Advertisement

Technology Affordances for Intersubjective Learning, and How They May Be Exploited

  • Dan Suthers
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 5)

Keywords

Boundary Object Knowledge Construction Knowledge Building Knowledge Communication Computer Support Collaborative Learn 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, A.H., Mullin, J., McEwan, R., Bal, J., Carletta, J., Grattan, E. & Brundell, P. (this volume). Barriers and biases to collaborating in virtual teams: Explorations in the lab and in the workplace. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Arias, E., Eden H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., and Scharff, E., (1999). Beyond Access: Informed Participation and Empowerment. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL’ 99), Palo Alto, December 12–15, 1999. pp. 20–32.Google Scholar
  4. Bertelsen, Olav W. and Bødker, Susanne (2003). Activity Theory. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks: Towards a Multidisiplinary Science. San Francisco, Mogan Kaufmann: 291–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackwell, Alan & Green, Thomas (2003). Notational Systems—The Cognitive Dimensions of Notations Framework. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks: Towards a Multidisiplinary Science. San Francisco, Mogan Kaufmann: 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bromme, R., Hesse, F.W. & Spada, H. (this volume). 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. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Bromme, R, Jucks, R. & Runde, A. (this volume). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert-layperson-communication. An overview and insights into the field of medical advice. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, H.H. & Brennan, S.E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine and S.D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127–149). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, A. & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic Forms and Epistemic Games: Structures and Strategies to Guide Inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(l),25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cress, U, Barquero, B., Buder, J. & Hesse, F.W. (this volume). Social barriers for knowledge communication via shared databases. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Dillenbourg, P. (this volume). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Donath, J. (2002). A Semantic Approach to Visualizing Online Conversations. Communications of the ACM 45(4), April 2002, pp. 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erickson, T., Halverson, C, Kellogg, W. A., Laff, M. and Wolf, T. “Social Translucence: Designing Social Infrastructures that Make Collective Activity Visible.” Communications of the ACM 45(4), April 2002, pp. 40–44, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, G. & Ostwald, J. (this volume). Knowledge communication in design communities. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Fussell, S., R., Kraut, R. E., & Siegel, J. (2000). Coordination of communication: Effects of shared visual context on collaborative work. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting and Knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgoson, V., & Mc Connell, D. (eds.) (2004). Advances in Research on Networked Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2002). Distributed Cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.) Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium. New York: ACM Press Addison Wesley), 2002, pp. 75–94. (Reprinted from ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7(2), June 2000.)Google Scholar
  21. Hollan, J. & Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. Proceedings of the SIGCH1 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'92), May 3–7, 1992, Monterey, California, pp. 119–125.Google Scholar
  22. Hoppe. U. & Ogata, H. (eds.) (submitted). New Technologies for Colaborative Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Hutchins, E. (2002). Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Joiner, R (1993). Resolution of Inter-Individual Conflicts: A Mechanism of Learning in Joint Planning. In S. Easterbrook (Ed), CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict, Springer-Verlag, pp. 107–121.Google Scholar
  26. Jordan, B. and A. Henderson (1995). “Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(1): 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirschner, P.A. & Kreijns, K. (this volume). Enhancing sociability of computer-mediated collaborative learning environments. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Koedinger, K. (1991). On the design of novel notations and actions to facilitate thinking and learning. Proc. Int. Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 266–273). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  29. Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey's contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Boulder, January 7–11, 2002. pp. 17–22.Google Scholar
  30. Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J. & Barnhart, A. (this volume). How do people learn? Members’ 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. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Kotovsky, K. & H. A. Simon (1990). What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the problem space of difficulty. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 143–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lingnau, A., Hoppe, H.U., Mannhaupt, G. (2003). Computer supported collaborative writing in an early learning classroom. In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19,2, 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muller, M. J., Tudor, L. G., Wildman, D. M., White, E. a., Root, R. W., Dayton, T., Carr, R., Diekman, B., & Dykstra-Erikson, E. (1995). Bifocal tools for scenarios and representations in participatory activities with users. In J. M. Carroll (ed.) Scenario-based Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 135–163.Google Scholar
  36. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. interactions 6(3), May/June 1999, pp. 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–49.Google Scholar
  38. Novick, L. R. & Hmelo, C. E. (1994). Transferring symbolic representations across nonisomorphic problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1296–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olson, G. M & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15(2/3), September 2000. Reprinted in J. M Carroll (Ed) Human-Comuter Interaction in the New Millennum. New York: ACM Press (2002). pp. 397–417.Google Scholar
  40. Pfister, H.-R. (this volume). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  41. Piaget, J. (1976). The Grasp of Consciousness: Action and Concept in the Young Child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pinkwart, N. (2003). A Plug-In Architecture for Graph Based Collaborative Modeling Systems. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo & J. Kay (eds.): Shaping the Future of Learning through Intelligent Technologies. Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 535–536. Amsterdam, IOS Press.Google Scholar
  43. Roschelle, J. (1994, May). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry? The Arachnet Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture, 2(2).Google Scholar
  44. Rosson, M.B. & Carroll, J.M.. (2002). Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Develoment of Human-Computer Interaction, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 2002.Google Scholar
  45. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (this volume). Sustainable support for computer—mediated collaboration. How to achieve and how to assess it. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: a challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schiffrin, D. (1989). Conversation analysis. In F. Newmeyer (Ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Volume IV: Language: the Socio-Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 251–276.Google Scholar
  48. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning. Allyn and Bacon, 2nd. edition.Google Scholar
  49. Stahl, G. (in press). Collaboration with Technology: Mediation of Group Cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19(1), 97–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strijbos, J.W., Kirschner, P.A. & Martens, R.L. (eds.) (2004). What We Know About CSCL-And Implementint It In Higher Education. Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  52. Strube, G., Wittstruck, B., Thalemann, S. & Garg, K. (this volume). Knowledge sharing in teams of heterogeneous experts. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  53. Sugimoto, M., Kusunoki, F., Inagaki, S., Taktoki, K., & Yoshikawa, A. (2003). EPRO2: Design of a system and a curriculum to support group learning for school children. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen & U. Hoppe (Eds), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 303–312.Google Scholar
  54. Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a Systematic Study of Representational Guidance for Collaborative Learning Discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science 7(3), 2001. Electronic publication: http://www.jucs.org/iucs_7_3/towards_a_systematic_study Google Scholar
  55. Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., and Weiner, A. (2001). Representational and Advisory Guidance for Students Learning Scientific Inquiry. In Forbus, K. D., and Feltovich, P. J. (2001). Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/Mit Press, pp. 7–35.Google Scholar
  56. Suthers, D., Girardeau, L. and Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic Roles of External Representations in Face-to-face and Online Collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen & U. Hoppe (Eds), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 173–182.Google Scholar
  57. Suthers, D., and Hundhausen, C. (2003). An Empirical Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suthers, D. (2005). Collaborative Knowledge Building through Shared Representations. To appear in Proceedings of the 38th Hawai'i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-37), January 3–6, 2005, Wakoloa, Hawai'i (CD-ROM), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).Google Scholar
  59. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toth, E., Suthers, D., and Lesgold, A. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of evidence maps and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry skills. Science Education 86(2): 264–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Utgoff, P. (1986). Shift of bias for inductive concept learning. In R. Michalski, J. Carbonell, T. Mitchell (Eds.) Machine Learning: An Artitificial Intelligence Approach, Volume II, Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann 1986, pp. 107–148.Google Scholar
  62. Viégas, F. B. & Smith, M. (2004). Newsgroup Crowds and AuthorLines: Visualizing the Activity of Individuals in Conversational Cyberspaces. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, Hawaii, January 2004, (CD-ROM), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).Google Scholar
  63. Von Glasersfeld, E., (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in Education, pp. 3–16. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  64. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally published in 1930.)Google Scholar
  65. Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M, Ertl, B., Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (this volume). 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—and How They May Be Overcome. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  66. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Suthers

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations