Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., & Ravid, G. (2003). Cohesion and roles: Network analysis of CSCL communities. In V. Devedzic, J. M. Spector, D. G. Sampson, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
(pp. 145–150). Athens: ICALT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13
, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity
. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations didactiques. Textes rassemblés et préparés par Balacheff, Cooper, Sutherland, Warfield, Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques. Grenoble: La Pensée sauvage.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2
, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. M., & Kacmar, C. J. (1997). The impact of communication mode and task complexity on small group performance and member satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 13
, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, I., Spitulnik, M., & Wallace, R. (2003). Designing effective science inquiry in text-based computer supported collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research & Practice, 4
, 55–82.Google Scholar
Chalmers, C., & Nason, R. A. (2003). Developing primary students’ group metacognitive processes in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. In Proceedings AARE-NZARE 2003 Joint Conference, Auckland. Coldstream: AARE.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32
, 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork. Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom
(2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, E. B. (1995). Learning by explaining: Fostering collaborative progressive discourse in science. In R. J. Beun, M. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and instruction: Modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems
(pp. 123–135). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13
, 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1990). Small group communication research of the 1980’s: A synthesis and critique. Communication Studies, 41
, 212–236.Google Scholar
Dennen, V. P., & Paulus, T. M. (2005). Researching “collaborative knowledge building” in formal distance learning environments. In T. Koschman, T. W. Chan, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005: The next 10 Years! (CD-ROM). Taipei: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning & Instruction, 17
, 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Nederland.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a cscl scenario. In G. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. CSCL series.
Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. In: F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada, & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science
(pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dochy, F., Moerkerke, G., & Segers, M. (1999). The effect of prior knowledge on learning in educational practice: Studies using prior knowledge state assessment. Evaluation & Research in Education, 8
, 345–367.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. (2001). Student-centred collaborative learning via face-to-face and asynchronous online communication: What’s the difference? In G. Kennedy, M. Keppel, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education
(pp. 169–177). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15
, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, J., & Miller, D. (2002). A framework for evaluating computer supported collaborative learning, Educational Technology & Society, 5
, 112–118.Google Scholar
Flanagin, A. J., Park, H. S., & Seibold, D. R. (2004). Group performance and collaborative technology: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis of information quality, contribution equity, and members’ satisfaction in computer-mediated groups. Communication Monographs, 71
, 352–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development
. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Frey, L. R. (1994). The call of the field: Studying communication in natural groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups
(pp. ix–xiv). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42
, 136–148.Google Scholar
Graham, M., Scarborough, H., & Goodwin, C. (1999). Implementing computer mediated communication in an undergraduate course—A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3
, 32–45. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v3n1/v3n1_graham.asp
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17
, 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2003). Patterns of female and male students’ participation in peer interaction in computer-supported learning. Computers and Education, 40
(16), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28
, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, B., Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (2000). Constructivist simulations: A new design paradigm. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9
(2), 115–130.Google Scholar
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hox, J. J. (1994). Hierarchical regression models for interviewer and respondent effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 22
, 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hox, J. J., & Kreft, I. G. (1994). Multilevel analysis methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 22
, 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hox, J. J., & Maas, C. J. M. (2002). Sample sizes for multilevel modeling. In J. Blasius, J. Hox, E. de Leeuw, & P. Schmidt (Eds.), Social Science Methodology in the New Millennium. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic and Methodology (CD-ROM; 2nd ed., expanded).
Hurme, T. R., & Järvelä, S. (2001). Metacognitive processes in problem solving with CSCL in mathematics. Paper presented at the first European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, EURO-CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands, March 22–24.
Inaba, M. (2006). A CSCL environment that promotes metacognition among learners in the community of practice. Paper presented at the fifth International Conference of the Cognitive Science, Vancouver, Canada, July 26.
Jacobson, D. M. (2001). Building different bridges: Technology integration, engaged student learning, and new approaches to professional development. Paper presented at AERA 2001: What we know and how we know it, the 82nd Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 10–14.
Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2003). Cooperation scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning—CSCL 2003, COMMUNITY EVENTS-Communication and Interaction
(pp. 59–61). Bergen: InterMedia.Google Scholar
Kollar, I, Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. (2006). Internal and external collaboration scripts in web based science learning at schools. In: T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years
. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lockhorst, D. (2004). Design principles for a CSCL environment in teacher training
. Dissertation. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2004). Uncertainty-reducing cooperation scripts in online learning environments. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/sim2004/pdf_files/Makitalo_et al.pdf
Monge, P. R. (1990). Theoretical and analytical issues in studying organizational processes. Organization Science, 1
, 406–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead, B. (2000) Enhancing social Interaction in computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3
, 4–11.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. N., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning
(pp. 120–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L. R. (1999). Group communication methodology: Issues and considerations. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S., Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research
(pp. 92–117). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Quinn, C. N. (1997) Engaging learning
. ITForum Paper #18. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper18/paper18.html
Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M. et al. (1999). A user’s guide to MLwiN.
London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52
, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12
, 8–22.Google Scholar
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13
, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21
, 957–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2005). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group, and task characteristics. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36
, 704–745.Google Scholar
Scott, C. R. (1999). Communication technology and group communication. In L. Frey, D. Gouran, & M. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research
(pp. 432–472). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Shotsberger, P. G. (1997). Emerging roles for instructors and learners in the web-based instruction classroom. In: B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction
(pp. 101–106). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
Simons, P. R. J. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning in primary, secondary and vocational education. New perspectives for learning—briefing paper 31. Retrieved from http://www.pjb.co.uk/npl/bp31.htm
Stahl, G. (2003). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of learning. In: J.-W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL in higher education (pp. 53–85). Amsterdam (The Netherlands): Kluwer.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences
(3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modelling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35
, 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8
, 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6
, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallas, G. (1921). The art of thought.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.
Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication.
Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. In: T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years
(pp. 717–726). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technolgy (pp. 821–844). Indeanapolis: ERIC documents: ED 397 849.