Research Papers in Education

ISSN: 0267-1522 (Print) 1470-1146 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20

Intersubjectivity in primary and secondary

education: a review study

Rossana Mary Fujarra Beraldo, M. Beatrice Ligorio & Silviane Barbato

To cite this article: Rossana Mary Fujarra Beraldo, M. Beatrice Ligorio & Silviane Barbato
(2017): Intersubjectivity in primary and secondary education: a review study, Research Papers in
Education, DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2017.1302497

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1302497

Published online: 24 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rred20

Download by: [201.86.133.134] Date: 24 March 2017, At: 07:25

RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1302497

Intersubjectivity in primary and secondary education: a

review study
Rossana Mary Fujarra Beraldoa,b , M. Beatrice Ligoriob,c * and Silviane Barbatoa
a
Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Instituto Central de
Ciências Sul, Brasília, Brazil; bSchool in Psychology, University of Parma, Parma, Italia; cScienze della Formazione,
Psicologia, Università degli studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this literature review on the dynamics of intersubjectivity in Received 19 February 2016
primary and secondary education, we summarise and examine Accepted 27 November 2016
articles published in the last 10 years. This concept is considered KEYWORDS
relevant in education, in particular to enhance different types of Intersubjectivity;
collaborative learning situations. The articles were selected from collaborative learning;
several databases, all in English and blindly peer-reviewed. From the technology; education
157 articles appearing when limiting the contexts to primary and
secondary education, 25 empirical studies were selected because
they focused on the collaborative activities of students-students
and/or teacher-students. We are also interested in understanding
the role that technology may play in such process. Additionally,
research where some types of digital technologies were used was
contrasted with studies with analogical technologies. The selected
articles were analysed with the aim of highlighting ideas and critical
concepts featuring the process of producing intersubjectivity. As
relevant dimensions, we identified: (a) teachers’ role; (b) cultural and/
or intercultural dimension; (c) the role of cognitive aspects; (d) the role
of social dimension, and (e) the role of space-time. Finally, implications
for future empirical studies and educational practices are outlined.

1. Introduction
In this review, our aim is to gather a better understanding of the dynamics of intersubjec-
tivity in primary and secondary education. Advances in the understanding of intersubjec-
tivity encompass the analysis of the context of interactions, meaning negotiation, discursive
strategies and other mediational processes pervade the quality of the relationships (Wells
and Arauz 2006), and may convey success in learning outcomes (Bruner 1986). On the
other side, it has been proven that the difficulties in the ‘attunement to the attunement of
the other’ (Rommetveit 1992, 23) without meaning negotiation (Matusov et al. 2007) may
prompt disengagement in participation and making sense of school experience (Ravet 2007).
We encompass both primary and secondary education, as these two contexts appear to
be the most studied in relation to intersubjectivity. We consider collaborative learning as

CONTACT Rossana Mary Fujarra Beraldo rossanaberaldo@gmail.com

*
Department of Educational Sciences, Psychology and Communication, University of Bari, Italy.
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

privileged situations to examine in-depth the production of intersubjectivity as interlocutors

experience harmonic and dissonant communication while being responsive to a problem
that requires innovative outcomes. In particular, collaborative problem-solving seems to
be a type of task triggering complex coordination processes (Barron 2000). While seeking
a solution, students are compelled to make sense of the task and to understand what it is
in the counterparts’ mind (Forman 1992).
Therefore, a review could support pulling out the key elements of such process, and
indications to improve learning contexts could be outlined.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that intersubjectivity has already been studied under dif-
ferent angles. For instance, clinical psychology used theory of mind to explain mental states
in naturalistic or experimental situations in which infants were observed in speech and
auditory-visual perception with their mothers, and regularities indicated a specific com-
munication. These studies were based on cognition and communication thought imitation
(Meltzoff 1999), and involved memory of events, intermodal coordination, and preverbal
cognition.
Trevarthen (2004) claims that intersubjectivity in infancy involves a primary regulation
with vocalisation turns, expressive movements, rhythmic patterns, proto-conversation, and
gestures that correspond to emotional codes between infant and partners. Babies negotiate
interest and pleasure in social actions, and rhythmic beat regulates timing in vocalisation
turns. Eyebrows, movement of the head or face are forms of sign. Thus, secondary
intersubjectivity includes cooperative awareness of person-person and objects joining a
symbolic game, and consequently, ‘temporal and prosodic aspects of early vocal interaction
are critical to socioemotional development, as well as to mature functioning of language
communication’ (Trevarthen and Aitken 2001, 32).
Historical-cultural and sociocultural perspective evidenced that the Zone of Proximal
Development is the point of intersection where intersubjective process emerges from culture
and cognition (Cole 1985; Vygotsky 1978), and implicates a mediational action between a
proficient peer and novice learner. Based on socio-historical theory, cross-cultural studies
focused on dynamics of individuals in different cultural practices. Rogoff (2003) argues that
people are embodied in their environment in a wide cultural knowledge-sharing, and this
modulates psychological process between teacher and students.
Cognitive science points that human cognitive processes take place at the same time
– inside and outside the mind – as a flux of information when people are in a coordina-
tion practice, this implicates processes of distributed episodes in the course of time, and
early events can change the nature of later events (Hutchins 2000). Intersubjectivity can
be understood as an activation of internal process (memory, attention, representation etc.)
and external resources (tools or environment), that are transformed in a cultural product
in cognitive interaction.
Considering technological innovation in education on the last century and the notion
of distributed cognition, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1991, 2006) created the concept of
Knowledge Building, oriented towards collaborative learning that comprehends a diversity
of viewpoints, complexities of expertise and democratic sphere of intersubjectivity where
participants create a new cultural system.
The extended model of activity theory proposed by Engeström (2007) posits that in
intersubjective activity the shared object of interest undergoes transformations, as arte-
fact-mediators and guide-objects. It is not a matter of knowledge acquisition on the object;
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 3

in fact, people create a common sense of the object through participation in any given
activity. The object is understood inside of the engagement on the subject. Considered the
tensions, the action-cycle and the source of changes within the overall system open space
where the activity developed, transformed and (re)created the object.
Rommetveit (1990, 1992) argued that intersubjectivity is temporary and partially shared
in a plurality of human cognition and communication abiding to specific laws. In this view,
events are in process and have micro temporalities in itself that originates gaps (prolepsis),
and it points to an individuality of mind in interaction. Intersubjectivity opens the possibilities
in the construction of signifiers as the conventionalisation of meaning and practices (Bartlett
1995). In addition, intersubjectivity reflects the active and evaluative communicative positions
of the interlocutors. People create a sense of each other according to the circumstances around
them (Linell 2003, 2005) as ‘consciousness involves reflecting on one’s own position, and this
is dependent on experiences of alterity, on the realisation that others understand you and the
world in specific and sometimes divergent ways’ (Linell 2005, 9).
Mercer’s proposition (2000, 2004, 2008) suggests that people use language as a tool for
interthinking. It is important for us to recognise different types of talks, mainly aspects of
intersubjectivity, with the aim of identifying dissonances, accommodation, negotiation,
varying voice, as well as the direction of the discourse, especially when we consider the
information weight and the development of critical thinking and ownership.
As Bakhtin (1986) posits, dialogue is an arena of voices where people agree, disagree, or
refute, and these voices are generated by and generate centripetal and centrifugal forces of
continuity and change. The tension of the discursive activity implicates multivoicedness of
discursive flux that aligns different points of view of the world. In intersubjective processes,
polyphony is the main feature of dialogue. It is relevant to regulate recursiveness and
inconclusiveness of discourse. It provides a space for intersubjectivity within voice crossover,
addressivity and responsivity in turn-taking throughout an encounter and all encounters
(Bakhtin 1981, 1986; Volosinov [1929] 1973).
Based on this background, we seek for a specific understanding of how intersubjectivity is
built in primary and secondary school. Furthermore, since intersubjectivity has been studied
in many fields and with many types of tasks, to avoid dispersion we will delimit our focus
on one specific type of task: collaborative problem-solving. As already discussed, this spe-
cific task elicits interesting social and cognitive processes, relevant to the understanding of
how intersubjectivity is built. When committed to solve collaboratively a problem, students
argue, discuss, reason in specific ways connected to the construction of intersubjectivity and
they are forced to do it publicly, because of the need of coordination with their partners.
Therefore, the concepts so far delineated will be used as frames to recognise and analyse
the content of the articles we reviewed.

2. Scope and goals of the analysis

In this paper, we aim at reviewing how the dynamics of intersubjectivity has been studied
in collaborative activities with and without the use technologies in primary and secondary
educational settings. After the analysis of how research has been designed and conducted in
the last decade and the type of results gained, we will add our own point of view in the con-
clusions. In fact, we aim at using the insights from this review as starting point of our critical
contribution. We consider collaborative activities as particularly able to allow expression
4 R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

and understanding of how intersubjectivity evolves. During collaboration, dynamics of

verbal thought and mediational strategies (Vygotsky 1978; Wertsch 1991; Woods, Bruner,
and Ross 1976) may be identified; ideas can be clarified, redefined and employed into prob-
lem-solving activities (Mercer 2000; Ruthven et al. 2016; Wegerif 2008) and sense-making
(Ford 2012). In addition, via coordinated activities the cognition of peers can be influenced
(Ligorio, Talamo, and Pontecorvo 2005), using communicative strategies based on talk and
inquiry (Mercer 2000, 2004, 2008), using language and various tools to support shared
thinking and learning (Fernández et al. 2001; Wegerif 2008). Among those tools, technology
is covering an increasing relevance as capable to support efficient, deep and long-lasting
learning (Schwarz et al. 2015; Stahl 2006). Beside the use of the computer, various other
types of technology have been considered such as augmented reality (Enyedy et al. 2012),
interactive whiteboard (Davidsen and Christiansen 2013; Davidsen and Georgsen 2010;
Kershner et al. 2010), robotics programme (Sullivan 2011), designing environments in a
3D Virtual Word (Ligorio and van Veen 2006).
The introduction of digital technologies and its place in collaborative problem-solving is
an ongoing process. Digital technologies were mainly introduced in schools in the last two
decades. In most parts of the world, studies developed in the last decade began to focus on
applications of emerging technologies in school activities altering aspects of intersubjectiv-
ity. As teachers and researchers introduce different gadgets in educational activities, they
alternate analogical and digital technologies as main resources or in hybrid collaborative
learning processes, prompting new dynamics of intersubjective processes.
Therefore, our literature review focused on twofold objectives: (a) identifying how
researches’ findings describe intersubjectivity and (b) understanding the role of technol-
ogy in the process of building intersubjectivity. To achieve these aims, we have established
the following steps:
(1) We retrieved empirical research focusing on collaborative activities in primary
and secondary education;
(2) We selected those studies considering the construction of intersubjectivity
between either or both peers and teacher-students;
(3) We contrasted studies where no technology was considered (we call these analog-
ical studies) to research including some sort of digital technologies.

3. Methodology
3.1. Literature search
In our search, we considered the most relevant databases for psychology, educational and
social sciences, such as the Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Capes
Periódicos (Brazilian database) and Google Scholar, and, of course, we included peer-re-
viewed journals relevant in the field. We noticed that when using solely the keyword
‘intersubjectivity’ during the search a wide range of topics was found showing that inter-
subjectivity is studied in many fields, such as medical or legal issues, scientific politics,
engineering games, design interfaces, publicity and communication. With this first search,
2.943 articles were found. This high number of publications reflects the wide and multi-
disciplinary interest stimulated by the theme of intersubjectivity. In this review, we limit
the focus to the specific learning situation of collaborative problem-solving tasks proposed
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 5

to students. Subsequently, we limited our search to the areas of Education, Psychology,

Cognitive Science, and Collaborative Learning. Studies were retrieved through main key-
words that inscribe the proposed aim: ‘sense making’, ‘meaning construction’, ‘problem
solving’, ‘argumentation’ and ‘reasoning’. These keywords are functional in defining the
boundaries of our review and limiting our analysis to the type of task we are interested.

3.2. Criteria for inclusion

Five criteria were used to select relevant literature. The first one was the time span: the focus
is on publications appearing in the last 10 years. We reckoned this could be a reasonable span
of time to find interesting published research. A wider period of time would include obsolete
technology; a shorter temporal span would exclude that research needing time to analyse
the data. The second criteria was language; we only considered articles written in English
as this language is considered the vehicle for international research. Thirdly, we focused on
blindly peer-reviewed material to ensure quality publications. Fourthly, we limited our target
on Primary and Secondary School, because – as already stated – we found that most of the
research on intersubjectivity is focused on these segments. Lastly, we decided to focus on stud-
ies conceiving intersubjectivity as a dynamic process, considering the immediacy of human
interaction and interplay of students’ attitudes, initiatives, responsiveness and information
interchanges. It appears that such studies adopted qualitative methods rather than quantitative.
In the following table, we illustrate the resource, types of search engineer tools and how
filters were applied in each resource (see Table 1).

3.3. The selected papers

The search illustrated in the previous paragraph generated 157 articles. We looked closely
into them with the aim of selecting studies detailing the construction and evolution of the
process of building intersubjectivity in reference to the task and the school levels we selected.
Finally, 25 articles were chosen and we qualitatively analysed them. As we are also interested
in contrasting research where technology was involved versus no digital technology, two
clusters were composed: one comprising studies where conventional education technology
was used (we called this cluster ‘Analogical resources’ – see Table 2); the second one con-
sidering studies where digital technology played a relevant role and we named this cluster
‘Digital resource’ (see Table 3).
We summarise the articles into two tables, reporting the following information: (a)
Author/s and year of publication, (b) The main purpose of the article, (c) The topic con-
cerning the task and, when it could be retrieved in the paper, the subjects involved, (d) The
country where the research is placed, (e) The grade level, (f) The number of students and
teachers involved, (g) The research designed, (h) The tools used, (i) The main results in
relation to the concept of intersubjectivity.
After several cycles of reading, two researchers agreed that the following dimensions of
intersubjectivity were stemming out from the papers analysed: (a) Teachers’ role, as they
orient collaborative learning activities; (b) The cultural and/or intercultural dimension,
as the ground that channel collaborative interactions; (c) The role of cognitive-emotional
aspects (i.e. previous knowledge, motivation, etc.); (d) The role of social dimension, as
expected and planned conditions and actualisations of conditions in collaboration; (e) The
6 R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

Table 1. Resources and filters used.

Resource
Educational Resources
Information Centre (ERIC)
Brazilian Database Capes
Periódicos
This platform uses indexing
Journals, as American
Psychological Associa-
tion (APA), Cambridge
Journals Online, Cell Press
Journal, and Computers &
Applied Science
Google Scholar
International Journal of
Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning
(ijCSCL)
ResearchGate
Search engineer tools Results f = 25
• Publication date (last With the keyword intersubjectivity, the database n=6
10 years) indicated 107 articles. Applying additional
• Descriptors keywords and criteria for inclusion, we found 32
• Source (Journal) articles, and we selected six
• Author
• Publication type
• Educational level
• Audience
• Topics With the keyword intersubjectivity, the database n=6
• Author indicated 1.501 articles. Applying additional
• Collection keywords and criteria for inclusion, we found 31
• Since year (timescale) articles, and we selected six
• Recourse (only article) For ‘intersubjectivity’ and/or ‘sense making’, we
• Language found seven articles published from 2005 to
• Periodic Report 2013, but none of them fit in our options
• Suggestion for With ‘intersubjectivity’ and/or ‘meaning construc-
research tion’, we found two articles published from 2005
• Expand information to 2012, and we selected one
With ‘intersubjectivity’ and/or ‘problem solving’, we
found six articles published from 2005 to 2014,
and we selected three
With ‘intersubjectivity’ and/or ‘argumentation’, we
found five articles published from 2005 to 2014,
but none of them fit in our options
With ‘intersubjectivity’ and/or ‘reasoning’, we found
eleven articles published from 2005 to 2013, and
we selected one
• Search only at web This search tool offers few possibilities to applied n=8
• Search English pages filters, consequently, a great amount of articles
• Collection of articles were indicated. For example, the term ‘inter-
(include patents) subjectivity’ in the content of the text totalized
• Related articles 24.600 articles, and in the title, 1.320 articles.
• Since year (timescale Therefore, we delimitated our search adding,
2005 to 2015) for example, keyword + addition keywords. In
• Option ‘don’t show any this case, we used more categories based in the
citation import links’. areas of our interest as education, psychology,
• Option ‘in the title of cognition, collaborative learning to expand our
the article’. possibilities. We found 79 articles (from 2005 to
2015), and selected eight
• Collection from 2006 to We created a folder on desktop and downloaded n=4
2015, without search all articles from 2006 to 2015; we applied our cri-
tool. teria terms using desktop’ search tool. We found
15 articles and selected four
• Collection from 2008 It is a platform for academic purposes that re- n=1
(founded in) to 2015 searchers share scientific papers in collaboration
with university students, faculty members, and
research institutes. We downloaded one article

role of space-time as roles, grounds, cognitive-emotional aspects, quality of conditions,

mediation and actualisations of changes in interactions in collaboration. In the following
section, we will discuss each of these dimensions.

4. Results
4.1. The role of the teacher
In both clusters (with and without technology), the role of teachers in the construction of
intersubjectivity is analysed and different levels of relevance were recognised.
Table 2. Studies using analogical resources (n = 10).
Author Grade
and year Purpose Topic Country level Number Research design Tools used Major findings
Haan and Examine the construction of mathe- Construction of meaning The Seventh 22 pupils and 1 Case-study Textbook of four Mathe- Students can create a variety of
Elbers matical meaning of the words by by peers minority and Neth- grade on teacher (five Videotape and matics lessons symbolic meanings, gestures, and
(2005) students during collaborative ac- non-minority in a collab- er- Primary groups) audio recording Words and expressions in material tools (sketches) to estab-
tivities in a multi-ethnic classroom orative learning practice lands school Observation Dutch language lish a place for intersubjectivity
of mathematics lessons Subject: Mathematics (common understanding of words
and expressions)
Brown, Examine interactions between stu- Collaborative pedagogical Australia Primary 4 pupils Case-study Problem solving-task Share responsibility to learn opens a
Hirst, and dents in solving a novel problem activity and collective School Audio and video around of the concept particular space for intersubjectiv-
Renshaw about bulling using Collective Ar- argumentation recording of bulling ity where students can manipulate
(2005) gumentation (CA), away from the Observation ideas, information, opinions, and
direct supervision of classroom Subject: Social Sciences Technique of Collabo- regulate mental functions by
teacher rative Argumentation themselves as a mediated agency
(CA)
Enyedy Examine how ethnic students Solve collective problems, USA Second 22 pupils and 1 Case-study Wooden blocks Intersubjectivity is a semiotic ecolo-
(2005) reinvent topographical lines using reasoning, and share and third teacher Video recording gy space that participants use talk,
Technique of ‘Bird’-eyes perspec- goals grade on Observation Maps gestures, intonations, overlap-
tive’ (BEV) to represent height in Primary Technique BEV (Bird’-eyes ping, discursive position, and
a map within the affordances and Subject: Sciences and in School perspective) representation materials to share
constraints of the context. Over- particular the desert spatial information and establish
head the perspective of the role of environment cultural conventions
social interaction in the process of
knowledge production
Wertsch Examine teacher-student interaction Intersubjectivity, inter- USA – 2 groups and 1 Case-study Graph papers to plot Intersubjectivity involves a form
and exploring semiotic means for action and semiotic teacher Video recording statistical data from a of distributed cognition and
Kazak creating intersubjectivity, with mediation biology project agency to use semiotic means
(2005) an emphasis on how it is possible Subject: Sciences that emerged in a sociocultural
for students to participate in situated setting
classroom discourse without
understanding the full meaning of
what they are saying and doing
Edwards Examine occurrence of exploratory Collaborative groups, UK Secondary Five classes of Case-study Problem solving of Intersubjectivity is an interthink act
(2005) talk amongst peers in collabora- reasoning, working School inner-city Audio and video mathematics based and requires to talk aloud, share
tive small groups in mathematics together, and intersub- school for recorder on logarithmic scale images, create hypothesis, explain
reasoning, based on sociocultural jectivity girls (seven lessons for each and justify. These experiences gen-
activities of learning and emanci- Subject: Mathematics Observation class) erate a higher level of reasoning
patory pedagogical practices Technique of Exploratory and awareness
Talk
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION

(Continued)
7
 8

Table 2. (Continued).
Author Grade
and year Purpose Topic Country level Number Research design Tools used Major findings
Reigosa and Examine the process of meaning Problem-solving, situated Spain Secondary 18 students Case-study with Equipment in the Physics Stereotypes school cultures about
Aleix- construction of knowledge in cognition, and meaning School (five groups), the same and Chemistry labo- the use of the laboratory, and
andre activities of scaffolder problem- making and one participants for ratory stereotypes of performance
(2006) solving task in the Physics and teacher two consecutive deriving from the images related
Chemistry laboratory. Focus on years to the procedural exposition of
the transference of responsibility Subject: Physics and Audio and video Problem solving task the problem in solving. There are
to the teacher for the students in Chemistry recording (based on HC1 solution various levels of intersubjectivity,
laboratory setting at the school laboratory that will be influenced by the way
R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

setting) that teacher and students manage

Observation Handouts resources, practices, and genuine
answers and responses
Nathan, Examine interactions by conversa- Intersubjectivity, problem EUA and Sixth grade 20 pupils, and 1 Case-study One Maths task Pie Agreement, disagreement and
Eilam, tion analysis in a collaborative solving, and intellectual Israel at Sec- teacher Problem misunderstanding are sustain and
and Kim problem-solving to understand interactions ondary Video recording create new engagement on the
(2006) how the discourse of issues of Subject: Mathematics School (transcription phenomenon of intersubjectivity.
intersubjectivity structures (IS), using Transana) It is a path for minimal effort
and how IS perpetuates discourses Observation operating in dyads
in a mathematics classroom
Belland, Examine how small groups of stu- Small groups supported USA Seventh Twenty Ethnomethodolo- Technique of Prob- Intersubjectivity in mainstreamed
Claze- dents interact with and reinforced engaged in solving grade on students and gy approach lem-Based Leaning groups has potential to increase
wski, and each other as they engaged in a problem based in science Prima- two teachers Videotaped (PBL) unit. the motivation and social confi-
Ertmer Problem-Based Leaning (PBL) unit class ry-School dence of students with especial
(2009) in a K-12 setting (International So- Subject: Sciences (Genes, Case-study needs, as types of scaffolds lead-
ciety of Technology in Education) Dreams, and Reality: The ing to a deep learning of content
Human Genome Project) with PBL
Papado- Examine the way of a cope solving Problem solving based on Greece Tenth grade 2 pupils Case-study Problem-solving task Spaces of intersubjectivity generate
poulos a non-standard generalisation student’s past experience on Sec- using Diophantine a rich context where students
and problem by elementary concepts Subject: Mathematics ondary Observation linear question. applied generalisation, and at the
Iatridou of Diophantine equations on the School same time elementary concepts,
(2010) geometrical context of rectangle’s by planning, implementing,
area looking back and forward, as
a refinement of cognitive and
metacognitive component
Ford Identifies aspects of argumentation Sense making, argumen- USA Secondary 38 students, Case-study Ramp motion in an Reasoning is a dual process, is
(2012) in scientific practice as a key tation, reasoning, and School one teacher Questionnaire experiment in science shaped by ‘sense-making socially’
for scientific sense making and interplay between con- and the au- (10 h of instruction) where individuals play two
articulates how engagement struction and critique thor (denoted Interview Wooden boards roles – constructors and critics of
in these aspects happens both as ‘Instructor Video recording Golf balls knowledge –, and ‘sense-make
inter-mentally (between people) Subject: Sciences 1’ and ‘In- Observation Unit height boxes individually’ by a critic’s voice.
and intra-mentally (an individual’s structor 2’) Stopwatches Intersubjectivity involves an
reasoning) Whiteboards and markers interplay between construct and
critique
Tasks experiments
Table 3. Studies using digital recourses (n = 15).
Author and
year Purpose
Ligorio, Examine intersubjectivity in
Talamo, and writing fairy-tale inspired by
Pontecor- philosophically issues using
vo(2005) virtual environment where
Italian and Greek students
made a plan, discuss, and
negotiated the creation of
two stories that include moral
dimension
Stahl (2006) Identifies a pattern of exchange
of postings in chat envi-
ronment that it terms math
proposal adjacent pair, and
describes its characteristics
Trausan-Matu, Examine how learners inter
Stahl, and animate in collaborative chats
Sarmiento in context of problem solving
(2007) based on polyphony phe-
nomena, and where different
voices jointly or established
dissonances in discursive
practices
Topic Country Grade level Number Research design Tools used Major findings
Intersubjectivity, cooperative, Italy and Two 5th 31 students, and Case-study Web-based Intersubjectivity is a space
and collaborative learning Greece grades on one instructor Video recording Collaborative for dialogue, partner’s
Subject: Philosophy for Children Primary Observation Learning Envi- representation, reason-
(P4C) school in ronment called ing accomplish tasks in a
Italian children studied the Italy and Synergeia collaborative way, tuning of
fairy-tale The ugly duckling Greece reflective and metacognitive
by Andersen. Greek students skills, and interdependency
studied The squirrels save the to create a sense
forest
Group cognition and intersub- USA Secondary Three pupils Problem solving in al- Virtual Math Adjacency pairs are common
jective meaning making School gebra and geometry Teams (VMT) sequences of utterances by
Video recording research mutual greetings or ques-
Subject: Mathematics Chat room history project tions, answers interchanges,
which form a meaningful
speech act spanning multiple
utterances that cannot,
attributed to an individual.
These elements form a sense
of meaning making inside
the intersubjective founda-
tion of group cognition
Collaborative learning, inter-ani- Romaine Two classes 1° case K-12 Case-study Virtual Math Intersubjectivity promotes
mation and polyphony and on Second- students using Videotaped Teams (VMT) jointly either, harmonies or
USA ary School message environ- using chat dissonances to structure
Subject: Mathematics ment Observation Math Prob- dialogues and polyphony
2° case Comput- lem-solving phenomena. This generate
er-supported centripetal and centrifugal
ConcertChat chat
learning using forces that create dispute
Whiteboard or negotiation by different
ConcertChart
environment discursive positions to solve a
problem task
(Continued)
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION
9
 10

Table 3. (Continued).
Author and
year Purpose Topic Country Grade level Number Research design Tools used Major findings
Ligorio, Ce- Examine the construction of Eu- Intersubjectivity and distributed Italy and Secondary 40 pupils and 7 Case-study Euroland Project The architecture of intersubjec-
sareni, and roland world (virtual land) by cognition The School teachers Video recording to create a 3D tivity is established through
Schwartz students during collaborative Subject: Multidisciplinary Nether- Observation World the situated joint activity
(2008) activities in a multicultural (English as Second Language, lands between students and
project to analyse the process Geography, History, Music, Art teacher mediated by tools
and the architecture of inter- and Literature) (information, goals, rules,
subjectivity ideas, objects’ affordance,
gestures etc.) and individual
R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

and collective awareness

Rojas-Drum- Explore how primary school
mond, Al- children learn to collaborate
barrán, and and collaborate to learn on
Littleton creative writing projects by
(2008) using diverse cultural arte-
facts, including orality, literacy,
and ICT
Radinsky, Analyse of spoken and gestural Sense making, argumentation
Goldman, interactions in argumen-
and Singer tation practices between
(2008) students conducting an earth
science inquiry project using
Internet-data resources and
visualisations tools
about the whole process and
development of the activity
Collaboration, co-construction, Mexico Primary Fifty-six 4th grade Micro-analytical level Programme Intersubjectivity in oral and
and knowledge construction and UK School students from and macro-analytical Learning written texts emerges in a
two classrooms in level. Together. contextualised discourse
Subject: Literature and Language Mexico Videotaped Children plan, within situated interac-
Case-study write, and tions where members can
Observation revise stories participate actively using the
and transform supports that they have to
texts into produce jointly, originally,
multimedia coherently, and creatively in
narratives theirs perspective
USA 6th and 7th Small groups Case-study Earth Structures & Spoken argumentation
and authoritative positioning grades on Video recording Process unit provides a specific context
Subject: Geography Prima- Observation Geographic of intersubjectivity where
ry-School Information students can establish
Systems (GIS) negotiation, evaluation,
and data examination of viewpoints,
visualisation reasoning and coordination
tool of evidences by explanations.
Visual data Representational gesture in
communication can provides
a particular explanation in
argumentation with incom-
plete conceptual vocabulary
or authoritative positioning
Çakir, Zemel, Analyse foregrounds the Joint organisation of interaction, USA Secondary Teams of three Ethnomethodology Math prob- Joint problem space has a
and Stahl sequentially of action and the problem solving activity, and School pupil, and one Video recording lem-solving third dimension – time or
(2009) implicit referent of meaning meaning making facilitators’ task activities sequence –, this constitute a
making. Observes the progres- Subject: Mathematics Case-study mediated by a shared temporality – inter-
sive construction of shared synchronous subjectivity –, which provides
drawings and deictic refer- multimodal a framework of sequential
ences in the achievement of online environ- orderings, within which
intersubjectivity among group ment temporal deictic references
members’ understanding VMT (chat can be solve
window,
whiteboard,
chat, wiki)
Fields and Describe and analyse how in- Intergroup collaboration, knowl- USA Fourth to 21 pupils Connective ethnog- Unit Science Diffusion and sharing in less
Kafai (2009) sider gaming practice spread edge sharing, and diffusion sixth grades raphy Class (viruses structured places (online
across a group of tween across gaming space (practice on Prima- Video recording and epidem- platform across multiple
player’s students on local of teleporting) ry-School ics). spaces) are made by marker
classroom communities and Tracking data Virtual world that traced players’ trajec-
engaged in collaboration in a Subject: not retrieved Interviews Whyvittle.net tories, they use a number of
project based learning resources, practices, strat-
egies and commands (e.g.
siblings, instant messaging,
and phone calls). Intersubjec-
tivity in a wide virtual space
is shared and distributed
through codes, marks, signs,
tags, tracks, anchors
Davidsen and Examine actions and interac- Collaboration and self-directed Denmark Second grade 2 classes, and 1 Ethnography study Project Move Collaborative and communica-
Georgsen tions in two classrooms and learning on Primary teacher Ethnomethodology and Learn tive skills requires careful
(2010) how teacher engage them- Subject: not retrieved School Interviews and infor- at Western pre-teaching planning and
selves in the process of talking mal conversation State School classroom-observations by
interactive touch-screens. The (WSS) using the teachers in charge. The
study focus three interrelated interactive role and actions of the teach-
themes: learning process, whiteboard er are decisive factors in the
intersubjectivity and learning successful employment of
partner-ships the level of intersubjectivity
between student-student
(Continued)
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION
11
 12

Table 3. (Continued).
Author and
year Purpose Topic Country Grade level Number Research design Tools used Major findings
Evans et al. Aim to identify children’s Collaborative learning, distribut- USA Four grade Two groups of Micro ethnographic Tagram puzzles A collaborative nature of
(2011) communicative strategies ed cognition and reasoning Primary pupils case study manipulatives problem-solving shares
when faced with the task of Subject: Geometry School in physical points co-references, periods
solving a geometric puzzle (plastic pieces) of focus, and the formation of
in CSCL contexts, and inves- and virtual coalitions in CSCL contexts.
tigate a trace in distributed desktop set- The term ‘objects-to-think-
cognition in mathematical tings with’ is understood as specify
problem-solving interactions triadic mediation settings of
R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

based on discursive cohesion intersubjectivity

to objects, participants, discur-
sive content, and geometric
concepts
Sullivan Examines the development of a Collaborative problem solving USA Sixth-grade A group of Latino
Micro-genetic analysis Problem solve of Intersubjective process allows
(2011) creative solution arrived at by and creativity on Primary pupils of science
Observation and notes a light-sen- learners to engage in the rea-
students working collabo- Subject: Robotics School classroom and 1 sor-enabled ro- soning processes that lead to
ratively to solve a robotics teacher botics focused creative solutions, scaffolds,
problem in a K-12 setting on computer open-ended, goal-oriented
(International Society of science, physics task, modelling inquiry
Technology in Education) (light and heat techniques that include play,
energy), and seriousness, shared under-
science literacy standing, and bricolage
concepts
Pifarré and Explore how wikis maybe used Collaboration, collective thinking Spain and Primary Two groups of six Case-study Wiki science Intersubjectivity in a specific
Staarman to support primary education and intersubjectivity UK School students work in Video recording project characteristic of wikis are
(2011) students’ collaborative interac- Subject: Sciences pairs Registers from wiki Web-based joined by students create and
tion and how such interaction Think Together Project inquiry share dialogic space in which
process of working together about Mars they open to one-another’s
can be characterised (Webquest) ideas and solve tasks togeth-
er, providing reasons and
justifications
Davidsen and Apply the Embodiment Inter- Intersubjective meaning making Denmark Two grade 41 pupils and three Case-study Multi-touch Intersubjective meaning
Christiansen action Analysis to examine using multi-touch technol- on Primary teachers screen tables making is a combination of
(2013) constrains that single-touch ogies School Video recording Design language, body, and ma-
screens offer to support Subject: not retrieved Classroom observation programme terials in human-computer
task-oriented activities Snapshot interaction
Registers from touch- Pre-teaching
screen planning Topics
Kazak, Weger- Examine the relationship Reasoning, dialogic talk and UK Seven-grade Five students Case-study Software Tinker- Emerge a social norm or
if, and Fujita between students talk and intuitive strategies Secondary Video recording Plots 2.0 ground rule when students
(2014) the development of reasoning Technique of Dialogue Talk to School Observation Sequence of making mistakes need to
about uncertain outcomes open and expand the space of tasks clarify misunderstanding,
dialogue (Stats Talk Project) question or show ways to
Subject: not retrieved manage each game. It opens
a sphere of intersubjective
which required explanation,
reasons, similar reasoning
that suggest probabilistic
understanding
Enyedy, Examine how students predict Collaborative argument and USA Second grade One class with 43 Case-study Software that Intersubjectivity in an open
Danish, and with their bodies the effects embodied experience were on Primary students (one Cognitive ethnography translate the interaction mediated by
DeLiema of force and friction and then symbols become integrated in School lesson) Video recording motion into open tools is a space where
(2015) compare their prediction with the modelling activity physics engine students have access to
the visual Newtonian simu- and generates each other’s actions and
lation of a ball experiencing a visual display representations, as well the
that same amount of force Subject: Physics Physics concepts opportunities to observe
and friction using Augmented of Newtonian their peers creating, modify-
Reality (AR) theory ing, using, and negotiating
Narrative space semiotics signs
of playing
game on the
carpet
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION
13
14 R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

When no technology was involved, the teachers’ role was mainly recognised as supporting
the student’s interaction. For instance, Brown, Hirst, and Renshaw (2005) presented a study
where a group of four students used a technique called ‘Collective Argumentation’ (CA).
The students were already used to this type of mathematic tasks, thus the discussion was
performed without the direct supervision of the teacher. It seems that the teacher trusted
the groups as able to manage cultural tools implied in the collective process of building
intersubjectivity through argumentation, with no need from the teacher to intervene or to
direct it.
Looking at the analogical studies, we found a wide range of techniques used to sup-
port collaborative work, such as the ‘Bird’-eyes perspective’ (BEV) (Enyedy 2005), the
‘Problem-Based Leaning (PBL)’ (Belland, Clazewski, and Ertmer 2009), the ‘Exploratory
Talk’ (Edwards 2005; Rojas-Drummond, Albarrán, and Littleton 2008) and the experiment
activity (Ford 2012). In all the cases, the research seems to aim at uncovering the teachers’
position and attitude or to trigger teachers’ change, subsequently the introduction of tech-
nology, in terms of teaching strategies. This affected the teacher-students intersubjective
understanding of the task.
Other analogical studies focused on teacher’s responsibility for learning. For instance
in a physics and chemistry laboratory, Reigosa and Aleixandre (2006) observed how ste-
reotypes about use of the laboratory relate to students’ performance. The general school
culture based upon these stereotypes impaired the procedural exposition of the contents
and did not allow students to formulate genuine questions. In this specific study, while the
teacher is considered responsible for learning, intersubjectivity seems to be influenced by
the context, by the general assumption about what it is expected to do and not to do in
that specific situation.
Ligorio, Cesareni, and Schwartz (2008) analysed a situation where the collaborative
activities were performed online. In this case, the mediation of the technology heavily
influenced the architecture of intersubjectivity as it redefined strategies and rules of
participation for both teachers and students. Davidsen and Georgsen (2010) pointed out
that teachers played a significant role in supporting higher level of intersubjectivity while
using a whiteboard. Enyedy (2005) shares the same perspective; teacher’s coordination is
essential in the process of transforming individual creations into sociocultural conventions
as meta-representational competence related to the ability of abstraction and generalisation.
Ultimately, these features prompted the process of building a collective intersubjectivity.
In synthesis, analogical situations do not always call for a central role of the teachers in
building intersubjectivity. On the contrary, when technology is introduced the centrality
of the teacher is stressed. A twofold responsibility is recognised to the teachers: (a) in
sustaining the intersubjective understanding of the task; (b) in enduring the process of
appropriation of technology.

4.2. The cultural and/or intercultural dimension

This dimension is considered in both analogical and digital studies. For instance, Haan
and Elbers (2005) in their analogical study reasoned around the differences due to diverse
students’ cultural origins in understanding mathematics. They found that diverse under-
standing generates new intersubjective space.
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 15

Interaction at a distance between students from different countries was at the centre of a
few studies (Ligorio, Cesareni, and Schwartz 2008; Ligorio, Talamo, and Pontecorvo 2005).
It was observed that when working at a distance and populating a digital space, the media-
tion of technology creates a space to reflect not only on the task but also on the reciprocal
representation of who the interlocutors are and what it is expected they know or would
understand. Shared responsibility, intentions, emotional aspects and figuring out the recip-
rocal positioning were elements entering the construction of intersubjectivity at a distance.
Although cultural and intercultural dimension was considered only by a few studies,
we decided to include this dimension in this review. In both cases – analogical and digital
studies – cultural diversity engenders the expansion of the intersubjective space. When stu-
dents are at a distance, such space becomes richer since it also includes partners’ reciprocal
representation. Technology allows being easily in contact with students and teachers from
different places. With just ‘a click’ they can be contacted or can be met in a digital space.
This generates a new symbolic space that triggers a specific culture, based on practices and
communication style belonging to the digital space.

4.3. The role of cognitive aspects

The cognitive aspects are considered in almost all the papers, both analogical and digital;
even though this dimension seems to be more richly considered into the first type of studies.
Analogical studies look at intersubjectivity in relation to cognitive processes such as
understanding (Haan and Elbers 2005), reasoning and discursive capacity (Edwards 2005),
manipulation of ideas, information, and opinion regulating mental functions (Brown, Hirst,
and Renshaw 2005). Some authors looked at the construction of intersubjectivity as embed-
ded into the discourse (Enyedy 2005), generated through agreement and disagreement
(Nathan, Eilam, and Kim 2006). Others considered intersubjectivity in relation to motiva-
tion and cooperative learning (Belland, Clazewski, and Ertmer 2009) or as depending on
experiences (Papadopoulos and Iatridou 2010).
Studies including technology are interested in the features of intersubjectivity expressed
during discourse. Discourses can occur either face-to-face – and in this case also gestures
are considered – referring to the computer-supported activity (Rojas-Drummond, Albarrán,
and Littleton 2007) or within a virtual environment (Trausan-Matu, Stahl, and Sarmiento
2007). The analysis reported in those articles considers how argumentation and negotiation
lead to the examination and evaluation of the different points of view involved in the activity
as an emergent understanding (Radinsky, Goldman, and Singer 2008). What is interesting is
the fine analysis tracing the moment technology switches from understanding how it works,
therefore something to be worried about, to an ‘object to think with’, capable of sustaining
higher levels of reasoning (Evans et al. 2011).
Stahl (2006) observed how students manage their joint interaction in a math chat envi-
ronment through brief texts. Even with a short time allotted, these students could solve
a situated problem counting upon the multiplication and the sharpening of ideas within
the group. Other studies (Ligorio, Cesareni, and Schwartz 2008; Ligorio, Talamo, and
Pontecorvo 2005) showed the inquiry base was empowered through virtual space because
the asynchrony allowed more time for planning, negotiating, elaborating, implementing
ideas, discussing them, deleting and reorganising when needed.
16 R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

In summarising the various ways the cognitive aspects may enter the process of building
intersubjectivity – in both analogical and digital studies – we found: (a) Supporting the
performance of the task; (b) At the service of interaction with others; (c) As able to enhance
higher levels of thinking and reasoning.

4.4. The role of social dimension

This dimension is greatly considered in both analogical and digital studies. To exploit this
dimension, analogical studies refer to distributed cognition (Wertsch and Kazak 2005) or
group cognition (Stahl 2006) as a theoretical framework able to understand intersubjec-
tivity at a social level. The social dimension is strongly connected to collaborative learning,
with or without technology. Interesting is also the connection highlighted by Ford (2012)
between inter-mentally (between different individuals) and intra-mentally (at the individual
level) reasoning. According to him, this interplay is feeding a special sense-making process,
specific for scientific concepts.
As for the digital studies, particularly relevant is the focus on students’ engagement
(Belland, Clazewski, and Ertmer 2009; Nathan, Eilam, and Kim 2006) considered as a
venue for social and educational inclusion. In these particular cases, the social dimension
is understood as cross-groups interaction. Taking into account also the points of view
of students with special needs impact cultural practices promoting new possibilities of
producing intersubjective dynamics. The connection between using technology and the
cross-group intersubjectivity in education is analysed in connection to learning outcomes.
One specific aspect is connected to the use of avatar. In this case, the avatars-connected
practices promote new relations within students into the digital world (Fields and Kafai
2009) as well as embodied experiences by prediction bodies’ movement and by modelling
motion in a virtual space (Enyedy, Danish, and DeLiema 2015). The social dimension is
extended beyond the context of the class and affects the processes through which inter-
subjectivity is built.

4.5. The role of space-time

Results indicated that only the studies involving technology (Çakir, Zemel, and Stahl 2009;
Fields and Kafai 2009) examine space-time dimension. When introducing virtual spaces
and communication at a distance, space and time are unavoidably perceived in a novel
way. Therefore, this dimension is considered as impacting upon intersubjective dynamics.
Digital technologies are perceived as able to enhance contact, mobility, ubiquity and
flexibility in time and space. These effects are not confined into digital environments, as
they change also the way face-to-face space-time is perceived. Digital space became an addi-
tional layer, recursive with physical space. Similarly, time online may have a specific tempo
– depending on the specific tool used – that may impact the management of offline time.
In hybrid experiments, a blended space-time is created, where interaction is mediated
by a mix of tools and students have access to each other’s actions and representations
both in presence and at digital distance. Experiments, such as the one with Augmented
Reality (AR) where narrative spaces were created in gameplay occurring partially
on a physical space – a carpet – and partially in a virtual space (Enyedy, Danish, and
DeLiema 2015) or single-touch screens in a combination of language, body, and materials
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 17

(Davidsen and Christiansen 2013) propose new focus. These types of situation expand the
possibilities to negotiate meanings and information allowing students to evolve towards
more complex levels of intersubjectivity (Ligorio, Talamo, and Pontecorvo 2005) and to
enhance creativity in collaborative work (Rojas-Drummond, Albarrán, and Littleton 2008).
Regardless of the type of technology used – a web-platform such as Synergeia (Ligorio,
Talamo, and Pontecorvo 2005) or a three-dimensional space (Fields and Kafai 2009) – the
space-time enriches the intersubjective dynamics.

5. Discussion and conclusions

Experiences in collaboratively building and maintaining intersubjectivity may generate
new procedures, innovation in problem-solving, higher levels of reasoning and awareness,
cognition and metacognition, cultural conventions. One of the reasons for this type of
outcome seems to be connected to the capability and effort participants make in building
and maintaining intersubjectivity. From our review, intersubjectivity emerged as a con-
cept with multivocal definition that ranges from considering someone else’s ideas, to the
appropriation of others’ ideas and influencing someone else’s mind. It is not an exclusively
cognitive process, but also a social, emotional and – sometime, as results indicated – a phys-
ical phenomenon. Despite the diversity in definitions, we found some common elements.
Intersubjectivity is considered as a space for negotiation of meanings and for intellectual
development, for expressing and sharing emotion, through guided activities supported
by teachers mediated by communication tools (Brown and Renshaw 2006; Matusov 1996,
2001; Mercer and Wegerif 1997; Mortimer and Wertsch 2003).
Through the analysis of our selected papers, intersubjectivity is explained in connection
to a constellation of diverse concepts and ideas. The five dimensions we extrapolated – the
role of the teacher; the cultural and/or intercultural dimension; the cognitive aspects; the
social dimension; the space-time management – could be considered as elements upon
which it is possible to elaborate practical insights for both research and educational activities.
In this review we compared analogical and digital studies. To proceed with this comparison,
we collapsed different types of technology as into one box. Although we are fully aware that
each type of technology may prompt specific processes and dynamics, we were interested
in the effects on collaboration, on the general dynamics through which interlocutors
approach the common activity and find solutions from their own perspectives. The papers
we reviewed did not tight the features of the digital tool used to the results observed.
The authors themselves seem not to be interested in such connection. Rather, technology
was considered in its capability to generate common grounds through negotiation and
actualisation of meaning, to support students’ shift from superficial information to higher
levels of thinking and reasoning. Intersubjectivity in studies using analogical resources is
defined as an ecological space of interthinking, interplay, semiosis, regulation and agency
where information, procedures and cognition are shared.
The results obtained by our review highlight intersubjectivity as dialogic, polyphonic, and
a space of joint, interdependent and collaborative actuations. Dialogic interactions increase
student’s motivation, social confidence and inclusion through different types of scaffolding.
Albeit, both types of studies – using analogical and digital resources – assign definitions of
intersubjectivity to space metaphors produced by sharing and awareness that create new
outcomes. The studies using digital resources place emphasis on the different positions of
18 R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

interlocutors in interactions produced by shared temporality in distinct unfolding of the

socialisation conditions that create new possibilities and novelties in the activity. These
studies highlight that digital technologies drive sharing in joint activity through different and
complex tools that convey semiosis, teaching-learning discursive and cognitive strategies
and procedures transforming the possibilities of problem-solving in situated goal-oriented
activities. Therefore, the introduction of digital technology makes the representation of
intersubjectivity even more complex. Digital technology is understood as both a mean to
unpack intersubjectivity and also as a mean to enhance intersubjectivity. In both cases, new
features and aspects entered the scenario; in particular, the space-time dimension acquired
a relevance not recognised by analogical studies. Multimodality alters the procedures for
producing meaning, because it provides students and teachers with new empowerments
in school interactions.
At this point, we can outline our specific contribution to the definition of intersubjectivity,
which is strongly based on the results gathered from our review. First, our pre-assumption
is that intersubjectivity has specific paths depending on the type of task students perform.
In this paper, we aim at defining intersubjectivity connected to collaborative problem-solv-
ing tasks. Secondly, we believe the five dimensions we found are not to be considered
in isolation; rather they are closely interconnected to each other. For instance, if teach-
ers want to play a relevant role in sustaining a rich intersubjective process, they should
underline and appreciate the social and cultural diversity that may emerge from students.
At the same time, they should treat technology as mediational tools able to enrich the
intersubjective space. This teachers’ role is perfectly attuned to the relevance of the social
dimension. Indeed, teachers may value this dimension by including different understanding
and solutions of the same problem. This can be done, for example, by asking students to
explicitly take a perspective not considered yet or figure out a solution, different from the
one they are proposing. Reasoning, augmenting, discussing, manipulating ideas, seeking
information, regulating opinion are all cognitive processes implied and amplified when the
social dimension is sustained. Finally, the re-consideration of space and time can offer new
resources for the other dimensions considered. New points of view can emerge, especially
when interaction with partners at a distance is supported and, consequently, the social and
cultural dimensions are enlarged.
Furthermore, we claim that intersubjectivity should be openly addressed to empower
collaborative problem solving. Such type of task should be designed in a way that all the
five dimensions we outlined should be considered. Therefore, the role of teachers should
be defined not only as the one proposing the task, monitoring the activities and as expert
of the content; instruction for teachers about how to sustain and develop intersubjectivity
should be also considered. In particular, how a teacher can sustain social, cultural and
cognitive processes; how the cultural and/or intercultural dimension can be valued; how
the cognitive dimension is supported, and how space and time is managed. Based on this
claim, we will now outline some practical indications.
We learnt the intersubjectivity is well prompted by differentiation and contrast in dis-
course and oriented to reference the world through another’s eyes (Wegerif 2008). Therefore,
a practical suggestion is to create situations where students can engage with one’s own
awareness and, at the same time, that of the others’ voices. Specific spaces could be created
to embody voices and to give the concrete impression of different points of view on the
same topic. Such spaces could also be digital, and when so, it should be taken into account
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 19

that the mediation of digital technology affects the perception of space-time, impressing
specific trends (Ligorio and Ritella 2013).
Dialogue is another important tool to uncover and enhance intersubjectivity. Through
dialogue, speakers can switch between previous and present experience, and may draw from
others’ individual and collective beliefs or cultural values (likelihoods, position-changing,
imaginative-scenarios). Structured dialogue could be introduced by relevant questions
posed by the teachers and the process of discussing can be regulated by specific strategies
to generate more productive verbal communication and reasoning.
During the interaction, dialectic opposition produces tension between interlocutors.
Many elements contribute in defining the quality of the socio-communicative situation
such as the interlocutors, the theme of their exchange, the activity they are producing, the
genres used, the strategies put into play to collaborate and negotiate meaning after misunder-
standings and conversation break-downs, in the continuum between formality-informality
produced in situ. The material tools play a relevant role, considering both the technical
and cognitive aspects and constrains and affordances they impose in the definition of the
space-time of interaction (Brown and Renshaw 2006; Renshaw 2007). This indicates that
technology may play a relevant role in supporting new studies on the understanding of the
dynamics of intersubjective processes. Indeed, we believe this is an interesting track for
further research.
This review allowed a wide reflection upon the complexity of intersubjectivity. In focusing
this concept, the authors we selected developed their studies from cognitive, sociocultural
or dialogic perspectives. The approaches consider intersubjectivity as crucial for learning
and consider it as a dynamic process. A fine understanding on how intersubjectivity built
during collaborative activities leads to improvement of learning environments.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Rossana Mary Fujarra Beraldo is currently a PhD student at the University of Brasilia, Brazil. Ligorio
is an associate professor at the University of Bari and Parma, Italy. Barbato is a full professor at the
University of Brasilia, Brazil. Common research interests are on educational technology, blended
contexts, collaborative learning ad intersubjectivity development.
M. Beatrice Ligorio is an associate professor at the University of Bari (IT). She is interested on blended
education and on the dialogical approach to understand learning. Her main research topics are about
identity, chronotopes and intersubjectivity.
Silviane Barbato is an associated professor at the Dept. of School and Develomental Psychology,
Institute of Psychology, University of Brasilia (Brazil). She is the leader of The Thought and Culture
Research Group (DGP/CNPq) and develops studies on conventionalization and dialogic dynamics
in collaborative learning with the use of digital technologies.

ORCID
Rossana Mary Fujarra Beraldo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4867-2389
M. Beatrice Ligorio http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3028-5046
20 R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

References
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Michael Holquist and
edited by Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Translated by Carl Emerson and Michael
Holquist and edited by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas.
Barron, B. 2000. “Achieving Coordination in Collaborative Problem-Solving Groups.” Journal of the
Learning Sciences 9 (4): 403–436.
Bartlett, F. 1995. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Belland, B. R., K. D. Clazewski, and P. A. Ertmer. 2009. “Inclusion and Problem-based Learning: Roles
of Students in a Mixed-ability Group.” Online Research in Middle Level Education 32 (9): 1–19.
Brown, R., E. Hirst, and P. Renshaw. 2005. “The Mediation of Collaborative Pedagogical Activity:
What Happens When the Teacher isn’t There?” Paper presented at the International Education
Research Conference, Sydney, Australia, December 1–10.
Brown, R., and P. Renshaw. 2006. “Positioning Students as Actors and Authors: A Chronotopic
Analysis of Collaborative Learning Activities.” Mind, Culture and Activity 13 (3): 247–259.
Bruner, J. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Çakir, P. M., A. Zemel, and G. Stahl. 2009. “The Joint Organization of Interaction within a Multimodal
CSCL Medium.” Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 4: 115–149.
Cole, M. 1985. The Zone of Proximal Development: Where Culture and Cognition Create Each Other.
In Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives edited by James V. Wertsch,
146–161. London: Cambridge University Press.
Davidsen, J., and E. T. Christiansen 2013. “The Benefits of Single-touch Screens in Intersubjectivity
Meaning Making.” In To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time,
and Scale, Vol. II, edited by N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, and S. Puntambekar. Accessed
March 20, 2015. https://www.isls.org/cscl/2013/
Davidsen, J., and M. Georgsen. 2010. “ICT as a Tool for Collaboration in the Classroom: Challenges
and Lessons Learned.” Designs for Learning 3 (1–2): 54–69.
Edwards, J-A. 2005. “Exploratory Talk in Peer Groups – Exploring the Zone of Proximal Development.”
Paper presented at the 4th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics
Education, Spain, February 17–21.
Engeström, Y. 2007. “Enriching the Theory of Expansive Learning: Lessons from Journeys toward
Co-configuration.” Mind, Culture and Activity 14 (1–2): 23–39.
Enyedy, N. 2005. “Inventing Mapping: Creating Cultural Forms to Solve Collective Problems.”
Cognition and Instruction 23 (4): 427–466.
Enyedy, N., J. A. Danish, G. Delacruz, and M. Kumar. 2012. “Learning Physics through Play in
an Augmented Reality Environment.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning 7 (3): 347–378.
Enyedy, N., J. A. Danish, and D. DeLiema. 2015. “Constructing Liminal Blends in a Collaborative
Augmented Reality Learning Environment.” International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning 10 (1): 7–34.
Evans, M. A., E. Feenstra, R. Ryon, and D. McNeill. 2011. “A Multimodal Approach to Coding
Discourse: Collaboration, Distributed Cognition, and Geometric Reasoning.” International Journal
of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 6 (2): 253–278.
Fernández, M., R. Wegerif, N. Mercer, and S. Rojas-Drummond. 2001. “Re-conceptualizing Scaffolding
and the Zone of Proximal Development in the Context of Symmetrical Collaborative Learning.”
Journal of Classroom Interaction 36 (2): 40–54.
Fields, D. A., and Y. B. A. Kafai. 2009. “Connective Ethnography of Peer Knowledge Sharing and
Diffusion in a Tween Virtual World.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning 4 (1): 47–68.
Ford, M. J. 2012. “Dialogic Account of Sense-making in Scientific Argumentation and Reasoning.”
Cognition and Instruction 30 (3): 207–245.
Forman, E. A. 1992. “Discourse, Intersubjectivity, and the Development of Peer Collaboration: A
Vygotskian Approach.” Children’s Development within Social Context 1: 143–159.
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 21

Haan, M., and E. Elbers. 2005. “Reshaping Diversity in a Local Classroom: Communication and
Identity Issues in Multicultural Schools in the Netherlands.” Language & Communication 25:
315–333.
Hutchins, E. 2000. Distributed Cognition. IESBS. San Diego: University of California.
Kazak, S., R. Wegerif, and T. Fujita. 2014. “Supporting Student’s Probabilistic Reasoning through the
Use of Technology and Dialogic Talk.” Paper presented at the 8th British Congress of Mathematics
Education, Nottingham, UK, April 14–17.
Kershner, R., N. Mercer, P. Warwick, and J. K. Staarman. 2010. “Can the Interactive Whiteboard
Support Young Children’s Collaborative Communication and Thinking in Classroom Science
Activities?” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5 (4): 359–383.
Ligorio, M. B., D. Cesareni, and N. Schwartz. 2008. “Collaborative Virtual Environments as Means
to Increase the Level of Intersubjectivity in a Distributed Cognition System.” Journal of Research
on Technology in Education 40 (3): 339–357.
Ligorio, M. B., and G. Ritella. 2013. “The Collaborative Construction of Chronotopes during
Computer-supported Collaborative Professional Tasks.” International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning 5 (4): 433–452.
Ligorio, M. B., A. Talamo, and C. Pontecorvo. 2005. “Building Intersubjectivity at a Distance during
the Collaborative Writing of Fairytales.” Computers & Education 45 (3): 357–374.
Ligorio, M. B., and K. van Veen. 2006. “Strategies to Build a Cross-National Virtual World.” AACEJ
14 (2): 103–128.
Linell, P. 2003. “Dialogical Tensions: On Rommetveitian Themes of Minds, Meanings, Monologues,
and Languages.” Mind, Culture and Activity 10 (3): 219–229.
Linell, P. 2005. “Dialogical Language, Dialogical Minds, Dialogical Brains.” Conference on Cognitive
Dynamics and the Language Sciences. Cambridge, UK, September 9–11.
Matusov, E. 1996. “Intersubjectivity without Agreement.” Mind, Culture and Activity 3 (1): 25–45.
Matusov, E. 2001. “Intersubjectivity as a Way of Informing Teaching Design for a Community of
Learners Classroom.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 383–402.
Matusov, E., M. Smith, M. A. Candela, and K. Lilu. 2007. “Culture Has No Internal Territory: Culture
as Dialogue.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology, edited by J. Valsiner and A.
Rosa, 460–483. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meltzoff, A. N. 1999. “Origins of Theory of Mind, Cognition and Communication.” Elsevier Science
32: 251–269.
Mercer, N. 2000. Words & Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group.
Mercer, N. 2004. “Sociocultural Discourse Analysis: Analysing Classroom Talk as a Social Mode of
Thinking.” Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (2): 137–168.
Mercer, N. 2008. “The Seeds of Time: Why Classroom Dialogue Needs a Temporal Analysis.” Journal
of the Learning Sciences 17 (1): 33–59.
Mercer, N., and R. Wegerif. 1997. “A Dialogical Framework for Investigating Talk.” In Computers
and Talk in the Primary Classroom edited by R. Wegerif, and P. Scrimshaw, 49–65. Clevedom:
Multilingual Matters.
Mortimer, E., and V. J. Wertsch. 2003. “The Architecture and Dynamics of Intersubjectivity in Science
Classrooms.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 10 (3): 230–244.
Nathan, M., B. Eilam, and S. Kim. 2006. “To Disagree, We Must Also Agree: How Intersubjectivity
Structures and Perpetuates Discourse in a Mathematics Classroom.” Wisconsin Center for Education
Research, Accessed March 18, 2015. http://escalate.org.il/construction_knowledge/papers/nathan.
pdf
Papadopoulos, I., and M. Iatridou. 2010. “Modelling Problem-solving Situations into Number Theory
Tasks: The Route towards Generalisation.” Mathematics Education Research Journal 22 (3): 85–110.
Pifarré, M., and J. K. Staarman. 2011. “Wiki-supported Collaborative Learning in Primary Education:
How a Dialogic Space is Created for Thinking Together.” International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning 6: 187–205.
Radinsky, J., S. Goldman, and M. Singer. 2008. “Students’ Sense-making with Visual Data in Small-
group Argumentation.” Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences,
Vol. II, 237–245, Utrecht, The Netherlands, June.
22 R. M. F. BERALDO ET AL.

Ravet, R. 2007. “Making Sense of Disengagement in the Primary Classroom: A Study of Pupil, Teacher
and Parent Perceptions.” Research Papers in Education 22 (3): 333–362.
Reigosa, C., and M. J. Aleixandre. 2006. “Scaffolded Problem-Solving in the Physics and Chemistry
Laboratory: Difficulties Hindering Student’s Assumption If Responsibility.” International Journal
of Science Education 29 (3): 307–309.
Renshaw, P. 2007. “Formats of Classroom Talk for Integrating Every Day and Scientific Discourse:
Replacement, Interweaving, Contextual Privileging and Pastiche.” Language and Education 21
(6): 531–549.
Rogoff, B. 2003. “Development as Transformation of Participation in Cultural Activities.” In The
Cultural Nature of Human Development, edited by B. Rogoff, 37–62. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rojas-Drummond, S. M., C. D. Albarrán, and K. Littleton. 2008. “Collaboration, Creativity and the
Co-construction of Oral and Written Texts.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 3 (3): 177–191.
Rommetveit, R. 1990. “On Axiomatic Features of Dialogical Approach to Language and Mind.” In The
Dynamics of Dialogue, edited by I. Markovà and L. Foppa, 83–104. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Rommetveit, R. 1992. “Outlines of a Dialogically Based Social-cognitive Approach to Human
Cognition and Communication.” In The Dialogical Alternative, edited by A. H. Wold, 19–44.
Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Ruthven, K., N. Mercer, K. S. Taber, P. Guardia, R. Hofmann, S. Ilie, S. Luthman, and F. Riga. 2016.
“A Research-informed Dialogic Teaching Approach to Early Secondary School Mathematics and
Science: The Pedagogical Design and Field Trial of the EpiSTEMe Intervention.” Research Papers
in Education 32 (1): 18–40. doi:10.1080/02671522.2015.1129642.
Scardamalia, M., and C. Bereiter. 1991. “Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge Building:
A Challenge for Design of New Knowledge Media.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 1 (1): 37–68.
Scardamalia, M., and C. Bereiter. 2006. “Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology.” In
Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by K. Sawyer, 97–118. New York: Cambridge
Press.
Schwarz, B. B., R. Groot, M. Mavrikis, and T. Dragon. 2015. “Learning to Learn Together with CSCL
Tools.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 10 (3): 239–271.
Stahl, G. 2006. “Sustaining Group Cognition in Math Chat Environment.” Research and Practice in
Technology Enhanced Learning 1 (2): 85–113.
Sullivan, F. R. 2011. “Serious and Playful Inquires: Epistemological Aspects of Collaborative Creativity.”
Educational Technology & Society 14 (1): 55–56.
Trausan-Matu, S., G. Stahl, and J. Sarmiento. 2007. “Supporting Polyphonic Collaborative Learning”.
E-Service Journal 6 (1): 58–74.
Trevarthen, C. 2004. “Learning about Ourselves from Children: Why a Growing Human Brain Needs
Interesting Companions?” Research and Clinical Centre for Child Development 26: 9–44.
Trevarthen, C., and K. Aitken. 2001. “Infant Intersubjectivity: Research, Theory, and Clinical
Applications.” Journal of Child, Psychology and Psychiatry 42 (1): 3–48.
Volosinov, V. N. (1929) 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated by P. Lamplugh.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press and Academic Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wegerif, R. 2008. “Dialogic or Dialetic? The Ontological Assumptions in Research on Education
Dialogue.” British Educational Research Journal 34 (3): 347–361.
Wells, G., and R. M. Arauz. 2006. “Dialogue in the Classroom.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 15
(3): 379–428.
Wertsch, J. V. 1991. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V., and S. Kazak. 2005. “Intersubjectivity through the Mastery of Semiotic Means in
Teacher-Student Discourse.” Research and Clinical Center for Child Developmental 27: 1–11.
Woods, D., J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. “The Role of Tutoring Problem Solving.” Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89–100.