Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:10:15.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Learning Together

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 383 - 464
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Alter, S. (2017). Nothing is more practical than a good conceptual artifact … which may be a theory, framework, model, metaphor, paradigm or perhaps some other abstraction. Information Systems Journal, 27(5), 671–693. doi:10.1111/isj.12116Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2014). Arguing to learn. In Sawyer, R. K.. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 439–460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C. (2016). Theory building and education for understanding. In Peters, M. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_370-1Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In Corte, E. D., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & Merriënboer, J. V. (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 73–78). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: One concept, two hills to climb. In Tan, S. C., So, H. J., & Yeo, J. (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 35–52). Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2016). “Good moves” in knowledge-creating dialogue. Qwerty – Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 11(2), 12–26. Retrieved from http://www.ckbg.org/qwerty/index.php/qwerty/article/view/242Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2018). Fixing Humpty-Dumpty: Putting higher-order skills and knowledge together again. In Kerslake, L. & Wegerif, R. (Eds.), Theory of teaching thinking: International perspectives (pp. 73–88). London; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble, L. & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. (2017). Sensemaking in our post-AlphaGo world. Retrieved from http://johnseelybrown.com/SensemakingStanford.pdfGoogle Scholar
Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Knowledge Forum: Altering the relationship between students and scientific knowledge. Education, Communication & Information, 1(3), 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, C. K. K. (2013). Collaborative knowledge building: Towards a knowledge creation perspective. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 437–461). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Chang, Y.-H., Groos, D., et al. (2019). IdeaMagnets: Bridging Knowledge Building in schools with public discourse. Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology. Retrieved June 13, 2020 from https://bodong.me/talk/2019-kbsi-ideamagnets/featured.pngGoogle Scholar
Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266–288.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge building discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345–366. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9225-zGoogle Scholar
Chen, B., & Zhang, J. (2016). Analytics for knowledge creation: Towards epistemic agency and design-mode thinking. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 139–163.Google Scholar
Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., et al. (2010). Understanding the nature of science and scientific progress: A theory-building approach. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26373Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 259–288). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, S. (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery and change (pp. 461–493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). Learning from multiple sources in a digital society. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 86–95). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science & Education, 11(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613–627.Google Scholar
Keefer, M. W., Seitz, C. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 3–81.Google Scholar
Khanlari, A., Zhu, G., & Scardamalia, M. (2019). Knowledge Building analytics to explore crossing disciplinary and grade-level boundaries. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 60–75.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimally guided instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Laferrière, T., Law, N. W. Y., & Montané, M. (2012). An international knowledge building network for sustainable curriculum and pedagogical innovation. International Education Studies, 5(3), 148–160.Google Scholar
Lin, P.-Y., Ma, L., Chang, Y.-H., Hong, H.-Y., & Lin, C. P. (2018). Improving elementary students’ literacy through knowledge building. In Kay, J. & Luckin, R. (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018, Vol. 3 (pp. 1527–1528). London, England: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Liu, A. (2012). This is not a book: Transliteracies and long forms of digital attention. Paper presented at the Translittératies Conference, ENS Cachan, Paris, November 7, 2012. Retrieved from https://liu.english.ucsb.edu/this-is-not-a-book-translitteraties-conference-paris/Google Scholar
Liu, A. (2018). Friending the past: The sense of history in the digital age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Loo, S. (2017). Creative working in the knowledge economy. Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ma, L., & Scardamalia, M. (in press). Teachers as designers in knowledge building innovation networks. In Shanahan, M.-C., Kim, B., Koh, K., Preciado-Babb, A. P., & Takeuchi, M. A. (Eds.), The learning sciences in conversation: Theories, methodologies, and boundary spaces. Routledge.Google Scholar
Ma, L., Tan, S., Teo, C., & Kamsan, M. (2017). Using rotating leadership to visualize students’ epistemic agency and collective responsibility for knowledge advancement. In Smith, B. K., Borge, M., Mercier, E., & Lim, K. Y. (Eds.), Making a difference: Prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2017, Vol. 1 (pp. 455–462). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Matsuzawa, Y. (2019). Knowledge Forum video annotation to advance community knowledge. Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology. Retrieved September 9, 2019 from https://macc704.github.io/www/VideoAnnotaionTool.htmlGoogle Scholar
Mayfield, E., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). LightSIDE: Open source machine learning for text. In Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, J. (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions (pp. 124–135). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (2000). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. (Originally published in 1995).Google Scholar
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.Google Scholar
Oshima, J., Oshima, R., & Matsuzawa, Y. (2012). Knowledge Building Discourse Explorer: A social network analysis application for knowledge building discourse. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 903–921.Google Scholar
Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative feedback and metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 309–336. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9219-xGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In Smith, B. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In DiStefano, A., Rudestam, K. E., & Silverman, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2020). Will knowledge building remain uniquely human? Qwerty – Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 11(2), 12–26.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge building: Advancing the state of community knowledge. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 261–279). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P. J., Calhoun, C., & Smith Lea, N. (1992). Educational applications of a networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In McGilley, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, R., & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments and environments for knowledge building. In Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231–300). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.Google Scholar
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 109–136.Google Scholar
Slotta, J. D., & Acosta, A. (2017). Scripting and orchestrating learning communities: A role for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 343–350). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2005). Externalism, epistemic artefacts and the extended mind. In Schantz, R. (Ed.), The externalist challenge: New studies on cognition and intentionality. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Developing deep understanding and literacy while addressing a gender-based literacy gap. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26369Google Scholar
Tan, Y. H., & Tan, S. C. (2020). Conceptions of knowledge creation, knowledge and knowing: A phenomenography of Singapore Chinese language teachers. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Tan, S. C., So, H. J., & Yeo, J. (2014). Knowledge creation in education. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Teo, C. L. (2019). Community-based design research to sustain classroom innovation with ICT. In Hung, D., Lee, S.-S., Toh, Y., Jamaludin, A., & Wu, L. (Eds.), Innovations in educational change: Cultivating ecologies for schools (pp. 103–118). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Toth, P., & Ma, L. (2018). Fostering student voice and epistemic agency through knowledge building. In Knowledge building: A place for everyone in a knowledge society, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Knowledge Building Summer Institute (pp. 96–104). Toronto, Canada: Knowledge Building International. www.researchgate.net/publication/329842125Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.Google Scholar
van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Aalst, J., & Truong, M. S. (2011). Promoting knowledge creation discourse in an Asian primary five classroom: Results from an inquiry into life cycles. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 487–515.Google Scholar
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: Unlocking the mystery of tacit knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and intergroup discourse: Students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeo, J., & Tan, S. C. (2010). Constructive use of authoritative sources in science meaning making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1739–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., & Chen, M.-H. (2019). Idea Thread Mapper: Designs for sustaining student-driven knowledge building across classrooms. In Hmelo-Silver, C. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2019). Lyon, France: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Chen, M.-H., Chen, J., & Mico, T. F. (2013). Computer-supported metadiscourse to foster collective progress in knowledge-building communities. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2013). Madison, WI: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.Google Scholar
Zhu, G., Teo, C. L., Scardamalia, M., et al. (2020). Emotional and cognitive affordances of collaborative learning environments. In Gresalfi, M. & Horn, I. S. (Eds.), The interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020 (Vol. 1, pp. 382–389). Nashville, TN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

References

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Button, G., Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2015). Deconstructing ethnography: Towards a social methodology for ubiquitous computing and interactive systems design. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Cakir, M., Xhafa, F., Zhou, N., & Stahl, G. (2005). Thread-based analysis of patterns of collaborative interaction in chat. In Proceedings of the International Conference on AI in Education (AI-Ed 2005). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
David, M. (2016). The correspondence theory of truth. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved September 10, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/truth-correspondenceGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1991). Knowing and known. In Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1949–1952 (Vol. 16, pp. 1–294). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In Bromme, R., Hesse, F., & Spada, H. (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication – and how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Reimann, P. & Spada, H. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.10.pdfGoogle Scholar
Donmez, P., Rosé, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2005). Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Kosultit Oy.Google Scholar
Fischer, K., & Granoo, N. (1995). Beyond one-dimensional change: Parallel, concurrent, socially distributed processes in learning and development. Human Development, 1995 (38), 302–314.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquiries: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In Hicks, D. (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 104–141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.Google Scholar
Jonçich, G. (1968). The sane positivist: A biography of Edward L. Thorndike. Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 61–77). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (1997). Logo-as-Latin redux: Review of Papert’s “The children’s machine.” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 409–415.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2001). A third metaphor for learning: Toward a Deweyan form of transactional inquiry. In Carver, S. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 119–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17–22). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2011). Theorizing practice. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2018). Ethnomethodology: Studying the practical achievement of intersubjectivity. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C., Goldman, S., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 465–474). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice within the design-based research). In Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2003). Problematizing the problem: A single case analysis in a DPBL meeting. In Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL ‘03) (pp. 37–46). Bergen, Norway: Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–83). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
LeBaron, C. (2002). Technology does not exist independent of its use. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 433–439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P., & Martens, R. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 31–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, R., & Stahl, G. (2021). Analysis of group practices. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 199–218). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1974). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance of theories of comprehension. In Smith, N. V. (Ed.), Mutual knowledge. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2002). Rediscovering CSCL. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 169–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/papers/ch01.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2013). Translating Euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2021). Theoretical investigations: Philosophical foundations of group cognition. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Theories of CSCL. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 23–43). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (Eds.). (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1912). Education: A first book. New York, NY: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143–157.Google Scholar
Young, J. (2018). The coherence theory of truth. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved September 10, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/truth-coherenceGoogle Scholar
Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Stahl, G. (2005). Analyzing the organization of collaborative math problem-solving in online chats using statistics and conversation analysis. In Fuks, H., Lukosch, S., & Salgado, A. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use: 11th International Workshop, CRIWG 2005. Porto de Galinhas, Brazil (pp. 271–283). http://GerryStahl.net/pub/criwg2005zemel.pdfGoogle Scholar

References

Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135–167. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1502_1Google Scholar
Andriessen, J. (2005). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In O’Donnell, A., Hmelo, C., & Erkens, G. (Eds.), Collaboration, reasoning, and technology (pp. 277–321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: Examples of actual practices with argumentation tools. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 195–213). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & van der Puil, C. (2011). Socio-cognitive tension in collaborative working relations. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Saljo, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 222–242). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2013). Argument diagrams and learning: Cognitive and educational perspectives. In Schraw, G., McCrudden, M., & Robinson, D. (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 329–356). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2020). On collaboration: Personal, educational and societal arenas. Boston, MA; Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill-Sense.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., & Sandberg, J. (1999). Where is education heading and how about AI? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2), 130–150.Google Scholar
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Babichenko, M. (2015). The social dimension of learning through argumentation: Effects of human presence and discourse style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 740–755. doi:10.1037/edu0000014Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.). (2013). Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2020). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Major, L. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 76–88). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., & Van Lehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105.Google Scholar
De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1986). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 8, pp. 105–352). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1933)Google Scholar
Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1975). Social interaction and cognitive development. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 367–383.Google Scholar
Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B., & Porat, D. (2011). Changes in narrative and argumentative writing by students discussing “hot” historical issues. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 185–217.Google Scholar
Golder, C. (1996). Le développement des discours argumentatifs [The development of argumentative discourses]. Lausanne, Switzerland: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., & Baker, M. J. (2018). Striking a balance: Argumentation and socio-emotional processes in collaborative learning interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003Google Scholar
Keefer, M. W., Seitz, C. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 259–265). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.Google Scholar
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leitão, S. (2001). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2, Article 2.Google Scholar
Levin, J., & Moore, J. (1980). Dialogue-games: Meta-communication structure for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395–420.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). Question-begging in noncumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 117–133.Google Scholar
Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 67–90). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225–256.Google Scholar
Nonnon, E. (1996). Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d’exploration [Argumentative activities and elaboration of new knowledge]. Langue Francaise, 112, 67–87.Google Scholar
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.Google Scholar
Peng, K., & Nisbett, E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Picard, R. W., Papert, S., Bender, W., et al. (2004). Affective learning – a manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 253–269.Google Scholar
Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. P. (2016) Group emotions: The social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123–156. doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, C. (Ed.). (1993). Special issue: Discourse and shared reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4).Google Scholar
Rapanta, C., & Christodoulou, A. (2019). Walton’s types of argumentation dialogues as classroom discourse sequences. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100352Google Scholar
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H., & Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1848–1869. doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856Google Scholar
Schwarz, B., & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316493960Google Scholar
Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. B., Kolikant, Y. B. D., & Mishenkina, M. (2012). “Co-alienation” mediated by common representations in synchronous e-discussions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3–4), 216–231.Google Scholar
Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 179–199). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition: The collaborative locus of agency in CSCL. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The next 10 years! – CSCL’05, 632–640. doi:10.3115/1149293.1149376Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 113–133.Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.Google Scholar
Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. In Schnase, J. L. & Cunnius, E. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL’95 (pp. 341–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York, NY: Random House Trade.Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1007/s11412–016-9240-8Google Scholar
Tiberghien, A., & de Vries, E. (1997). Relating characteristics of learning situations to learner activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 163–174.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tzou, C., Meixi, , Suárez, E., et al. (2019). Storywork in STEM-Art: Making, materiality and robotics within everyday acts of indigenous presence and resurgence. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 306–326. doi:10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–522.Google Scholar
Van Amelsvoort, M., & Schilperoord, J. (2018). How number and size of text boxes in argument diagrams affect opinions. Learning and Instruction, 57, 57–70. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.003Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Developments in argumentation theory. In Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 43–57). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511. doi:10.1007/s10648–016-9361-7Google Scholar
Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), 321–329.Google Scholar
Voss, J., & Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337–350.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123(3), 327–346.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

References

Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88(Suppl. 1) (July), S17–S33.Google Scholar
Allwood, J., & Montgomery, B. (1989). Exhibition planning and design: A guide for exhibitors, designers and contractors. London, England: Batsford.Google Scholar
Anderson, D., Storksdieck, M., & Spock, M. (2007). The long-term impacts of museum experiences. In Falk, J., Dierking, L., & Foutz, S. (Eds.), In principle, in practice: New perspectives on museums as learning institutions (pp. 197–215). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Andre, L., Durksen, T., & Volman, M. L. (2017). Museums as avenues of learning for children: A decade of research. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 47–76.Google Scholar
Ash, D. (2004). How families use questions at dioramas: Ideas for exhibit design. Curator, 47(1), 84–99.Google Scholar
Bakken, S. M., & Pierroux, P. (2015). Framing a topic: Mobile video tasks in museum learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 5, 54–65.Google Scholar
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224.Google Scholar
Beale, K. (Ed.). (2011). Museums at play: Games, interaction and learning. Edinburgh, Scotland: MuseumsEtc.Google Scholar
Beer, V. (1987). Great expectations: Do museums know what visitors are doing? Curator, 30(3), 206–215.Google Scholar
Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitgood, S. (1988). A comparison of formal and informal learning. Technical Report No. 88-10. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.Google Scholar
Callanan, M., Martin, J., & Luce, M. (2016). Two decades of families learning in children’s museums. In Sobel, D. & Lipson, J. L. (Eds.), Cognitive development in museum settings (pp. 15–35). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christidou, D., & Pierroux, P. (2019). Art, touch and meaning making: An analysis of multisensory interpretation in the museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 34(1), 96–115.Google Scholar
Classen, C. (2017). The museum of the senses: Experiencing art and collections. London, England: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Cone, C. A., & Kendall, K. (1978). Space, time, and family interaction: Visitor behavior at the Science Museum of Minnesota. Curator, 21(3), 245–258.Google Scholar
Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity. Science Education, 85(6), 712–732.Google Scholar
Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Islands of expertise and the development of family scientific literacy. In Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Damşa, C., Nerland, M., & Andreadakis, Z. (2019). An ecological perspective on learner‐constructed learning spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2075–2089. doi:10.1111/bjet.12855Google Scholar
DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181–197.Google Scholar
Dierking, L. H., & Falk, J. H. (1994). Family behavior and learning in informal science settings: A review of the research. Science Education, 78(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B. (2016). Participatory design through a learning science lens. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Santa Clara, CA.Google Scholar
Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., & Dierking, L. D. (2004). Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education, 88(Suppl. 1), S48–S58. doi:10.1002/sce.20015Google Scholar
Falk, J. H. (2005). Free‐choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 265–280.Google Scholar
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.Google Scholar
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95% solution: School is not where most Americans learn most of their science. American Scientist, 98, 486–493.Google Scholar
Falk, J. H., Koran, J., Dierking, L. H., & Dreblow, L. (1985). Predicting visitor behavior. Curator, 28(4), 249–257.Google Scholar
Falk, J., Mousouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effects of visitors’ agendas on museum learning. Curator, 41(2), 107–120.Google Scholar
Fender, J. G., & Crowley, K. (2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 189–210.Google Scholar
Furberg, A., & Arnseth, H. C. (2009). Reconsidering conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective: Analyzing students’ meaning making in genetics in collaborative learning activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 157–191.Google Scholar
Gaskins, S. (2016). Collaboration is a two-way street. In Sobel, D. & Lipson, J. L. (Eds.), Cognitive development in museum settings: Relating research and practice (pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gleason, M. E., & Schauble, L. (1999). Parents’ assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 343–378.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. (1999). Finding evidence of learning in museum settings. In Scanlon, E., Yates, S. J., & Whitelegg, E. (Eds.), Communicating science: Contexts and channels (pp. 110–119). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grinter, R. E., Aoki, P. M., Hurst, A., et al. (2002). Revisiting the visit: Understanding how technology can shape the museum visit. In Proceedings CSCW’02. New Orleans, LA: ACM.Google Scholar
Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2010). Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits. Science Education, 94(4), 710–742.Google Scholar
Hatala, M., Tanenbaum, K., Wakkary, R., et al. (2009). Experience structuring factors affecting learning in family visits to museums. In Cress, U., Dimitrova, V., & Specht, M. (Eds.), Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines, 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2009 Proceedings. Nice, France, September 29–October 2 (pp. 37–52). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hauser, W., Noschka-Roos, A., Reussner, E., & Zahn, C. (2009). Design-based research on digital media in a museum environment. Visitor Studies, 12(2), 182–198.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & vom Lehn, D. (2002). Misconstruing interaction. In Hinton, M. (Ed.), The proceedings of interactive learning in museums of art and design. London, England: Victoria and Albert Museum.Google Scholar
Hecht, M., & Crowley, K. (2020). Unpacking the learning ecosystems framework: Lessons from the adaptive management of biological ecosystems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(2), 264–284.Google Scholar
Hecht, M., Knutson, K., & Crowley, K. (2019). Becoming a naturalist: Interest development across the learning ecology. Science Education, 103(3), 691–713.Google Scholar
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hetland, P., Pierroux, P., & Esborg, L. (Eds.). (2020). A history of participation in museums and archives: Traversing citizen science and citizen humanities. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992). Museums and the shaping of knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hornecker, E., & Ciolfi, L. (2019). Human-computer interactions in museums. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 12(2), i–171.Google Scholar
Hsi, S. (2002). The electronic guidebook: A study of user experiences using mobile web content in a museum setting. In IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE’02). Växjö, Sweden: IEEE.Google Scholar
Irwin, B., Pegram, E., & Gay, H. (2013). New directions, new relationships: The Smithsonian’s twenty-first century learning in natural history settings conference and the Natural History Museum, London. Curator, 56(2), 273–278.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2019). Family touch practices and learning experiences in the museum. The Senses and Society, 14(2), 221–235.Google Scholar
Jornet, A., & Damşa, C. I. (2019). Unit of analysis from an ecological perspective: Beyond the individual/social dichotomy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, s 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100329Google Scholar
Katz, J. E., LaBar, W., & Lynch, E. (Eds.). (2011). Creativity and technology: Social media, mobiles and museums. Edinburgh, Scotland: MuseumsEtc.Google Scholar
Kenderdine, S. (2020). Hemispheres: Transdisciplinary architectures and museum-university collaboration. In Lewi, H., Smith, W., vom Lehn, D., & Cooke, S. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of new digital practices in galleries, libraries, archives, museums and heritage sites (pp. 305–318). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kidd, J. (2014). Museums in the new mediascape: Transmedia, participation, ethics. Farnham, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kim, K. Y., & Crowley, K. (2010). Negotiating the goal of museum inquiry: How families engineer and experiment. In Stein, M. K. & Kucan, L. (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Kisiel, J. (2003). Teachers, museums and worksheets: A closer look at the learning experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
Kisiel, J. (2005). Understanding elementary teachers’ motivation for science fieldtrips. Science Education, 89(6), 936–955.Google Scholar
Kisiel, J. (2006). Making field trips work. The Science Teacher, 73(1), 46–48.Google Scholar
Kisiel, J., Rowe, S., Vartabedian, M. A., & Kopczak, C. (2012). Evidence for family engagement in scientific reasoning at interactive animal exhibits. Science Education, 96(6), 1047–1070.Google Scholar
Klopfer, E., Perry, J., Squire, K., Jan, M.-F., & Steinkuehler, C. (2005). Mystery at the Museum: A collaborative game for museum education. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Knutson, K. (2019). Rethinking museum/community partnerships: Science and natural history museums and the challenges of communicating climate change. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 101–113). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Knutson, K., & Crowley, K. (2010). Connecting with art: How families talk about art in a museum setting. In Stein, M. K. & Kucan, L. (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 189–206). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Krange, I., Silseth, K., & Pierroux, P. (2019). Peers, teachers and guides: A study of three conditions for scaffolding conceptual learning in science centers. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 241–263. doi:10.1007/s11422-018-9905-xGoogle Scholar
Leinhardt, G., & Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on museum conversations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Lewi, H., Smith, W., vom Lehn, D., & Cooke, S. (Eds.). (2020) The Routledge international handbook of new digital practices in galleries, libraries, archives, museums and heritage sites. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Louw, M., & Crowley, K. (2013). New ways of looking and learning in natural history museums: The use of gigapixel imaging to bring science and publics together. Curator, 52(1), 87–104.Google Scholar
Malinverni, L., Schaper, M.-M., & Pares, N. (2019). Multimodal methodological approach for participatory design of full-body interaction learning environments. Qualitative Research, 19(1), 71–89.Google Scholar
Matusov, E., & Rogoff, B. (1995). Evidence of development from people’s participation in communities of learners. In Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 97–104). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
McIlvenny, P. (2020). The future of ‘video’ in video-based qualitative research is not ‘dumb’ flat pixels! Exploring volumetric performance capture and immersive performative replay. Qualitative Research, 20(6), 800–818. doi:10.1177/1468794120905460Google Scholar
McManus, P. (1985). Worksheet-induced behaviour in the British Museum (Natural History). Journal of Biological Education, 19(3), 237–242.Google Scholar
Melber, L. M. (2007). Maternal scaffolding in two museum exhibition halls. Curator, 50(3), 341–354.Google Scholar
Mortensen, M. F., & Smart, K. (2007). Free-choice worksheets increase students’ exposure to curriculum during museum visits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1389–1414.Google Scholar
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2006). Report 11: Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. Bristol: FutureLab Series. Retrieved from www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/futl15/futl15.pdfGoogle Scholar
Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmquist, S. D., & Crowley, K. (2007). From teachers to testers: Parents’ role in child expertise development in informal settings. Science Education, 91(5), 712–732.Google Scholar
Parker, E., & Saker, M. (2020). Art museums and the incorporation of virtual reality: Examining the impact of VR on spatial and social norms. Convergence, 26(5–6), 1159–1173. doi:10.1177/1354856519897251Google Scholar
Parry, R. (2007). Recoding the museum: Digital heritage and the technologies of change. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Parry, R. (2010). Museums in a digital age. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pavement, P. (2019). The museum as media producer: Innovation before the digital age. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 31–46). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pierroux, P. (2019). Learning and engagement in museum mediascapes. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 128–142). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pierroux, P., Krange, I., & Sem, I. (2011). Bridging contexts and interpretations: Mobile blogging on art museum field trips. Mediekultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 27(50), 25–44.Google Scholar
Pierroux, P., Sauge, B., & Steier, R. (2021). Exhibitions as a collaborative research space for university-museum partnerships. In Achiam, M., Haldrup, M., & Drotner, K. (Eds.), Experimental museology: Institutions, representations, users (pp. 149–166). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Samis, P. (2019). Revisiting the utopian promise of interpretive media: An autoethnographic analysis drawn from art museums, 1991–2017. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 47–66). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sangrà, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., & Veletsianos, G. (2019). Lifelong learning ecologies: Linking formal and informal contexts of learning in the digital era. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1615–1618.Google Scholar
Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 70–85.Google Scholar
Screven, C. G. (1986). Exhibitions and information centers: Some principles and approaches. Curator, 29(2), 109–137.Google Scholar
Selvakumar, M., & Storksdieck, M. (2013). Portal to the public: Museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator, 56(1), 69–78.Google Scholar
Shapiro, B. R., & Hall, R. (2017). Making engagement visible: The use of Mondrian transcripts in a museum. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 33–40). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. R., Esterly, J. A., Callanan, M. A., Wright, R., & Navarro, R. (2007). Conversations about science across activities in Mexican‐descent families. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1447–1466.Google Scholar
Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Retrieved from http://www.participatorymuseum.org/Google Scholar
Sobel, D., & Lipson, J. L. (Eds.). (2016). Cognitive development in museum settings. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stapp, C. B. (2008). Defining museum literacy. In Nichols, S. K. (Ed.), Patterns in practice: Selections from the Journal of Museum Education (pp. 112–117). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.Google Scholar
Steier, R. (2014). Posing the question: Visitor posing as embodied interpretation in an art museum. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 148–170.Google Scholar
Steier, R. (2020). Designing for joint attention and co-presence across parallel realities. In Gresalfi, M. & Horn, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 3, pp. 1309–1316).Google Scholar
Steiner, M. A., Lyon, M., & Crowley, K. (2020). Museums that connect science and citizen: Using boundary objects and networks to encourage dialogue and collective response to wicked, socio-scientific problems. In Hetland, P., Pierroux, P., & Esborg, L. (Eds.), A history of participation in museums and archives: Traversing citizen science and citizen humanities (pp. 211–235). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stevens, R., & Martell, S. T. (2003). Leaving a trace: Supporting museum visitor interaction and interpretation with digital media annotation systems. The Journal of Museum Education, 28(2), 25–31.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2009). Depicting gestures: Examples of the analysis of embodied communication in the arts of the West. Gesture, 9(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Stuedahl, D. (2019). Participation in design and changing practices of museum development. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 219–231). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tallon, L., & Walker, K. (Eds.). (2008). Digital technologies and the museum experience: Handheld guides and other media. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Vom Lehn, D. (2006). The body as interactive display: Examining bodies in a public exhibition. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(2), 223–251.Google Scholar
Vom Lehn, D., & Heath, C. (2005). Accounting for new technology in museum exhibitions. Marketing Management, 7(3), 11–21.Google Scholar
Vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24(2), 189–216.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watson, B., & Werb, S. R. (2013). One hundred strong: A colloquium on transforming natural history museums in the twenty-first century. Curator, 56(2), 255–265.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkening, S., & Chung, J. (2009). Life stages of the museum visitor: Building engagement over a lifetime: Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
Wishart, J., & Triggs, P. (2010). MuseumScouts: Exploring how schools, museums and interactive technologies can work together to support learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 669–678.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Learning Together
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.023
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Learning Together
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.023
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Learning Together
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.023
Available formats
×