Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 78, Issue 10, pp 13461–13487 | Cite as

Turn taking with turn-talk in group

Actions and reflections with children and teachers
  • Rosella GennariEmail author
  • Alessandra Melonio
  • Mehdi Rizvi


Conversations are structured by norms for turn taking. Turn taking is practiced in primary schools, starting from 8 years of age, when turn taking is used for managing group conversations. Being rather abstract for children to master, teachers use physical objects to convey turn taking. However, such physical objects tend not to be effective with children. Past research indicates that interactive tangible objects (briefly, tangibles) might help primary school classes master turn taking and positively affect their conversation behaviours. The research of this paper pursues this idea and shows how a meta-design approach, based on action research, can help design tangibles for conveying turn taking in group. The paper focuses on several actions with TurnTalk in the same primary school classroom with 9–10 years old children, and it shows how actions led to benefits for the class and designers.


Action research Meta-design Tangible Conversation Children Teachers 



  1. 1.
    Africano D, Berg S, Lindbergh K, Lundholm P, Nilbrink F, Persson A (2004) Designing tangible interfaces for children’s collaboration. In: CHI ’04 Ext Abs on Human Factors in Comp Sys, CHI EA ’04. ACM, New York, pp 853–868Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony L, Brown Q, Nias J, Tate B (2013) Examining the need for visual feedback during gesture interaction on mobile touchscreen devices for kids. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children, IDC ’13. ACM, New York, pp 157–164Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachour K, Kaplan F, Dillenbourg P (2010) An interactive table for supporting participation balance in face-to-face collaborative learning. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 3(3):203–213Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Commun AIS 2(3es):1–32Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergstrom T, Karahalios K (2007) Conversation clock: Visualizing audio patterns in co-located groups. In: Proceedings of 40th Annual Hawaii Int Conf on System Sciences, HICSS ’07. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 78–Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blatchford P, Pellegrini A, Baines D (2016) The child at school RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brondino M, Dodero G, Gennari R, Melonio A, Pasini M, Raccanello D, Torello S (2015) Emotions and inclusion in Co-design at school: Let’s measure them!. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cabitza F, Fogli D, Piccinno A (2014) Each to his own: Distinguishing activities, roles and artifacts in EUD practices. In: Smart organizations and smart artifacts, pp 193–205. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costabile M F, Fogli D, Mussio P, Piccinno A (2007) Visual interactive systems for end-user development A model-based design methodology. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 37(6):1029–1046Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Mascio T, Gennari R, Tarantino L, Vittorini P (2017) Designing visualizations of temporal relations for children: action research meets hci. Multimed Tools Appl 76(4):4855–4893Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Díaz P, Aedo I, van der Vaart M (2015) Engineering the creative co-design of augmented digital experiences with cultural heritage, Springer International Publishing, ChamGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DiMicco JM, Hollenbach KJ, Pandolfo A, Bender W (2007) The impact of increased awareness while face-to-face. Hum-Comput Interc 22(1):47–96Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dodero G, Gennari R, Melonio A, Torello S (2014) Gamified Co-design with cooperative learning. In: CHI ’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, CHI EA ’14. New York, ACM, pp 707–718Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duncan S (1972) Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. J Pers Soc Psychol 23(2):283Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fogli D, Giaccardi E, Acerbis A, Filisetti F (2015) Physical prototyping of social products through end-user development. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 217–222Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fosnot C T (2005) Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. Teachers College PressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fu C, Dhanda K, Exposito Gomez M, Kim H, Turntable Y Z (2017) Towards more equivalent turn-taking. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, TEI ’17. ACM, New York, pp 609–615Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gennari R, Melonio A, Raccanello D, Brondino M, Dodero G, Pasini M, Torello S (2017) Children’s emotions and quality of products in participatory game design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 101:45–61Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gennari R, Melonio A, Rizvi M (2017) The participatory design process of tangibles for children’s socio-emotional learning. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 167–182Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gennari R, Melonio A, Rizvi M (2017) The participatory design process of tangibles for children’s socio-emotional learning. In: Barbosa S, Markopoulos P, Paternò F, Stumpf S, Valtolina S (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on end-user development (IS-EUD 2017), LNCS. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 167–182Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gennari R, Melonio A, Rizvi M (2018) Evolving tangibles for children’s social learning through conversations: Beyond TurnTalk. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction (TEI 2018). ACMGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gennari R, Melonio A, Rizvi M (2018) Evolving tangibles for children’s social learning through conversations: Beyond turntalk. ACM, New York, pp 368–375Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gennari R, Melonio A, Rizvi M (2018) Investigating class conversations with classTalk: a study with tangible object prototypes in a primary school. In: Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI 2018. Castiglione della Pescaia, Italy, pp 49:1–49:5Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gennari R, Melonio A, Torello S (2017) Gamified probes for cooperative learning: a case study. Multimed Tools Appl 76(4):4925–4949Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gennari R, Pavani F., Rizvi M. (2016) Tangible design for inclusive conversations with deaf or hard-of-hearing children. In: Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on emerging technologies for education (SETE 2016), LNCS. Springer, RomeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gorjian B, Habib P (2015) The effect of conversation strategies on the classroom interaction: The case of turn taking. J Appl Linguistics and Language Learning 1 (1):14–23Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Habelski S (2004) Realisation of territory-based interaction techniques for supporting tabletop collaboration. Internship ThesisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hourcade JP (2015) Child-computer interactionGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ivankova N. (2015) Mixed methods applications in action research. SAGEGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Joshi SG, Bratteteig T (2016) Designing for prolonged mastery on involving old people in participatory design. Scand J Inf Syst 28(1):3–36Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kapp K M (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco, PfeifferGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kock N (2018) Action researchGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leonardi C, Pianesi F, Tomasini D, Zancanaro M (2009) The collaborative workspace: a co-located tabletop device to support meetings. Springer, London, pp 187–205Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Malone T, Lepper M (1988) Fun: Making learning a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude Learning, and Instruction 3:229–253Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maquil V, Tobias E, Latour T (2015) Tangible voting: a technique for interacting with group choices on a tangible tabletop. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 79–86Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCrindle C, Hornecker E, Lingnau A, Rick J (2011) The design of t-vote: A tangible tabletop application supporting children’s decision making. ACM, New York, pp 181–184Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Melonio A, Rizvi M (2016) The design of TurnTalk for the scaffolding of balanced conversations in groups of children, pp 278–287Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nijholt A, Akker R o d, Heylen D (2006) Meetings and meeting modeling in smart environments. AI Soc 20(2):202–220Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ocumpaugh J, Baker R, Rodrigo M (2015) Monitoring protocol (bromp) 2.0 technical & training manual. ny ny: Teachers collegeGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olson I C, Atrash Leong Z, Wilensky U, Horn MS (2011) It’s just a toolbar!: Using tangibles to help children manage conflict around a multi-touch tabletop. ACM, New York, pp 29–36Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Piaget J (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pianesi F, Zancanaro M, Not E, Leonardi C, Falcon V, Lepri B (2008) Multimodal support to group dynamics. Pers Ubiquit Comput 12(3):181–195Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pollock P, Hamman K, Wilson B (2011) Learning through discussions: Comparing the benefits of small-group and large-class settings. Journal of Political Science EducationGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ryan M, Deci E (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55:68–78Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schiavo G, Cappelletti A, Mencarini E, Stock O, Zancanaro M (2014) Overt or subtle? supporting group conversations with automatically targeted directives. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, IUI ’14. ACM, New York, pp 225–234Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Scott SD (2003) Territory-based interaction techniques for tabletop collaboration. In: Proceedings of UIST 2003 conference companionGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Seaborn K, Fels D I (2015) Gamification in theory and action: A survey. Int J Hum Comput Stud 74:14–31Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shaw FW, Klavins E (2010) Grouper: a proof-of-concept wearable wireless group coordinator. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference Adjunct Papers on Ubiquitous Computing, pages 379–380. ACMGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Slovák P, Fitzpatrick G (2015) Teaching and developing social and emotional skills with technology. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 22(4):19:1–19:34Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Slovák P., Gilad-Bachrach R., Fitzpatrick G. (2015) Designing social and emotional skills training: The challenges and opportunities for technology support. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’15. ACM, New York, pp 2797–2800Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vygotskií L (1930) Mind in society. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    What is Arduino? (2016) Available at
  53. 53.
    Weiser M (1994) Creating the invisible interface: (Invited Talk). In: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST ’94. ACM, p 1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations