, and discussion, although they use different languages and are from diverse cultures. Further research can develop new and effective methods for collaboration and learning using visual support tools.

Keywords

cross-cultural computer-assisted collaborative learning visualization forms visualization tools design and development

Introduction

With the increasing use of technology-mediated and Internet resources in education, computer-supported collaborative learning has become one of the most dynamic research topics in the modern practice of teaching and learning (Henrie, Halverson, & Graham, 2015). In the collaborative learning process, students are challenged to share their ideas, express their thoughts, and engage in discussions to complete tasks (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006). Prior researches on computer-supported collaborative learning have primarily focused on the control of joint activities (e.g., Janssen, Erkens, Kanselaar, & Jaspers, 2007), the differential roles within peer interactions (e.g., Gu, Wang, & Mason, 2017), and the appropriate technologies for supporting collaboration (e.g., Hoffmann & Lingle, 2014, 2015). In general, the collaboration among participants with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds is confronted with significant challenges. For example, the manners in which participants from different cultures interact are highly limited; thus, their successful learning experience is hindered (Kayumova & Sadykova, 2016). Although in-depth conversation matters, the fluency in a common language may be an issue (Yang, Kinshuk, Yu, Chen, & Huang, 2014). Cultural factors, such as thinking styles, also influence the success of cross-cultural collaboration (Gu et al., 2017).

This study considered these challenges and focused on the particular requirements of collaborations between the telecollaboration project participants from China and the United States. The present study aims to investigate the possible support from technologies, particularly visualization technologies, in long-distance, cross-cultural collaborative projects. In this research, a telecollaborative project was set between Chinese and North American students. The participants from each team worked on the design and development of an educational science game. As they worked on different tasks, researchers have observed and analyzed their selection and use of visualization technologies, as well as the benefits they gained in the process. Based on these analyses, researchers have sought to understand how a cross-cultural collaborative project could benefit from visualization technologies. Naturally, language differences present communication challenges in cross-cultural collaboration. However, the extent of mitigation of such difficulties through visualization tools is not widely understood.

This research aims to understand the challenges in collaborations within a cross-cultural context, in which participants faced difficulties in realizing the smooth communication and mutual understanding. By introducing the use of visualization tools, this study attempted to shed light on how visualization technologies support students with different cultural backgrounds and languages in their social communication, discussion, and common knowledge building. In the age of globalization, the results of this investigation can help build knowledge on cross-cultural collaboration by deepening the understanding of the challenges of collaboration and the benefits gained from technologies.

Related Works

Many studies have affirmed that visualization offers learning advantages (Ursyn, 2015). Visualization refers to the presentation of knowledge, information, and data through visual forms to maximize the natural ability of people to quickly identify visual patterns. Visually constructed artifacts serve as external “tools-to-think” (Cox, 1999) and are a way to outsource cognition particularly for the shared knowledge construction in a collaborative context (Keller & Tergan, 2005). Ware (2004) suggested that information visualization stimulates the processes of obtaining and analyzing information from an inner world while not overloading the operating memory of users, which is central to the learning process. The experienced use of visualization technology enables users to render information accessible and influences the efficiency of learning processes and the effectiveness of further knowledge utilization (Larrea & Castro, 2010).

Visualization tools have evolved from simple rock carvings to modern digital sketches. Sawyer (2006) illustrated how computer visualization tools are commonplace as an augmentation to cognition. Numerous studies have addressed modern visualization methods, such as mind mapping. On the one hand, Munneke, van Amelsvoort, and Andriessen (2003) and Winne, Hadwin, and Gress (2010) addressed the correlation between cognitive processes and the use of mind-mapping tools. On the other hand, Damm and Hansen (2005) focused on gesture-based diagramming tools and workspace awareness. They reported that the workspace awareness features of diagramming tools may reduce breakdowns during collaboration and that such a reduction leads to symmetric collaboration patterns and well-coordinated work processes.

The present research examines the problem of cross-cultural understanding of meaning in solving remote collaborative tasks. In addition, this research addresses the usage of visualization among students and its role in cross-cultural collaboration. The following questions are addressed:

How do learners from different countries use visualizations to create a digital product collaboratively?

What visualization forms or tools are used for collaboration tasks?

How do groups use these visualization forms to carry out tasks?

How do these visualization forms and tools affect the collaboration among students with different languages?

Do any special functions of visualization forms and tools exist during the collaborative development of a game?

Are any elements (especially those of the learning task) related to the choice of visualization form or tool?

Do visualization forms positively affect cross-cultural collaboration?

Research Design

Participants

This study involved 26 Chinese graduate students majoring in educational technology and 27 American graduate students majoring in science education. Their task included the creation of an educational science game for K-12 students through remote collaboration. The participants were divided into 13 groups; each group consisted of four students: two American students (US-Ss) were responsible for game design and two Chinese students (CSs) were tasked with game development. This strategy ensured that all responsibilities were shared according to a customer–merchant model, where two parties acted the roles approximated to customers and merchants.

US-Ss were required to address the science standard while discussing their approximate grade level and sharing their ideas with the CSs. Participants could choose the time and manner of communication. US-Ss should inform CSs on how the game works and describe its basic features, such as user interface, level division, and difficulties that users may encounter. All participants were expected to communicate at least twice a week while designing and developing the game. Thereafter, CSs were required to deliver the Flash-based game to US-Ss for pretesting. US-Ss established a field test that included at least three US-Ss from the target audience. CSs modified the game after receiving feedback in the field test. The students completed the evaluation, survey, and course paper together. The learning activities in the 13 groups were organized and conducted by the participants through e-mail and Skype at least twice a week for 3 months. Participants were allowed to consult their supervisor when necessary.

Procedure

The implementation of this research consisted of the task presentation, in-process observation, and final interview. Three activities for collaboration, namely, cognitive, social, and regulative activities, were considered.

Two visualization tools, namely, MindManager and XMind, were presented to participants at the beginning of the research. These tools were used during the design, development, discussion, and communication phases. Other relevant tools, such as Photoshop, Fireworks, Flash, Word, and PowerPoint, could also be used to display their ideas, as well as the game content or any other aspect of the joint development. During the joint activities, students were instructed to choose the scientific content of the game design through a discussion in order to represent the components of the game in visual forms with proper tools. They were also instructed to communicate through conference calls and to capture screenshots of their conference calls or game designs.

The time and place of the activities were selected by the students. The researchers coordinated with the groups on the time and place of the activities and joined them to record the main operations of the design process and the characteristics of communication. Each group was assigned to a researcher, who continuously observed the participants during the activities. All students were interviewed at the end of the course.

Data Collection

Data were collected through in-process observation and in-depth interviews. A shadowed in-process observation was employed (Choy, O’Grady, & Rotgans, 2012). During the distant collaboration, each session of the teleteam conversation, which included their exchange of artifacts to facilitate mutual understanding, was captured as the observation source. The interactions were observed by the researcher on location or captured through screen recording for later analysis. A template with key observation indicators was used to take note of the observations and to use for the later analysis of the recording (see Table 1). A total of 113 observation notes were gathered, 65 of which were notes of the recorded sessions.

Table 1.

Shadowed Observation Indicators.

Observations	Act or operate	Visualization forms
Distant meeting	To draw something with which tool for which purpose To mark with which instrument on what To show some real object for which purpose To gesture with … To send documents with which tool	Images, shapes, and graphs, Diagrams, tables, and lists Marks, icons, and symbols Real things, such as a toy dog Game elements, such as scenes, user interface, plots, and agents
Screen sharing	To show the screen of … To draw with …
Designed products	To paint what with which tool To draw what with which software To diagram or to organize something like …
Developing or programming	To draw which element with which tool To paint what with …

The key observation indicators are typical operations and outcomes of the use of visualization methods and tools in designing and communicating according to activity theory (Hasan & Kazlauskas, 2014). The template of the observation notes includes these elements: how to do what, with what, and for which purpose. An example of a record is “designing and creating, where student Jane diagrammed the knowledge of ‘genetic distribution’ with XMind, which is the scientific content of the game.” Table 1 presents the sampled observation indicators.

All participants were invited to an interview at the end of the project. A total of 92% CSs participated in the face-to-face interview. The interview invitations were e-mailed to each US-S with an attached outline. In the invitation, US-Ss were asked to return their voice recordings detailing their experiences in the collaborative development of the games. In total, 21 US-Ss returned their recordings.

The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Four main issues were examined: (a) the tools mainly used to simplify certain tasks; (b) the personal feelings of the participants when applying different visualization methods and tools; (c) the roles of these visualization methods and tools in design, development, and communication; and (d) the explanation for particular choices of visualization techniques.

Each transcription was read by two researchers, and the data were obtained from each “question–answer” segment in the conversations. For example, the meaning of “graph or diagram can make things clear, help me to understand” was selected from the “question–answer” segments given here.

Researcher: Do you think that the graph or diagram helped in your communication? What do you think about visualization forms and tools?

Jane: I think it helped me think clearly. Maybe, it looks clear, and I can grasp it again once I see it next time.

Angel: I feel that the drawing can make one understand something confusing.

Data Analysis

Data from the observations and interviews were collated and analyzed by three researchers. Grounded and activity theories were used to guide the analysis, organize data, and understand the learning activities in the context of cultural and historical environments (Hasan & Kazlauskas, 2014). In particular, activity theory was used to help distinguish the operations and activities with visualization.

Observation and interview data were organized in two ways to answer the questions. One way was to code data pertaining to the usage of visualization forms and tools in order to calculate the amount and distribution of the usages and attitudes in groups. Another way was to organize data through the form of “act-pattern” grounded on the context based on activity theory (Hasan & Kazlauskas, 2014), that is, data were collated in the form of “context, group, operate-object that involved visualizing tools and the change of outcomes.” Subsequently, the relationships among visualization forms, outcomes, and tools can be determined. Therefore, researchers can separate these different contexts into various activities and distinguish the potential of a particular function of visualization by extracting the changes caused by these “operating objects” (see Hasan & Kazlauskas, 2014, pp. 11−12). Figure 1 shows the matrix structure for organizing data for the behavior analysis included in the data linkage.

Figure 1.

Data linkage of the matrix structure for behavior analysis. “V-Tools” refer to visualization tools; “V-Forms” denote visualization forms.

Based on the abovementioned method, observation notes were used to describe the data on the use of visualization tools, such as drawing sketches, creating diagrams with different software tools, and noting the roles and functions extracted from the data. Interview data were used to coevaluate the features and functions of the visualization forms. Features and functions could be used to discuss how visualization forms and tools supported the collaborative process and to determine whether the participating students benefitted from the visualization and whether the visualization tools played a role in the collaborative process.

According to the matrix structure in Figure 1, the “act-pattern” data were changed to “activities, operations, tools used in the operation, and type of graphics or outcomes of the operation (i.e., visualization forms).” Two types of activities, namely, designing and communicating, were distinguished by operation and purpose. The context in which the operations occurred was used to distinguish the operation purposes that were enabled by the assistive function of the visualization form or tool. Clustered data were classified and systemized.

The facilitation enabled by visualization forms and tools in the different activities in this work can be further analyzed by categorizing the “act-pattern” data by either the activity or the visualization form (Hasan & Kazlauskas, 2014). For example, grouping the visualization forms used in the communicating activity can provide insights into the importance of visualization in assisting expression and comprehension during communication. Interview data were also used to echo the observation results from a different perspective, which mainly involved the participants’ perceptions on the visualization forms and tools and their functions, as well as the participants’ reflections on their reason for using specific visual techniques.

Results

Visualizing Tools and Forms Involved in Collaborative Tasks

Some tools were used mainly and frequently in most groups to produce outcomes. Figure 2 presents additional details.

Figure 2.

Visual outcomes and tool usage in groups. Blue points represent that either relevant visualization tools were used in this subgroup for at least one game element or task or that an outcome was produced.

According to the task specification, students were free to design and develop the educational game as long as they could reach a mutual understanding. Many tools, outcomes, and visualization forms were involved in presenting and discussing within the context. The results indicated that the participants used various tools to present their designs or ideas. Scene graph and interface picture were the most frequently used, as they were the basic outcomes in the task (Figure 2), followed by flow structure showing the frame or path of game running, script with graphics sometimes in table form, and logic diagram of knowledge content. Groups 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 created more than three types of outcomes as the game component of the game, seven groups created at least two outcomes, whereas one group produced only one (Figure 2). These findings indicate that visualization tools were mainly used in this case and that their corresponding visual outcomes could be adopted in communication.

Usage of Visualization Forms in Groups for Collaborative Task

The visualization forms hidden in production and communication were distinguished to evaluate the particular function of visualization. Table 2 shows the visualization forms used for designing the game outcomes. Table 3 presents the tools and visualization forms mainly used for communication within the groups. Presenting is a fundamental role in design and communication.

Table 2.

Visualization Forms of Design.

Outcomes	Visualization forms	Tools involved	Total groups
Script	Table, list	Word	6
Scene or interface	Image, geometric figure, sketch	Flash, Photoshop paper and pencil	13
Flowage structure (plot, rule, etc.)	Diagram, sketch	Xmind, white board paper and pencil	7
Roles and props	Image, sketch	MS Paint, freehand painting	2
Knowledge content	Diagram, sketch	Xmind, paper and pencil, PowerPoint drawing	4

Note. Each group used a tool and a form at least once.

Table 3.

Visualization Forms of Communication.

Act of communication	Visualization forms	Tools involved	Related groups
To pass outcomes	Documents	Skype or e-mail	1–13
To capture screen	Screenshots	Alt + PrtSc or Skype	4, 5, 7, 11, and 12
To convey	Picture file or sample	Skype or e-mail	2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11
To draw or mark	Diagram or mark, freehand sketch	Paper and pencil, white board, Skype	2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13
To show	Real objects	Skype	3 and 11
To gesture	Gesture	Body, Skype	3, 7, and 13
To list business	List or table	Notepad or Word	5, 10, and 11

Note. Each group used a tool and a form at least once. The “documents” included different game outcomes.

Presenting the overall design requirements

The rows of “Visualization forms” and “Tools involved” in Table 2 demonstrate that multiple visualization choices were used for the purposes of design, as indicated in the row of “Outcomes.”

Presenting the idea of design in distant communication

Table 3 presents the visualization forms used in communication. Visualization forms and tools were linked to particular acts during the course of communication, as indicated in this table.

Tables 2 and 3 show that a set of visualization forms was employed to either present outcomes or to support communication. The image, geometric figure, and sketch were the main forms used by all groups to present scene graphs or game interface. The groups used similar forms in representing roles and props.

Various diagram forms were mainly used for abstract or general contents. The order of testing scientific knowledge, the setting of different difficulty levels, and the path of the game process were mainly represented with flow or logic diagrams. These outcomes were displayed to express the idea of the game design, such as the scene of the game story, the roles and props of the game setting, and the interface of interaction, plot, and rules, among others. Tables were another good form for structuring elements, such as a plot order (Table 2).

For communication, diagrams, screenshots, and freehand sketches were used as visualization forms by most groups when they talked through Skype; sending outcome documents and conveying picture files were the major forms of visualization in communication through e-mail. The basic goal of these forms was to inform students or partners about the task. Table or lists are good forms for outlining (Table 3).

Overall, the features of using visualization forms were diverse and depended on the design and communication requirements, especially the requirement of presenting the design elements of the game between two parties. Design and communication are the two basic activities according to the major purpose of this collaborative project. Table 4 shows the details of the visualization forms used for the design and communication in groups.

Table 4.

Visualization Forms Used in Groups.

Activities	Visualization forms	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	Total
Design	Table or list			Y			Y		Y		Y		Y	Y	6
	Image	Y	Y		Y		Y	Y	Y	Y		Y		Y	9
	Geometric figure	Y		Y		Y	Y			Y	Y		Y		7
	Diagram		Y	Y		Y		Y	Y	Y	Y				7
	Freehand sketches		Y			Y		Y	Y	Y	Y			Y	7
Communication	Outcome files	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	13
	Screenshots				Y	Y		Y				Y	Y		5
	Picture files		Y		Y			Y	Y	Y		Y			6
	Draw or marking diagram		Y			Y		Y	Y	Y	Y			Y	7
	Game sample											Y			1
	Issues list or table					Y					Y	Y			3
	Body gestures			Y				Y						Y	3
	Real objects			Y								Y			2
Total		3	6	6	4	7	4	8	7	7	7	7	4	6	76

Note. The yes (Y) marks indicate that either corresponding visualization tools were used in this subgroup in at least one game element or task or that an outcome was produced.

Freehand sketches were significant during design and communication, as their convenience could help in understanding the discussion or work presented. Freehand sketches are one of the main visualization forms in Tables 2 and 3. As determined from the observation and verified from the interview, freehand sketching was sometimes used in the discussion, and some of these sketches resulted in the final graphic design used by CSs for programming.

Role of Visualization Forms in Game Design and Facilitating Communication

Table 4 shows that various visualization forms were mainly used to present the scenes, rules, logical order, and activities of the educational game design and to illustrate something to assist discussion. To clearly determine their special functions, researchers have used typical operations in “act-pattern,” which were listed and used to distinguish the function of visualization forms, according to the context involving the operations (Tables 5 and 6).

Table 5.

Function of Visualization Outcomes and Tools in Game Design.

Outcomes	Typical operations	Functions	Groups involved
Scripts	Present game design details with tables or slides	Represent	3, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13
Scene graphs and interface pictures	Draw to present game scenes clearly with Flash or Photoshop	Represent	2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13
Scene graphs and interface pictures	Present the game’s user interface with Flash	Represent	1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12
Flowage structure	Present branches of game proceedings, steps of the operating mode, and the order of quiz content using special software, such as XMind	Represent	2, 4, 7, 9, and 10
Flowage structure	Use sketches to specify design features, such as a box diagram	Represent	5, 7, 8, and 10
Roles and props	Present ideas about game design	Represent	9 and 11
Content logic diagram	Draw a logic diagram of scientific knowledge with hand or Xmind	Represent	3, 6, 9, and 10

Note. A set of groups associated with a row in the table means that the operation was performed in the groups at least once.

Table 6.

Roles of Visual Types and Tools in Communication.

Visualization forms	Typical operations	Functions	Groups involved
Scene graphs and interface pictures	Define the design features and settle misunderstandings	Show, comprehend	1 to 13
Screenshots	Convey information, including the effect of the game and the prompt for action. Express exact ideas	Show, comprehend	4, 5, 11, and 12 5 and 7
Picture files	Send picture files and inform the partner about what have been designed or created	Show, comprehend	2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11
Game samples	Use game samples to support communication	Show	11
Freehand draw or mark	Draw anything brought up by group members according to one’s own understanding during an online conversation	Present, show, comprehend	2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13
Freehand draw or mark	Used for objects that are difficult to describe through language	Present, show	2, 7, and 10
Real objects	Show objects or content to the partner from the other country	Show	3 and 11
Body gestures	Transmit message or express idea	Express	3, 7, and 13
Issue lists	List current issues, enumerate the schedule of the development plan	Present	5, 10, and 11

Note. The set of groups associated with a row in the table means that the operation was performed in groups at least once.

Representation is the basic function of these visualization forms (Table 2), and it was used to produce these outcomes. In addition, images, geometric figures, and diagrams, such as the concept map, were mainly used to present concrete or abstract issues, as shown in Table 5. Therefore, scene graphs and interface pictures were significant in presenting the design results, and the scripts and flow structure in tables and diagrams, respectively, helped in effectively presenting the structures.

These designs were completed either by software tools or by freehand sketching. For example, Figure 3 shows a concrete game design, which clearly informs the developing partner on what the game should look like. In most groups, the highly recommended software XMind played an effective role in operating abstract issues, such as organizing the science knowledge involved in the game and designing the route of the game story.

Figure 3.

Example of visualization using freehand sketching.

Table 6 shows that most groups used numerous visualization forms for clear visual expression and improved comprehension. Screenshots, diagrams, and picture files were the main forms used. Screenshots and freehand sketches facilitated the operation according to the observation. Screenshots and picture files were also used when a design was in process and when an exchange of design ideas was necessary. Furthermore, freehand sketches were utilized to enhance communication because these helped the two parties easily represent their ideas along with or without language. In brief, the roles of visualization forms and tools were fulfilled by the behavior of “present/show and express” and worked at the levels of cognition and sociality in helping students comprehend, think, discuss, and communicate.

Related Reasons for Choosing Visualization Forms

For the entire context of collaboration, several aspects affect the usage of visualization forms, relative to tasks, individual characteristics, and even partners. These aspects are given here along with typical cases or useful information.

Reasons for using visualization forms that resulted from the task: In Table 2, a set of game outcomes is listed along with visualization forms. These outcomes are determined by the task of game making with two basic parts, namely, abstract idea construction and concrete appearance, which can be represented by diagrams and images or figures. All visualization forms were demanded by the requirements of the task, such as scene, plot, and flow.

Individual reasons for using visualization forms: Interviews showed that some visualization forms or tools, such as freehand drawing, thinking map, and white board, were used because they were liked or used often. Therefore, the considerable use of visualization forms and tools could be influenced by the traits of students, such as their interests, habits, and awareness (see Table 7).

Reasons for using visualization forms resulting from some conveniences: Some conveniences of the context also apply in the use of visualization forms. For example, in Group 7, CSs followed their partners in drawing the other scenes or interfaces of the game after their U.S. partners provided them this first scene. This situation appears because of the convenience provided by partners.

Table 7.

Individual Reasons for Using Visualization Forms.

Item	Comments	Factor	Related groups
Reason for using the visualizations	I like to support my ideas with freehand sketching and mind maps during interpersonal communication.	Interest	9 and 10
	I believe that situational drawing by graphs is a natural tendency.	Habit	8 and 10
	An average American student is used to present information in a graphical form.		7
	I have a habit of drawing graphics for presentation.		2
	I am aware of the advantages of graphics.	Awareness	8 and 10
	I feel that it is easy to use visualization forms during my educational and work activities. Graphics are clear and can connect to life experiences.	Awareness	8

Note. Each comment in the table was expressed explicitly at least once.

Similarly, many groups used freehand drawing and marking with paper and pencil during the discussion because they were an easy and convenient way to aid in understanding and sharing ideas (Tables 3 and 4). These tables list numerous acts for communication and visualization forms. Therefore, the visualization forms either provided some convenient benefits or were provided conveniently; thus, they were chosen for collaboration.

Possible Positive Effect of Visualization on Cross-Cultural Collaboration

In combining the materials from the observation and interviews, the effect of visualization forms was investigated. Visualization forms constantly play a significant role in groups with members with different backgrounds because of the common visual perception and similar understanding of the visualized information.

Visualization forms can supplement the communication shortage through language: The visualization forms listed in Tables 3 and 4 were used to show the game outcomes and the objects that students thought and discussed. Fully understanding a particular design requirement in the project is difficult sometimes. Even in tasks that mainly include concepts and logic, a diagram used as visualization can be useful. Most groups directly or indirectly suggested that visualization could present more details than language as a supplement (Figure 4).

Visualization forms helped some members with low-language proficiency: CSs cannot use English freely, and some have communication barriers. A survey conducted for CSs by e-mail after the course showed that 7.7% of the students only understood a few words and spoke several simple sentences in English but could not completely express their thoughts, that 50% understood major but incomplete meanings and expressed their own ideas without all the details, and that 42.3% entirely understood and expressed themselves completely albeit imperfectly sometimes.

Figure 4.

Indicated benefits of visualization.

Therefore, the benefits of visualization forms for this aspect were observed (Figure 4, Line 2). Visualization helped students with low proficiencies in speaking and listening present what they mean to say, as pointed out in the interview (Table 9).

Visualization forms can enhance thinking and understanding in design or discussion: According to the interview, visualization can help in thinking and understanding. Students have a positive attitude toward the roles of visualization forms, and they acknowledge the function of visualization, which were verified from the comments and categorized further in terms of the functions of design and communication, as shown in Tables 8 and 9. A few thoughts pertained to the limited roles of visualization forms, such as “just helping to organize clearly,” as mentioned, but its role in thinking and understanding stands.

Table 8.

Students’ Comments on Visualization Forms in Design.

Item	Comments on the use of visualization forms	Functions for learning	Related groups
Benefits of visualization forms	Graphics support the clear presentation of design information.	Assist to present and comprehend	2, 7, 9, 5, 6, and 8
	Graphics can help understand information.		2
	Graphics can help in expressing and understanding coherently.		5
	Interface pictures can display game design better than words.		12 and 6
	Graphics make design clear. Flow charts can distinctly present the branches and process of the game.		4
	Graphs and diagrams can provide information about the educational game.		4
	Graphics help in thinking and understanding.	Help to remember, enhance to comprehend, benefit thinking	2
	Graphics and diagrams help in organizing thoughts.		2 and 10
	Freehand sketches provide visual association.		9
	Obtaining content by viewing something without using many words is easy.		10
	Graphics can provide insights into confusing ideas. Graphics also facilitate understanding in some cases.		10

Note. Each comment was expressed explicitly at least once.

Table 9.

Students’ Comments on the Use of Visualization in Communication.

Item	Comments on the use of visualization forms	Functions for learning	Related groups
Benefits of visualization forms	Screenshots and body gestures help express, comprehend, and communicate.	Assist to express and comprehend Promote communication	13 and 10
	Screenshots or pictures are used to discuss the game’s scene design.		9 and 7
	Body gestures can enhance expression and comprehension.		3 and 13
	Graphics clarify ideas better than words in communication.		5
	Graphics or diagrams facilitate understanding between partners.		5, 6, and 8
	Graphics enhance expression and understanding in communication in different languages.		2 and 7
	Graphics can help manage communication time.		10

Note. Each comment was expressed explicitly at least once.

Clearly, most students were aided by visualization in their presentation, understanding, and outcomes. In addition, their comments were helpful in affirming the positive role of visualization forms in promoting mutual understanding during the collaboration of students with different cultural backgrounds. Most students experienced the advantages of visualization in communication. Therefore, the analysis on the collated comments on visualization forms and tools verifies the functions determined from the typical operations in Tables 6 and 7.

Discussion

The combined data showed the use of visualization in design and communication. Additional discussions are necessary to address how visualization helps students achieve mutual understanding in collaborative activities (i.e., design, development, and discussion) during distant collaboration. The practical implication of visualization is also discussed. The basic supporting function of visualization forms is the presentation in codesign and codevelopment. Moreover, visualization forms play an extensive role in comprehending and thinking during the interaction between these forms and learners.

Many graphs and diagrams are used to design and represent different components of educational games and to assist in thinking and imagining during task processes. One of the most common visualization forms was shape representation using geometric figures, whereas images and graphics were largely used to implement scene images and user interface pictures, which the participants used to present ideas about the setting of the game and to ensure the understanding within the group.

Another visualization form used was diagram representation. Flow charts and logic diagrams are examples of this form. This visualization form helped students analyze and resolve problems by presenting the structure of the issue. This finding is consistent with that of previous research, such as the study that used the visualization software Access to Global Online Research on Agriculture to help students produce an argument map to structure communication and solve problems in groups (Hoffmann & Borenstein, 2014).

The most remarkable visualization form used in the study was freehand sketch, which is important because of its simplicity (Chansri & Koomsap, 2014). Freehand sketching is one of the most convenient approaches and appears as a good choice for presenting ideas in game design and game elements during codesign and collaboration. Seven groups used freehand sketch in the project (see Table 4 and Figure 3 for examples).

The use of visualization forms was closely related to their functions and roles in learning tasks, which are determined by task requirements. Moreover, a learner’s interests, habits, expertise, and expectations were related to the choice of visualization. The basic function of visualization forms can further support thinking during design, as Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson (1991) noted that cognitive tools play an important role in learning, amplifying, and expanding what students could learn. Working on tasks with useful visualization tools is an important approach in assisting cognition and thought, which is consistent with the findings of Hoffmann and Borenstein (2014).

The basic supporting functions of visualization forms during communication are presentation and expression. In addition, their extensive roles, which occur during the interaction between these forms and learners, are comprehension and communication. This function is particularly important when a common fluent language is unavailable.

Visualization forms helped students present or show their ideas clearly, easily comprehend their partners’ thinking, and express their own notions or comments spontaneously. Graphs and diagrams facilitated the understanding between group members and partners with minimal or no language used through visual comprehension, which allowed them to develop the game together. Similar to that in the current study, the diagram can help maintain attention (Munneke et al., 2003) to keep learners engaged. When the level of engagement between learners and the visualization tool is high, the positive effect of visualization on the collaboration process increases (Myller, Bednarik, & Sutinen, 2009).

The visualization outcomes of the game are worthy of further exploration because the communication between the US-S and CS participants was largely based on these outcomes. Our results confirmed that the shift in representational modalities from equations to graphs was a critical factor in transforming the conceptions of students (Stenning, Greeno, Rogers, Sommerfeld, & Wiebe, 2002). Furthermore, these results corroborated that visualization promoted student performance through the internal and external representations of the game design and through the link among students with different languages and backgrounds. Modifying pictures is often used to present feedback, ideas, and options and to share personal remarks or labels. Visualized communication engages members (Laakso, Myller, & Korhonen, 2010), given that visualization forms are used as a basis for discussion or presentation of outcomes during interaction. The frequencies of collaboration and discussion increase when the level of engagement increases.

Sketches of a graph or a diagram are also used to enhance understanding during communication because their usage enables their partners to capture the main meaning expressed. Chabris and Kosslyn (2005) affirmed that diagrams or graphs can assist students by removing irrelevant details while preserving or highlighting essential objects of the game and spatial relations. Diagram tools allowed members to focus on, navigate, and find the right path in abstract and general operations. Similarly, Reimann and Kay (2010) confirmed that concept map visualizations perform an epistemic function and that most students find visualizations to be informative and helpful.

The utilization of visualization forms and tools remarkably influences collaboration. Sharing thoughts and graphic presentations during this collaboration is influenced largely by factors such as features of tasks, visualization tools, and personal preferences. Sharing among group members can be realized through different forms and functions, such as sketching, whereas listening, gesture communication, and visual feedback are supported by a picture or a diagram. These visualization forms are similar to architectural sketches used to represent details and to determine all the structures in the design and collaborative process (Suwa & Tversky, 1997).

Considering the nature of the task in this work, the various visualization tools and forms played a remarkable role in supporting coactivities and distant communication, which is cross-cultural and involves different languages. Visualization tools encourage collaboration among students who otherwise would have a difficult time to work together, in which expression and comprehension are the core points.

Conclusion

The present research investigated the visualization behaviors and outcomes of Chinese and American graduate students during their collaborative project in designing and developing an educational science game for K-12 students. Moreover, this research focused on visualization forms and categorized their digital parts into shape, diagram, and table representations, which served as particular epistemic and social demands of collaborative tasks by representation and expression.

Presentation and expression engage students in design and communication by thinking and comprehending, respectively. Graphs and diagrams can help in concrete or abstract tasks, and structure is the key point in using diagrams and tables. Individual aptitude and any environmental convenience may play a role in the period, and freehand drawing, such as sketches, is a good case. Two main activities are performed during collaboration, namely, design and communication, which are served by these visualization forms and tools. Visualization forms help in visualizing concepts in design and in expressing them in communication. Therefore, they assist in thinking and comprehending during collaboration.

The results demonstrate that the use of visualization forms and tools can help students engage in problem solving and focus on the outcomes of game elements to improve learning performance. Visualization forms and tools synchronize collaborative activities much better by helping members with different backgrounds comprehend, share, and discuss in various forms. However, visualization forms only help students reduce their language problems. This result has no statistical significance and has minimal influence in this study. Various tasks for collaboration require different digital collaborative environments and support in cooperative activities (i.e., thinking, discussing, and communicating activities). These results imply that using appropriate visualization forms for specific tasks and learning content is useful in promoting future achievements.

The present study offers the following suggestions and recommendations:

A special environment for collaborative tasks is necessary. Many tools, such as Flash software, are involved, but they are not a complete collaborative environment for the task. The proper components and corresponding functions are important parts of the collaborative environment because they enable learners to easily engage in tasks.

For tasks involving design, a set of easy-to-use visual functions should be required for representation in various forms. These functions of tools should enable every group member to conveniently edit the outcomes collaboratively. Preparing the correct visual forms of visualizing tools, such as images, graphs, diagrams, maps, lists, and tables, is an interesting topic that developers should consider.

Graphs and diagrams are the two basic functions that should be provided, as two basic situations occur when working on something concrete and abstract. One is to create a visible entity, and the other is to consider its idea.

Visualization forms can support collaborative groups in at least two types of activities. One is to help in thinking and creating relative to the epistemic process, whereas the other is to help in expressing and discussing during communication. Taking more time to prepare for these activities is a good step to improve proficiency.

The main limitation of this study is that it was conducted in a particular circumstance; the study included graduate students in educational technology and science education designing and developing a scientific game. The current research described many aspects, such as the involvement of different tools, the use of visualizations, the main function of visualization forms in design and communication, the outcomes of learning tasks, and the influence of visualization forms and tools on learning experience. However, some questions still require further research.

Further studies will focus on two directions: designing and applying visualization for cross-cultural collaboration learning. One direction is to design and prepare appropriate visualization forms or tools to support coping with collaborative tasks in multiple cultural backgrounds. The other is to design and prepare tools for learners with different cultural backgrounds for them to learn and benefit from collaboration.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Peak Discipline Construction Project of Education at East China Normal University.

Author Biographies

Guolong Quan is a PhD candidate in the Department of Educational Information Technology at East China Normal University. His main research focus is computer-supported collaborative problem solving.

Xiaoqing Gu is professor of educational technology in the Faculty of Education at East China Normal University, P. R. China. Her main research interests are learning science, learning design, and computer-supported collaborative learning.

References

Chabris

C. F.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(2005) Representational correspondence as a basic principle of diagram design. In: Tergan

S.-O.

Keller

(eds) Knowledge and information visualization, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 36–57.

Chansri

Koomsap

(2014) Sketch-based modeling from a paper-based overtraced freehand sketch. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 75(5): 705–729.

Choy

J. L. F.

O'Grady

Rotgans

J. I.

(2012) Is the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) a good predictor of academic achievement? Examining the mediating role of achievement-related classroom behaviours. Instructional Science 40(1): 159–172.

Cox

(1999) Representation, construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction 9: 343–363.

Damm, C. H., & Hansen, K. M. (2005). An evaluation of workspace awareness in collaborative, gesture-based diagramming tools. In Fincher S., Markopoulos P., Moore D., Ruddle R. (Eds.) People and computers XVIII—Design for life. London, England: Springer-Verlag.

Wang

Mason

(2017) Are they thinking differently: A cross-cultural study on the relationship of thinking styles and emerging roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society 20(1): 13–24.

Hasan

Kazlauskas

(2014) Activity theory: Who is doing what, why and how. In: Hasan

(ed.) Being practical with theory: A window into business research, Wollongong, Australia: THEORI, pp. 9–14.

Hoffmann

Borenstein

(2014) Understanding ill-structured engineering ethics problems through a collaborative learning and argument visualization approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 20: 261–276.

Hoffmann, M. H. G., & Lingle, J. A. (2015). Facilitating Problem-Based Learning by Means of Collaborative Argument Visualization Software. Teaching Philosophy, 38(4), 371–398. http://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil2015112039.

10.

Henrie

C. R.

Halverson

L. R.

Graham

C. R.

(2015) Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education 90: 36–53.

11.

Janssen

Erkens

Kanselaar

Jaspers

(2007) Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education 49: 1037–1065. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004.

12.

Kayumova

A. R.

Sadykova

G. V.

(2016) Online collaborative cross-cultural learning: Students' perspectives. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict 20: 248–255.

13.

Keller

Tergan

S.-O.

(2005) Visualizing knowledge and information: An Introduction. In: Tergan

S.-O.

Keller

(eds) Knowledge and information visualization, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 36–57.

14.

Laakso

M. J.

Myller

Korhonen

(2010) Interaction promotes collaboration and learning: Video analysis of algorithm visualization use during collaborative learning. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 45: 198–211.

15.

Larrea

Castro

(2010) Semantics-based visualization. Paper presented at the CACIC 2010-XVI Congreso Argentino de ciencias de la computacion, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad de Morón.

16.

Munneke

van Amelsvoort

Andriessen

(2003) The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research 39(1–2): 113–131.

17.

Myller

Bednarik

Sutinen

(2009) Extending the engagement taxonomy: Software visualization and collaborative learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 9(1): 1–27.

18.

Reimann

Kay

(2010) Learning to learn and work in net-based teams: Supporting emergent collaboration with visualization tools. In: Jacobson

M. J.

Reimann

(eds) Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences, New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, pp. 148–188.

19.

Salomon

Perkins

D. N.

Globerson

(1991) Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher 20(3): 2–9.

20.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2006) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Stahl

Koschmann

Suthers

D. D.

(2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In: Sawyer

R. K.

(ed.) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 409–426.

22.

Stenning

Greeno

J. G.

Rogers

Sommerfeld

Wiebe

(2002) Coordinating mathematical with biological multiplication: Conceptual learning as the development of heterogeneous reasoning systems. In: Brna

Baker

Stenning

Tiberghien

(eds) The Role of Communication in Learning To Model, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3–48.

23.

Suwa

Tversky

(1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies 18(4): 385–403.

24.

Ursyn

(2015) Handbook of research on maximizing cognitive learning through knowledge visualization, Hershey, PA: Information Science Referencedoi:10.1002/ejoc.201200111.

25.

Ware

(2004) Information visualization: Perception for design, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

26.

Winne

P. H.

Hadwin

A. F.

Gress

(2010) The learning kit project: Software tools for supporting and researching regulation of collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior 26(5): 787–793.

27.

Yang

Kinshuk, Yu

Chen

S.-J.

Huang

(2014) Strategies for smooth and effective cross-cultural online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society 17(3): 208–221.