Advertisement

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

  • Alyssa Friend WiseEmail author
  • Baruch B. Schwarz
Article

Abstract

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

Keywords

Collaboration Computer-supported collaborative learning CSCL CSCL theory CSCL methodology Adaptive support Collaboration scripts Conceptual frameworks Design principles Educational data mining Educational impact Formal schooling Informal learning environments Large scale learning Learner agency Learning analytics Mass collaboration Online communities Qualitative research approaches Quantitative research approaches Scalability Social networks Sustainability Tool design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful for the strong support and contributions of the CSCL community to this project. The following individuals all gave kindly and willingly of their time and thinking (though we alone take responsibility for the final product and ideas ultimately represented here): Michael Baker, Marcela Borge, Allan Collins, Ulrike Cress, Pierre Dillenbourg, Yannis Dimitriadis, Frank Fischer, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Yotam Hod, Ulrich Hoppe, Sanna Järvelä, Heisawn Jeong, Yael Kali, Timothy Koschmann, Sten Ludvigsen, Kristine Lund, Miguel Nussbaum, Peter Reimann, Carolyn Rosé, Nikol Rummel, William Sandoval, James Slotta, Gerry Stahl, Daniel Suthers, Anouschka van Leeuwen, Rupert Wegerif, and Jianwei Zhang. In addition, we particularly wish to thank Carolyn Rosé and the CSCL Committee within ISLS for the initial idea and instigation of the work, Nikol Rummel for the opportunity to share and receive feedback on these provocations-in-progress at CSCL 2017, and Sten Ludvigsen for being open to this somewhat unconventional form of scholarship and facilitating its review.

References

  1. Abrahamson, D., Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Classroom model, model classroom: Computer-supported methodology for investigating collaborative-learning pedagogy. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 46–55). New Brunswick: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  2. Antle, A. N., & Wise, A. F. (2013). Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design. Interacting with Computers, 25(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Bouton, E. (2016). Teenage peer-to-peer knowledge sharing through social network sites in secondary schools. Computers & Education, 110, 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, M., & Andriessen, J. (2009). Socio-relational, affective and cognitive dimensions of CSCL interactions: Integrating theoretical-methodological perspectives. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2009 (pp. 31–33). Rhodes: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Lund, K., & Séjourné, A. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 11–20). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 623–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borge, M., Ong, Y. S., & Rosé, C. P. (2015). Activity design models to support the development of high quality collaborative processes in online settings. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (pp. 427–434). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  14. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brooks, C., Greer, J., & Gutwin, C. (2014). The data-assisted approach to building intelligent technology-enhanced learning environments. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: From research to practice (pp. 123–156). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Bruner, J. (1990). Culture and human development: A new look. Human Development, 33(6), 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bull, S., & Kay, J. (2005). A framework for designing and analysing open learner modelling. In Proceedings of Workshop on Learner Modelling for Reflection, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam, Netherlands (pp. 81–90).Google Scholar
  18. Bull, S., & Pain, H. (1995). “Did I say what I think I said, and do you agree with me?” Inspecting and questioning the student model. In Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 501–508). Charlottesville: AACE.Google Scholar
  19. Chan, C. K. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen, B., & Zhang, J. (2016). Analytics for knowledge creation: Towards epistemic agency and design-mode thinking. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2008). The consequences of experimentalism in formulating recommendations for policy and practice in mathematics education. Educational Researcher, 37(9), 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1–2), 113–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cole, M., & The Distributed Literacy Consortium (Eds.). (2006). The fifth dimension: An after-school program built on diversity. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Lagemann & L. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 15–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Collins, A. (2017). What’s worth teaching? Rethinking curriculum in the age of technology. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  28. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  30. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980–2000. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Damşa, C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2016). Learning through interaction and the co-construction of knowledge objects in teacher education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Dascalu, M., Trausan-Matu, S., McNamara, D. S., & Dessus, P. (2015). ReaderBench: Automated evaluation of collaboration based on cohesion and dialogism. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Davies, J. (2007). Display, identity, and the everyday: Self-presentation through online image sharing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(4), 549–564.Google Scholar
  35. Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  36. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Dillenbourg, P., Huang, J., & Cherubini, M. (2008). Interactive artifacts and furniture supporting collaborative work and learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Duggan, M. (2017). Online harassment 2017. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  42. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Erkens, M., Bodemer, D., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016). Improving collaborative learning in the classroom: Text mining based grouping and representing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 387–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (pp. 136–156). New York: Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
  46. Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gašević, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gweon, G., Jain, M., McDonough, J., Raj, B., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Measuring prevalence of other-oriented transactive contributions using an automated measure of speech style accommodation. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  49. Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hemsley, J., Garcia-Murillo, M. A., & MacInnes, I. P. (2017). Retweets for policy advocates: Tweet diffusion in the policy discussion space of universal basic income. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society. New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097294.
  51. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  53. Hogan, K. (1999a). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 855–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hogan, K. (1999b). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hoppe, H. U. & Gassner, K. (2002). Integrating collaborative concept mapping tools with group memory and retrieval functions. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2002 (pp. 716–725). Boulder: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  56. Hoppe, H. U., & Ploetzner, R. (1999). Can analytic models support learning in groups. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 147–168). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  57. Introne, J., Iandoli, L., DeCook, J., Yildirim, I. G., & Elzeini, S. (2017). The collaborative construction and evolution of pseudo-knowledge in online conversations. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society. New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097297.
  58. Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Sobocinski, M., Haataja, E., & Kirschner, P. (2016). What multimodal data can tell us about the self-regulated learning process? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  60. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Yu, Y. (2014). An examination of CSCL methodological practices and the influence of theoretical frameworks 2005–2009. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 305–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K. A., & Chapman, R. N. (2009). The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  63. Kali, Y., Eylon, B.-S., McKenney, S., & Kidron, A. (in press). Design-centric research-practice partnerships: Building productive bridges between theory and practice. In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice and policy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Kay, J. (2001). Learner control. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Konert, J., Burlak, D., & Steinmetz, R. (2014). The group formation problem: An algorithmic approach to learning group formation. In Proceeding of the 9th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL) (pp. 221–234). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  70. Law, N., Miyake, N., Looi, C. K., Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., & Linn, M. (2013). Are CSCL and learning sciences research relevant to large-scale educational reform? In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2013 (pp. 572–579). Madison: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  71. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Looi, C. K., So, H. J., Toh, Y., & Chen, W. (2011). The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ludvigsen, S., Rasmussen, I., Krange, I., Moen, A., & Middleton, D. (2011). Intersecting trajectories of participation: Temporality and learning. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 105–122). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Ludvigsen, S. et al., (2015). The school of the future: Renewal of subjects and competences (Official Norwegian Reports NOU 2015: 8). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.Google Scholar
  75. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Suthers, D. D., & Baker, M. (2013). Epistemological encounters in multivocal settings. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions (pp. 659–682). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Mu, J., Stegmann, K., Mayfield, E., Rosé, C., & Fischer, F. (2012). The ACODEA framework: Developing segmentation and classification schemes for fully automatic analysis of online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  81. Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Paolucci, M., Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Belvedere: Stimulating students’ critical discussion. In Proceedings of the CHI ‘95 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 123–124). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  84. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development and the intersection of learning, implementation and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Perret-Clermont, A. N., Perret, J. F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41–62). Washington, DC: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rainie, L., Anderson, J., & Albright, J. (2017). The future of free speech, trolls, anonymity and fake news online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  87. Rathnayake, C., & Suthers, D. D. (2017). Twitter issue response hashtags as affordances for momentary connectedness. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society. New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097302.
  88. Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC research. Science, 347(6217), 34–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Chaudhury, S. R., Dimitriadis, Y., Patton, C., & DiGiano, C. (2007). Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets. Computer, 40(9), 38–44.Google Scholar
  92. Rosé, C. P., & Ferschke, O. (2016). Technology support for discussion based learning: From computer supported collaborative learning to the future of massive open online courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 660–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rosé, C., Wang, Y. C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 237–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rummel, N., Walker, E., & Aleven, V. (2016). Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 784–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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
  96. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 97, 67–98.Google Scholar
  97. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  100. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an online education community of practice. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 129–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2013). Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2014). Toward collaboration sensing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(4), 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2015). Does seeing one another’s gaze affect group dialogue? A computational approach. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 107–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Schwartz, D. L. (1999). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 197–218). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  106. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Schwarz, B. B., & Caduri, G. (2016). Novelties in the use of social networks by leading teachers in their classes. Computers & Education, 102, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Schwarz, B. B., de Groot, R., Mavrikis, M., & Dragon, T. (2015). Learning to learn together with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 239–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Schwarz, B. B., Prusak, N., Swidan, O., Livny, A. & Gal, K. (2017a). Orchestrating deep learning: A case study in a geometry class. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  110. Schwarz, B. B., Rosenberg, H., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (Eds.) (2017b). Breaking down barriers? Teachers, students and social network sites (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: MOFET Books.Google Scholar
  111. Slakmon, B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). “You will be a polis”: Political (democratic?) education, public space and CSCL discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 184–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Stahl, G. (2015). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Stahl, G. (2016). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The contested relationship of computer-supported collaborative learning to the learning sciences. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 76–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2011). Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., Law, N., & Cress, U. (2014). CSCL artifacts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2011). Quantifying qualities in collaborative knowledge construction: The analysis of online discussions. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL (pp. 247–268). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Stromer-Galley, J., & Muhlberger, P. (2009). Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy. Political Communication, 26(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Norwell: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Suthers, D. D. (2015). From contingencies to network-level phenomena: Multilevel analysis of activity and actors in heterogeneous networked learning environments. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 368–377). ACM.Google Scholar
  123. Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Tang, K. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Lin, T. C. (2014). Contemporary intellectual structure of CSCL research (2006–2013): A co-citation network analysis with an education focus. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. ten Have, P. (1990). Methodological issues in conversation analysis 1. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 27(1), 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  130. van Leeuwen, A. (2015). Learning analytics to support teachers during synchronous CSCL: Balancing between overview and overload. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 138–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. (2014). Adaptive intelligent support to improve peer tutoring in algebra. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(1), 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Wang, Y., Leon, P. G., Scott, K., Chen, X., Acquisti, A., & Cranor, L. F. (2013). Privacy nudges for social media: An exploratory Facebook study. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 763–770). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2487788.2488038.
  133. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
  134. Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the internet age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  136. Wegerif, R., Postlethwaite, K., Skinner, N., Mansour, N., Morgan, A., & Hetherington, L. (2013). Dialogic science education for diversity. In N. Mansour & R. Wegerif (Eds.), Science education for diversity (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Wise, A. F., & Cui, Y. (2017). Finding community in the crowd: The importance of tie definition and networking partitioning in examining social learning in MOOCs. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  140. Wise, A. F., & Shaffer, D. W. (2015). Why theory matters more than ever in the age of big data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Wise, A., Zhao, Y., & Hausknecht, S. (2014). Learning analytics for online discussions: Embedded and extracted approaches. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 48–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Wise, A. F., Azevedo, R., Stegmann, K., Malmberg J., Rosé C. P., & Fischer, F. (2015). CSCL and learning analytics: Opportunities to support social interaction, self-regulation and socially shared regulation. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (pp. 607–614). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  143. Wise, A. F., Vytasek, J. M., Hausknecht, S., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Developing learning analytics design knowledge in the “middle space”: The student tuning model and align design framework for learning analytics use. Online Learning, 20(2), 1–28.Google Scholar
  144. Wise, A. F., Cui, Y., Jin, W. Q., & Vytasek, J. M. (2017). Mining for gold: Identifying content-related MOOC discussion threads across domains through linguistic modeling. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, M., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Ziegler, M. F., Paulus, T., & Woodside, M. (2015). Informal learning as group meaning-making: Visible talk in online communities. In O. Mejiuni, P. Cranton, & O. Táíwò (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing informal learning in the digital age (pp. 180–196). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human DevelopmentNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations