Advertisement

A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction

  • Daniel D. Suthers
  • Nathan Dwyer
  • Richard Medina
  • Ravi Vatrapu
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The relationship between interaction and learning is a central concern of the learning sciences, and analysis of interaction has emerged as a major theme within the current literature on computer-supported collaborative learning. The nature of technology-mediated interaction poses analytic challenges. Interaction may be distributed across actors, space, and time, and vary from synchronous, quasi-synchronous, and asynchronous, even within one data set. Often multiple media are involved and the data comes in a variety of formats. As a consequence, there are multiple analytic artifacts to inspect and the interaction may not be apparent upon inspection, being distributed across these artifacts. To address these problems as they were encountered in several studies in our own laboratory, we developed a framework for conceptualizing and representing distributed interaction. The framework assumes an analytic concern with uncovering or characterizing the organization of interaction in sequential records of events. The framework includes a media independent characterization of the most fundamental unit of interaction, which we call uptake. Uptake is present when a participant takes aspects of prior events as having relevance for ongoing activity. Uptake can be refined into interactional relationships of argumentation, information sharing, transactivity, and so forth for specific analytic objectives. Faced with the myriad of ways in which uptake can manifest in practice, we represent data using graphs of relationships between events that capture the potential ways in which one act can be contingent upon another. These contingency graphs serve as abstract transcripts that document in one representation interaction that is distributed across multiple media. This paper summarizes the requirements that motivate the framework, and discusses the theoretical foundations on which it is based. It then presents the framework and its application in detail, with examples from our work to illustrate how we have used it to support both ideographic and nomothetic research, using qualitative and quantitative methods. The paper concludes with a discussion of the framework’s potential role in supporting dialogue between various analytic concerns and methods represented in CSCL.

Keywords

Theoretical and methodological framework Interaction analysis Distributed learning Uptake Contingency graphs 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The studies and analyses on which this paper is based were supported by the National Science Foundation under award 0093505. The work developed during years of intensive discussion among the authors that also benefited from interaction with numerous colleagues in our laboratory and elsewhere. We especially thank Gerry Stahl for his ongoing commentary on these ideas and the anonymous reviewers for comments that helped address problems with prior drafts.

References

  1. Atkinson, M. J., & Heritage, J. C. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Avouris, N., Fiotakis, G., Kahrimanis, G., Margaritis, M., & Komis, V. (2007). Beyond logging of fingertip actions: Analysis of collaborative learning using multiple sources of data. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(2), 231–250.Google Scholar
  3. Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2(3), 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific learning tasks. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Constructing networks of action-relevant episodes: An in situ research methodology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 63–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barcellini, F., Détienne, F., Burkhardt, J.-M., & Sack, W. (2005). Thematic coherence and quotation practices in OSS design-oriented online discussions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP ’05), Sanibel Island, November 06–09, 2005.Google Scholar
  8. Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1979). A preliminary manual for coding transactive features of dyadic discussion.Google Scholar
  9. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: The challenge of building computer-supported learning communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bourne, J. R., McMaster, E., Rieger, J., & Campbell, J. O. (1997). Paradigms for on-line learning: A case study in the design and implementation of an Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN) course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2), 38–56.Google Scholar
  12. Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers, biases, and opportunities of communication and cooperation with computers: Introduction and overview. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication: And how they may be overcome (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brundell, P., Knight, D., Adolphs, S., Carter, R., Clarke, D., Crabtree, A., et al. (2008). The experience of using the Digital Replay System for social science research. In Proceedings of the 4th International e-Social Science Conference. University of Manchester: ESRC NCeSS.Google Scholar
  14. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blayne, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Duranti, A. (2006). Transcripts, like shadows on a wall. Mind, Culture & Activity, 13(4), 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dwyer, N. (2007). Incorporating indexicality and contingency into the design of artifacts for computer-mediated collaboration, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.Google Scholar
  21. Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dyke, G., & Lund, K. (2009). Tatiana: An environment to support the CSCL analysis process. In C. O’Malley, D. D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL 2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 58–67). Rhodes: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  28. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haythornthwaite, C. (1999). Networks of information sharing among computer-supported distance learners. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.). Proceedings of the 3rd Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Conference, December 11–15, 1999 (pp. 218–222). Palo Alto: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  30. Hermann, D. (2003). Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  31. Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(4).Google Scholar
  32. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Jeong, A. (2005). A guide to analyzing message-response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindstrom, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joseph, S., Lid, V., & Suthers, D. D. (2007). Transcendent communities. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 317–319). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  39. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  40. Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G. Stahl (Ed.). Proc. Computer-Supported Collaborative 2002 (pp. 17–22). Boulder.Google Scholar
  41. Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. (2003). Reconsidering common ground: Examining Clark’s contribution theory in the OR. Paper presented at the ECSCW 2003: Eighth European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Work, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2004). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice within design-based research). In Y. Kafai, N. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.). Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 278–385). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2005). How do people learn: Member’s methods and communicative mediation. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication: And how they may be overcome (pp. 265–294). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kruger, A. C. (1993). Peer collaboration: Conflict, cooperation, or both? Social Development, 2(3), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Larusson, J. A., & Alterman, R. (2007). Tracking online collaborative work as representational practice: Analysis and tool. In C. Steinfield, B. Pentland, M. Ackerman, & N. Contractor (Eds.), Third International Conference on Communities and Technologies. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  47. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lemke, J. L. (2001). The long and the short of it: Comments on multiple timescale studies of human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Luckin, R. (2003). Between the lines: Documenting the multiple dimensions of computer supported collaborations. Computers and Education, 41(4), 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayadas, F. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks: A Sloan Foundation perspective. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1, http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln_issue1.htm#mayadas.
  52. Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2008). Bringing representational practice from log to light. In P. A. Kirschner, F. Prins, V. Jonker & G. Kanselaar (Eds.), International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a Learning World: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2008) (Vol. 2, pp. 59–66). Utrecht: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  53. Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2009). Using a contingency graph to discover representational practices in an online collaborative environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3), 281–305.Google Scholar
  54. Medina, R., Suthers, D. D., & Vatrapu, R. (2009). Representational practices in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  56. Olson, G. M., Herbsleb, J. D., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Characterizing the sequential structure of interactive behaviors through statistical and grammatical techniques. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 427–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pfister, H.-R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—and how they may be overcome (pp. 39–57). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  58. Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 347–364.Google Scholar
  61. Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2008). The role of mobile devices in facilitating collaborative inquiry in situ. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(3), 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In D. L. Day & D. K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, communication & mental models (pp. 13–25). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sanderson, P., & Fisher, C. (1994). Exploratory sequential data analysis: Foundations. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 251–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shipman, F. M., III, & McCall, R. (1994). Supporting knowledge-base evolution with incremental formalization, CHI94 (pp. 285–291). Boston: ACM.Google Scholar
  69. Spikol, D., & Milrad, M. (2008). Physical activities and playful learning using mobile games. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(3), 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for collaborative knowledge building. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  71. Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Suthers, D. D. (2001). Collaborative representations: Supporting face to face and online knowledge-building discourse. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawai‘i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-34), January 3–6, 2001, Maui, Hawai‘i (CD-ROM): Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).Google Scholar
  77. Suthers, D. D. (2006a). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (RPTEL), 1(2), 1–28.Google Scholar
  78. Suthers, D. D. (2006b). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Suthers, D. D., & Rosen, D. (2009). Traces—understanding distributed socio-technical systems, Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation Virtual Organizations as Socio-technical Systems (VOSS) program. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  81. Suthers, D. D., & Medina, R. (2010a). The temporal development of representational practices: Implications for theory and analysis of situated learning, Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-43). Kauai, Hawaii. (CD-Rom). New Brunswick: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).Google Scholar
  82. Suthers, D. D., & Medina, R. (2010b). Tracing interaction in distributed collaborative learning. To appear in S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methodologies, approaches and issues. New York: Springer (in press).Google Scholar
  83. Suthers, D. D., Hundhausen, C. D., & Girardeau, L. E. (2003). Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 41, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2007a). A framework for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 694–703). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  85. Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Vatrapu, R., & Medina, R. (2007b). An abstract transcript notation for analyzing interactional construction of meaning in online learning. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawai`i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-34), January 3–6, 2007, Waikoloa, Hawai`i (CD-ROM): Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).Google Scholar
  86. Suthers, D. D., Medina, R., Vatrapu, R., & Dwyer, N. (2007c). Information sharing is incongruous with collaborative convergence: The case for interaction. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 714–716). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  87. Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2007d). Conceptual representations enhance knowledge construction in asynchronous collaboration. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 704–713). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  88. Suthers, D. D., Yukawa, J., & Harada, V. H. (2007e). An activity system analysis of a tripartite technology-supported partnership for school reform. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(2), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Suthers, D. D., Chu, K.-H., & Joseph, S. (2009). Bridging socio-technical capital in an online learning environment. In Proceedings of the 42nd Hawai‘i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-42), January 5–8, 2009, Waikoloa, Hawai‘i (CD-ROM). New Brunswick: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).Google Scholar
  91. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  92. Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  93. Teplovs, C. (2008). The knowledge space visualizer: A tool for visualizing online discourse. Paper presented at the Common Framework for CSCL Interaction Analysis Workshop, International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008. Utrecht, NL.Google Scholar
  94. van der Aalst, W. M. P., & Weijters, A. J. M. M. (2005). Process mining. In M. Dumas, W. M. P. van der Aalst, & A. H. M. ter Hofstede (Eds.), Process-aware information systems: Bridging people and software through process technology (pp. 235–255). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  95. Vatrapu, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2009). Is representational guidance culturally relative? In C. O’Malley, P. Reimann, D. D. Suthers, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings, June 8–13, 2009 (pp. 542–551). Rhodes: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  96. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v2n1/v2n1_wegerif.asp.
  98. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). Framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel D. Suthers
    • 1
  • Nathan Dwyer
    • 1
  • Richard Medina
    • 1
  • Ravi Vatrapu
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for Interactive Learning TechnologiesDepartment of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Hawai‘i at ManoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.Center for Applied ICTCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options