nach oben

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Erschienen in:

13.12.2017

Visions of CSCL: eight provocations for the future of the field

verfasst von: Alyssa Friend Wise, Baruch B. Schwarz

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The field of CSCL is at a critical moment in its development. Internally we face issues of fragmentation and questions about what progress is being made. Externally the rise of social media and a variety of research communities that study the interactions within it raise questions about our unique identity and larger impact on the world. To illuminate the complex issues involved and the multiple perspectives that exist on them, we conducted an iterative and generative consultation with members of the CSCL community through individual interviews and public interactive presentations. The result is a series of eight provocations for the field, each presented as a dialogue between the Provocateur/Provocatrice (who seeks to shake up the status quo) and the Conciliator (who seeks to build on the achievements of our current traditions). The provocations address the debated need for six things: one conceptual framework to unite our diverse tools and theories (#1), prioritization of learner agency over collaborative scripting (#2), scrupulous scrutiny of when “collaboration” and “community” are said to exist (#3), the pursuit of computational approaches to understand collaborative learning (#5), learning analytics and adaptive support to be a top priority in the field (#6), and the expansion of our focus to seriously address social media and large-scale learning environments (#7). In addition, the provocations highlight two areas in which perhaps we should desist: the attempt to reconcile analytical and interpretative approaches to understanding collaboration (#4), and the goal of achieving tangible change in the education system (#8). There are no resolutions offered in this paper; the interchanges presented are designed to lay out the complex constellation of issues involved and can be considered a dialogue that we are still in the process of having with ourselves as individuals and together as a community. We stress the urgency and importance for the field of CSCL to take up these questions and tensions, and critically, to work towards decisions and resultant actions. Our future as a scientific community — our very existence and identity, depends on it.

Vorheriger Artikel “I think you just got mixed up”: confident peer tutors hedge to support partners’ face needs

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Abrahamson, D., Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Classroom model, model classroom: Computer-supported methodology for investigating collaborative-learning pedagogy. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 46–55). New Brunswick: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Antle, A. N., & Wise, A. F. (2013). Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design. Interacting with Computers, 25(1), 1–20.CrossRef

Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–185.CrossRef

Asterhan, C. S. C., & Bouton, E. (2016). Teenage peer-to-peer knowledge sharing through social network sites in secondary schools. Computers & Education, 110, 16–34.CrossRef

Baker, M., & Andriessen, J. (2009). Socio-relational, affective and cognitive dimensions of CSCL interactions: Integrating theoretical-methodological perspectives. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2009 (pp. 31–33). Rhodes: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Lund, K., & Séjourné, A. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 11–20). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 315–357.CrossRef

Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.CrossRef

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRef

Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 623–643.CrossRef

Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045.CrossRef

Borge, M., Ong, Y. S., & Rosé, C. P. (2015). Activity design models to support the development of high quality collaborative processes in online settings. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (pp. 427–434). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Brooks, C., Greer, J., & Gutwin, C. (2014). The data-assisted approach to building intelligent technology-enhanced learning environments. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: From research to practice (pp. 123–156). New York: Springer.

Bruner, J. (1990). Culture and human development: A new look. Human Development, 33(6), 344–355.CrossRef

Bull, S., & Kay, J. (2005). A framework for designing and analysing open learner modelling. In Proceedings of Workshop on Learner Modelling for Reflection, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam, Netherlands (pp. 81–90).

Bull, S., & Pain, H. (1995). “Did I say what I think I said, and do you agree with me?” Inspecting and questioning the student model. In Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 501–508). Charlottesville: AACE.

Chan, C. K. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 147–186.CrossRef

Chen, B., & Zhang, J. (2016). Analytics for knowledge creation: Towards epistemic agency and design-mode thinking. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 139–163.CrossRef

Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.CrossRef

Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2008). The consequences of experimentalism in formulating recommendations for policy and practice in mathematics education. Educational Researcher, 37(9), 573–581.CrossRef

Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1–2), 113–164.CrossRef

Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.CrossRef

Cole, M., & The Distributed Literacy Consortium (Eds.). (2006). The fifth dimension: An after-school program built on diversity. New York: Russell Sage.

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Lagemann & L. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 15–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Collins, A. (2017). What’s worth teaching? Rethinking curriculum in the age of technology. New York: Teachers College Press.

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980–2000. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Damşa, C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2016). Learning through interaction and the co-construction of knowledge objects in teacher education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 1–18.CrossRef

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dascalu, M., Trausan-Matu, S., McNamara, D. S., & Dessus, P. (2015). ReaderBench: Automated evaluation of collaboration based on cohesion and dialogism. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 395–423.CrossRef

Davies, J. (2007). Display, identity, and the everyday: Self-presentation through online image sharing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(4), 549–564.

Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York: Penguin Books.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit.

Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492.CrossRef

Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Dillenbourg, P., Huang, J., & Cherubini, M. (2008). Interactive artifacts and furniture supporting collaborative work and learning. New York: Springer.

Duggan, M. (2017). Online harassment 2017. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192.CrossRef

Erkens, M., Bodemer, D., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016). Improving collaborative learning in the classroom: Text mining based grouping and representing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 387–415.CrossRef

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.CrossRef

Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (pp. 136–156). New York: Teachers College Record.

Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gašević, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84.CrossRef

Gweon, G., Jain, M., McDonough, J., Raj, B., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Measuring prevalence of other-oriented transactive contributions using an automated measure of speech style accommodation. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 245–265.CrossRef

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231.CrossRef

Hemsley, J., Garcia-Murillo, M. A., & MacInnes, I. P. (2017). Retweets for policy advocates: Tweet diffusion in the policy discussion space of universal basic income. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society. New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097294.

Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4(1), 1–37.

Hogan, K. (1999a). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 855–882.CrossRef

Hogan, K. (1999b). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085–1109.CrossRef

Hoppe, H. U. & Gassner, K. (2002). Integrating collaborative concept mapping tools with group memory and retrieval functions. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2002 (pp. 716–725). Boulder: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Hoppe, H. U., & Ploetzner, R. (1999). Can analytic models support learning in groups. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 147–168). Oxford: Elsevier.

Introne, J., Iandoli, L., DeCook, J., Yildirim, I. G., & Elzeini, S. (2017). The collaborative construction and evolution of pseudo-knowledge in online conversations. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society. New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097297.

Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.CrossRef

Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Sobocinski, M., Haataja, E., & Kirschner, P. (2016). What multimodal data can tell us about the self-regulated learning process? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265.CrossRef

Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Yu, Y. (2014). An examination of CSCL methodological practices and the influence of theoretical frameworks 2005–2009. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 305–334.CrossRef

Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K. A., & Chapman, R. N. (2009). The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kali, Y., Eylon, B.-S., McKenney, S., & Kidron, A. (in press). Design-centric research-practice partnerships: Building productive bridges between theory and practice. In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice and policy. New York: Springer.

Kay, J. (2001). Learner control. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1), 111–127.CrossRef

Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRef

Konert, J., Burlak, D., & Steinmetz, R. (2014). The group formation problem: An algorithmic approach to learning group formation. In Proceeding of the 9th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL) (pp. 221–234). New York: Springer.

Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Springer.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Law, N., Miyake, N., Looi, C. K., Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., & Linn, M. (2013). Are CSCL and learning sciences research relevant to large-scale educational reform? In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2013 (pp. 572–579). Madison: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.CrossRef

Looi, C. K., So, H. J., Toh, Y., & Chen, W. (2011). The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 9–37.CrossRef

Ludvigsen, S., Rasmussen, I., Krange, I., Moen, A., & Middleton, D. (2011). Intersecting trajectories of participation: Temporality and learning. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 105–122). New York: Routledge.

Ludvigsen, S. et al., (2015). The school of the future: Renewal of subjects and competences (Official Norwegian Reports NOU 2015: 8). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 273–295.CrossRef

Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Suthers, D. D., & Baker, M. (2013). Epistemological encounters in multivocal settings. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions (pp. 659–682). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRef

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.

Mu, J., Stegmann, K., Mayfield, E., Rosé, C., & Fischer, F. (2012). The ACODEA framework: Developing segmentation and classification schemes for fully automatic analysis of online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 285–305.CrossRef

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645–656.CrossRef

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRef

Paolucci, M., Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Belvedere: Stimulating students’ critical discussion. In Proceedings of the CHI ‘95 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 123–124). New York: ACM.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development and the intersection of learning, implementation and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRef

Perret-Clermont, A. N., Perret, J. F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41–62). Washington, DC: APA.CrossRef

Rainie, L., Anderson, J., & Albright, J. (2017). The future of free speech, trolls, anonymity and fake news online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Rathnayake, C., & Suthers, D. D. (2017). Twitter issue response hashtags as affordances for momentary connectedness. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society. New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097302.

Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC research. Science, 347(6217), 34–35.CrossRef

Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257.CrossRef

Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 65–83.CrossRef

Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Chaudhury, S. R., Dimitriadis, Y., Patton, C., & DiGiano, C. (2007). Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets. Computer, 40(9), 38–44.

Rosé, C. P., & Ferschke, O. (2016). Technology support for discussion based learning: From computer supported collaborative learning to the future of massive open online courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 660–678.CrossRef

Rosé, C., Wang, Y. C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 237–271.CrossRef

Rummel, N., Walker, E., & Aleven, V. (2016). Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 784–795.CrossRef

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRef

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 97, 67–98.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 37–41.CrossRef

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283.CrossRef

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an online education community of practice. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 129–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2013). Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 375–397.CrossRef

Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2014). Toward collaboration sensing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(4), 371–395.CrossRef

Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2015). Does seeing one another’s gaze affect group dialogue? A computational approach. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 107–133.CrossRef

Schwartz, D. L. (1999). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 197–218). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395–442.CrossRef

Schwarz, B. B., & Caduri, G. (2016). Novelties in the use of social networks by leading teachers in their classes. Computers & Education, 102, 35–51.CrossRef

Schwarz, B. B., de Groot, R., Mavrikis, M., & Dragon, T. (2015). Learning to learn together with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 239–271.CrossRef

Schwarz, B. B., Prusak, N., Swidan, O., Livny, A. & Gal, K. (2017a). Orchestrating deep learning: A case study in a geometry class. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Schwarz, B. B., Rosenberg, H., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (Eds.) (2017b). Breaking down barriers? Teachers, students and social network sites (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: MOFET Books.

Slakmon, B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). “You will be a polis”: Political (democratic?) education, public space and CSCL discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 184–225.CrossRef

Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Stahl, G. (2015). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stahl, G. (2016). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The contested relationship of computer-supported collaborative learning to the learning sciences. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 76–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2011). Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 139–145.CrossRef

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., Law, N., & Cress, U. (2014). CSCL artifacts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 237–245.CrossRef

Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2011). Quantifying qualities in collaborative knowledge construction: The analysis of online discussions. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL (pp. 247–268). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Stromer-Galley, J., & Muhlberger, P. (2009). Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy. Political Communication, 26(2), 173–192.CrossRef

Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Norwell: Kluwer.CrossRef

Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRef

Suthers, D. D. (2015). From contingencies to network-level phenomena: Multilevel analysis of activity and actors in heterogeneous networked learning environments. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 368–377). ACM.

Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.CrossRef

Tang, K. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Lin, T. C. (2014). Contemporary intellectual structure of CSCL research (2006–2013): A co-citation network analysis with an education focus. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 335.CrossRef

Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369.CrossRef

ten Have, P. (1990). Methodological issues in conversation analysis 1. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 27(1), 23–51.CrossRef

The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRef

Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.

van Leeuwen, A. (2015). Learning analytics to support teachers during synchronous CSCL: Balancing between overview and overload. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 138–162.CrossRef

Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. (2014). Adaptive intelligent support to improve peer tutoring in algebra. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(1), 33–61.CrossRef

Wang, Y., Leon, P. G., Scott, K., Chen, X., Acquisti, A., & Cranor, L. F. (2013). Privacy nudges for social media: An exploratory Facebook study. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 763–770). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2487788.2488038.

Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International.

Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347–361.CrossRef

Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the internet age. London: Routledge.

Wegerif, R., Postlethwaite, K., Skinner, N., Mansour, N., Morgan, A., & Hetherington, L. (2013). Dialogic science education for diversity. In N. Mansour & R. Wegerif (Eds.), Science education for diversity (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRef

Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 445–470.CrossRef

Wise, A. F., & Cui, Y. (2017). Finding community in the crowd: The importance of tie definition and networking partitioning in examining social learning in MOOCs. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wise, A. F., & Shaffer, D. W. (2015). Why theory matters more than ever in the age of big data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 5–13.CrossRef

Wise, A., Zhao, Y., & Hausknecht, S. (2014). Learning analytics for online discussions: Embedded and extracted approaches. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 48–71.CrossRef

Wise, A. F., Azevedo, R., Stegmann, K., Malmberg J., Rosé C. P., & Fischer, F. (2015). CSCL and learning analytics: Opportunities to support social interaction, self-regulation and socially shared regulation. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (pp. 607–614). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Wise, A. F., Vytasek, J. M., Hausknecht, S., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Developing learning analytics design knowledge in the “middle space”: The student tuning model and align design framework for learning analytics use. Online Learning, 20(2), 1–28.

Wise, A. F., Cui, Y., Jin, W. Q., & Vytasek, J. M. (2017). Mining for gold: Identifying content-related MOOC discussion threads across domains through linguistic modeling. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 11–28.CrossRef

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, M., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.CrossRef

Ziegler, M. F., Paulus, T., & Woodside, M. (2015). Informal learning as group meaning-making: Visible talk in online communities. In O. Mejiuni, P. Cranton, & O. Táíwò (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing informal learning in the digital age (pp. 180–196). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRef

Titel: Visions of CSCL: eight provocations for the future of the field
verfasst von: Alyssa Friend Wise
Baruch B. Schwarz
Publikationsdatum: 13.12.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9267-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

“I think you just got mixed up”: confident peer tutors hedge to support partners’ face needs

Future direction for the CSCL field: Methodologies and eight controversies

Developing & using interaction geography in a museum

The value of learning talk: applying a novel dialogue scoring method to inform interaction design in an open-ended, embodied museum exhibit