Learning Together

doi:10.1017/9781108888295.023

Part IV - Learning Together

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022

Edited by

R. Keith Sawyer

Show author details

R. Keith Sawyer: Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 383 - 464

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.023 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

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

References

Alter, S. (2017). Nothing is more practical than a good conceptual artifact … which may be a theory, framework, model, metaphor, paradigm or perhaps some other abstraction. Information Systems Journal, 27(5), 671–693. doi:10.1111/isj.12116 Google Scholar

Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2014). Arguing to learn. In Sawyer, R. K.. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 439–460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bereiter, C. (2016). Theory building and education for understanding. In Peters, M. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_370-1 Google Scholar

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In Corte, E. D., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & Merriënboer, J. V. (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 73–78). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26377 CrossRef Google Scholar

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: One concept, two hills to climb. In Tan, S. C., So, H. J., & Yeo, J. (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 35–52). Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2016). “Good moves” in knowledge-creating dialogue. Qwerty – Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 11(2), 12–26. Retrieved from http://www.ckbg.org/qwerty/index.php/qwerty/article/view/242 Google Scholar

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2018). Fixing Humpty-Dumpty: Putting higher-order skills and knowledge together again. In Kerslake, L. & Wegerif, R. (Eds.), Theory of teaching thinking: International perspectives (pp. 73–88). London; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble, L. & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Brown, J. S. (2017). Sensemaking in our post-AlphaGo world. Retrieved from http://johnseelybrown.com/SensemakingStanford.pdf Google Scholar

Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Knowledge Forum: Altering the relationship between students and scientific knowledge. Education, Communication & Information, 1(3), 281–305.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chan, C. K. K. (2013). Collaborative knowledge building: Towards a knowledge creation perspective. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 437–461). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chen, B., Chang, Y.-H., Groos, D., et al. (2019). IdeaMagnets: Bridging Knowledge Building in schools with public discourse. Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology. Retrieved June 13, 2020 from https://bodong.me/talk/2019-kbsi-ideamagnets/featured.png Google Scholar

Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266–288.Google Scholar

Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge building discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345–366. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9225-z Google Scholar

Chen, B., & Zhang, J. (2016). Analytics for knowledge creation: Towards epistemic agency and design-mode thinking. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 139–163.Google Scholar

Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., et al. (2010). Understanding the nature of science and scientific progress: A theory-building approach. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26373 Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 259–288). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, S. (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery and change (pp. 461–493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Goldman, S. R., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). Learning from multiple sources in a digital society. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 86–95). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science & Education, 11(1), 25–43.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613–627.Google Scholar

Keefer, M. W., Seitz, C. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 3–81.Google Scholar

Khanlari, A., Zhu, G., & Scardamalia, M. (2019). Knowledge Building analytics to explore crossing disciplinary and grade-level boundaries. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 60–75.Google Scholar

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimally guided instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar

Laferrière, T., Law, N. W. Y., & Montané, M. (2012). An international knowledge building network for sustainable curriculum and pedagogical innovation. International Education Studies, 5(3), 148–160.Google Scholar

Lin, P.-Y., Ma, L., Chang, Y.-H., Hong, H.-Y., & Lin, C. P. (2018). Improving elementary students’ literacy through knowledge building. In Kay, J. & Luckin, R. (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018, Vol. 3 (pp. 1527–1528). London, England: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Liu, A. (2012). This is not a book: Transliteracies and long forms of digital attention. Paper presented at the Translittératies Conference, ENS Cachan, Paris, November 7, 2012. Retrieved from https://liu.english.ucsb.edu/this-is-not-a-book-translitteraties-conference-paris/Google Scholar

Liu, A. (2018). Friending the past: The sense of history in the digital age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Loo, S. (2017). Creative working in the knowledge economy. Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ma, L., & Scardamalia, M. (in press). Teachers as designers in knowledge building innovation networks. In Shanahan, M.-C., Kim, B., Koh, K., Preciado-Babb, A. P., & Takeuchi, M. A. (Eds.), The learning sciences in conversation: Theories, methodologies, and boundary spaces. Routledge.Google Scholar

Ma, L., Tan, S., Teo, C., & Kamsan, M. (2017). Using rotating leadership to visualize students’ epistemic agency and collective responsibility for knowledge advancement. In Smith, B. K., Borge, M., Mercier, E., & Lim, K. Y. (Eds.), Making a difference: Prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2017, Vol. 1 (pp. 455–462). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar

Matsuzawa, Y. (2019). Knowledge Forum video annotation to advance community knowledge. Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology. Retrieved September 9, 2019 from https://macc704.github.io/www/VideoAnnotaionTool.html Google Scholar

Mayfield, E., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). LightSIDE: Open source machine learning for text. In Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, J. (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions (pp. 124–135). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mercer, N. (2000). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. (Originally published in 1995).Google Scholar

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.Google Scholar

Oshima, J., Oshima, R., & Matsuzawa, Y. (2012). Knowledge Building Discourse Explorer: A social network analysis application for knowledge building discourse. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 903–921.Google Scholar

Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative feedback and metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 309–336. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9219-x Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In Smith, B. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In DiStefano, A., Rudestam, K. E., & Silverman, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2020). Will knowledge building remain uniquely human? Qwerty – Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 11(2), 12–26.Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge building: Advancing the state of community knowledge. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 261–279). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRef Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P. J., Calhoun, C., & Smith Lea, N. (1992). Educational applications of a networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 45–71.CrossRef Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In McGilley, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, R., & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments and environments for knowledge building. In Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231–300). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.Google Scholar

Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 109–136.Google Scholar

Slotta, J. D., & Acosta, A. (2017). Scripting and orchestrating learning communities: A role for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 343–350). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Sterelny, K. (2005). Externalism, epistemic artefacts and the extended mind. In Schantz, R. (Ed.), The externalist challenge: New studies on cognition and intentionality. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Developing deep understanding and literacy while addressing a gender-based literacy gap. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26369 Google Scholar

Tan, Y. H., & Tan, S. C. (2020). Conceptions of knowledge creation, knowledge and knowing: A phenomenography of Singapore Chinese language teachers. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar

Tan, S. C., So, H. J., & Yeo, J. (2014). Knowledge creation in education. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar

Teo, C. L. (2019). Community-based design research to sustain classroom innovation with ICT. In Hung, D., Lee, S.-S., Toh, Y., Jamaludin, A., & Wu, L. (Eds.), Innovations in educational change: Cultivating ecologies for schools (pp. 103–118). Singapore: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Toth, P., & Ma, L. (2018). Fostering student voice and epistemic agency through knowledge building. In Knowledge building: A place for everyone in a knowledge society, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Knowledge Building Summer Institute (pp. 96–104). Toronto, Canada: Knowledge Building International. www.researchgate.net/publication/329842125 Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.Google Scholar

van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

van Aalst, J., & Truong, M. S. (2011). Promoting knowledge creation discourse in an Asian primary five classroom: Results from an inquiry into life cycles. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 487–515.Google Scholar

von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: Unlocking the mystery of tacit knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and intergroup discourse: Students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25–39.CrossRef Google Scholar

Yeo, J., & Tan, S. C. (2010). Constructive use of authoritative sources in science meaning making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1739–1754.CrossRef Google Scholar

Yoon, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 167–183.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zhang, J., & Chen, M.-H. (2019). Idea Thread Mapper: Designs for sustaining student-driven knowledge building across classrooms. In Hmelo-Silver, C. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2019). Lyon, France: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Chen, M.-H., Chen, J., & Mico, T. F. (2013). Computer-supported metadiscourse to foster collective progress in knowledge-building communities. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2013). Madison, WI: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.Google Scholar

Zhu, G., Teo, C. L., Scardamalia, M., et al. (2020). Emotional and cognitive affordances of collaborative learning environments. In Gresalfi, M. & Horn, I. S. (Eds.), The interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020 (Vol. 1, pp. 382–389). Nashville, TN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

References

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Button, G., Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2015). Deconstructing ethnography: Towards a social methodology for ubiquitous computing and interactive systems design. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Cakir, M., Xhafa, F., Zhou, N., & Stahl, G. (2005). Thread-based analysis of patterns of collaborative interaction in chat. In Proceedings of the International Conference on AI in Education (AI-Ed 2005). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

David, M. (2016). The correspondence theory of truth. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved September 10, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/truth-correspondence Google Scholar

Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1991). Knowing and known. In Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1949–1952 (Vol. 16, pp. 1–294). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In Bromme, R., Hesse, F., & Spada, H. (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication – and how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Reimann, P. & Spada, H. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.10.pdf Google Scholar

Donmez, P., Rosé, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2005). Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar

Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Kosultit Oy.Google Scholar

Fischer, K., & Granoo, N. (1995). Beyond one-dimensional change: Parallel, concurrent, socially distributed processes in learning and development. Human Development, 1995 (38), 302–314.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquiries: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In Hicks, D. (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 104–141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.Google Scholar

Jonçich, G. (1968). The sane positivist: A biography of Edward L. Thorndike. Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar

Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 61–77). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (1997). Logo-as-Latin redux: Review of Papert’s “The children’s machine.” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 409–415.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2001). A third metaphor for learning: Toward a Deweyan form of transactional inquiry. In Carver, S. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 119–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17–22). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2011). Theorizing practice. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2018). Ethnomethodology: Studying the practical achievement of intersubjectivity. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C., Goldman, S., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 465–474). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice within the design-based research). In Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2003). Problematizing the problem: A single case analysis in a DPBL meeting. In Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL ‘03) (pp. 37–46). Bergen, Norway: Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–83). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

LeBaron, C. (2002). Technology does not exist independent of its use. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 433–439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P., & Martens, R. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 31–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef Google Scholar

Medina, R., & Stahl, G. (2021). Analysis of group practices. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 199–218). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.Google Scholar

Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. (1974). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance of theories of comprehension. In Smith, N. V. (Ed.), Mutual knowledge. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2002). Rediscovering CSCL. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 169–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/papers/ch01.pdf Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2013). Translating Euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2021). Theoretical investigations: Philosophical foundations of group cognition. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Theories of CSCL. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 23–43). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.Google Scholar

Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (Eds.). (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Thorndike, E. L. (1912). Education: A first book. New York, NY: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143–157.Google Scholar

Young, J. (2018). The coherence theory of truth. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved September 10, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/truth-coherence Google Scholar

Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Stahl, G. (2005). Analyzing the organization of collaborative math problem-solving in online chats using statistics and conversation analysis. In Fuks, H., Lukosch, S., & Salgado, A. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use: 11th International Workshop, CRIWG 2005. Porto de Galinhas, Brazil (pp. 271–283). http://GerryStahl.net/pub/criwg2005zemel.pdf Google Scholar

References

Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135–167. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1502_1 Google Scholar

Andriessen, J. (2005). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In O’Donnell, A., Hmelo, C., & Erkens, G. (Eds.), Collaboration, reasoning, and technology (pp. 277–321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: Examples of actual practices with argumentation tools. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 195–213). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & van der Puil, C. (2011). Socio-cognitive tension in collaborative working relations. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Saljo, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 222–242). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2013). Argument diagrams and learning: Cognitive and educational perspectives. In Schraw, G., McCrudden, M., & Robinson, D. (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 329–356). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2020). On collaboration: Personal, educational and societal arenas. Boston, MA; Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill-Sense.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J., & Sandberg, J. (1999). Where is education heading and how about AI? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2), 130–150.Google Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C., & Babichenko, M. (2015). The social dimension of learning through argumentation: Effects of human presence and discourse style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 740–755. doi:10.1037/edu0000014 Google Scholar

Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.). (2013). Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2020). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Major, L. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 76–88). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.Google Scholar

Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.Google Scholar

Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., & Van Lehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105.Google Scholar

De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1986). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 8, pp. 105–352). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1933)Google Scholar

Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1975). Social interaction and cognitive development. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 367–383.Google Scholar

Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B., & Porat, D. (2011). Changes in narrative and argumentative writing by students discussing “hot” historical issues. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 185–217.Google Scholar

Golder, C. (1996). Le développement des discours argumentatifs [The development of argumentative discourses]. Lausanne, Switzerland: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar

Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar

Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., & Baker, M. J. (2018). Striking a balance: Argumentation and socio-emotional processes in collaborative learning interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003 Google Scholar

Keefer, M. W., Seitz, C. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 259–265). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.Google Scholar

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Leitão, S. (2001). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2, Article 2.Google Scholar

Levin, J., & Moore, J. (1980). Dialogue-games: Meta-communication structure for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395–420.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). Question-begging in noncumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 117–133.Google Scholar

Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.Google Scholar

Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 67–90). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225–256.Google Scholar

Nonnon, E. (1996). Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d’exploration [Argumentative activities and elaboration of new knowledge]. Langue Francaise, 112, 67–87.Google Scholar

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.Google Scholar

Peng, K., & Nisbett, E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754.Google Scholar

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Picard, R. W., Papert, S., Bender, W., et al. (2004). Affective learning – a manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 253–269.Google Scholar

Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. P. (2016) Group emotions: The social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123–156. doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8 CrossRef Google Scholar

Pontecorvo, C. (Ed.). (1993). Special issue: Discourse and shared reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4).Google Scholar

Rapanta, C., & Christodoulou, A. (2019). Walton’s types of argumentation dialogues as classroom discourse sequences. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100352 Google Scholar

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.Google Scholar

Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H., & Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1848–1869. doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856 Google Scholar

Schwarz, B., & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316493960 Google Scholar

Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Schwarz, B. B., Kolikant, Y. B. D., & Mishenkina, M. (2012). “Co-alienation” mediated by common representations in synchronous e-discussions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3–4), 216–231.Google Scholar

Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 179–199). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition: The collaborative locus of agency in CSCL. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The next 10 years! – CSCL’05, 632–640. doi:10.3115/1149293.1149376 Google Scholar

Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 113–133.Google Scholar

Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.Google Scholar

Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. In Schnase, J. L. & Cunnius, E. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL’95 (pp. 341–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York, NY: Random House Trade.Google Scholar

Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369. doi:10.1007/s11412–016-9240-8 Google Scholar

Tiberghien, A., & de Vries, E. (1997). Relating characteristics of learning situations to learner activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 163–174.Google Scholar

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tzou, C., Meixi, , Suárez, E., et al. (2019). Storywork in STEM-Art: Making, materiality and robotics within everyday acts of indigenous presence and resurgence. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 306–326. doi:10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547 CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–522.Google Scholar

Van Amelsvoort, M., & Schilperoord, J. (2018). How number and size of text boxes in argument diagrams affect opinions. Learning and Instruction, 57, 57–70. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.003 Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Developments in argumentation theory. In Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 43–57). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511. doi:10.1007/s10648–016-9361-7 Google Scholar

Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), 321–329.Google Scholar

Voss, J., & Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337–350.Google Scholar

Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123(3), 327–346.Google Scholar

Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

References

Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88(Suppl. 1) (July), S17–S33.Google Scholar

Allwood, J., & Montgomery, B. (1989). Exhibition planning and design: A guide for exhibitors, designers and contractors. London, England: Batsford.Google Scholar

Anderson, D., Storksdieck, M., & Spock, M. (2007). The long-term impacts of museum experiences. In Falk, J., Dierking, L., & Foutz, S. (Eds.), In principle, in practice: New perspectives on museums as learning institutions (pp. 197–215). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

Andre, L., Durksen, T., & Volman, M. L. (2017). Museums as avenues of learning for children: A decade of research. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 47–76.Google Scholar

Ash, D. (2004). How families use questions at dioramas: Ideas for exhibit design. Curator, 47(1), 84–99.Google Scholar

Bakken, S. M., & Pierroux, P. (2015). Framing a topic: Mobile video tasks in museum learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 5, 54–65.Google Scholar

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224.Google Scholar

Beale, K. (Ed.). (2011). Museums at play: Games, interaction and learning. Edinburgh, Scotland: MuseumsEtc.Google Scholar

Beer, V. (1987). Great expectations: Do museums know what visitors are doing? Curator, 30(3), 206–215.Google Scholar

Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bitgood, S. (1988). A comparison of formal and informal learning. Technical Report No. 88-10. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.Google Scholar

Callanan, M., Martin, J., & Luce, M. (2016). Two decades of families learning in children’s museums. In Sobel, D. & Lipson, J. L. (Eds.), Cognitive development in museum settings (pp. 15–35). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Christidou, D., & Pierroux, P. (2019). Art, touch and meaning making: An analysis of multisensory interpretation in the museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 34(1), 96–115.Google Scholar

Classen, C. (2017). The museum of the senses: Experiencing art and collections. London, England: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Cone, C. A., & Kendall, K. (1978). Space, time, and family interaction: Visitor behavior at the Science Museum of Minnesota. Curator, 21(3), 245–258.Google Scholar

Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity. Science Education, 85(6), 712–732.Google Scholar

Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Islands of expertise and the development of family scientific literacy. In Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Damşa, C., Nerland, M., & Andreadakis, Z. (2019). An ecological perspective on learner‐constructed learning spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2075–2089. doi:10.1111/bjet.12855 Google Scholar

DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181–197.Google Scholar

Dierking, L. H., & Falk, J. H. (1994). Family behavior and learning in informal science settings: A review of the research. Science Education, 78(1), 57–72.Google Scholar

DiSalvo, B. (2016). Participatory design through a learning science lens. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Santa Clara, CA.Google Scholar

Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., & Dierking, L. D. (2004). Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education, 88(Suppl. 1), S48–S58. doi:10.1002/sce.20015 Google Scholar

Falk, J. H. (2005). Free‐choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 265–280.Google Scholar

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.Google Scholar

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95% solution: School is not where most Americans learn most of their science. American Scientist, 98, 486–493.Google Scholar

Falk, J. H., Koran, J., Dierking, L. H., & Dreblow, L. (1985). Predicting visitor behavior. Curator, 28(4), 249–257.Google Scholar

Falk, J., Mousouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effects of visitors’ agendas on museum learning. Curator, 41(2), 107–120.Google Scholar

Fender, J. G., & Crowley, K. (2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 189–210.Google Scholar

Furberg, A., & Arnseth, H. C. (2009). Reconsidering conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective: Analyzing students’ meaning making in genetics in collaborative learning activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 157–191.Google Scholar

Gaskins, S. (2016). Collaboration is a two-way street. In Sobel, D. & Lipson, J. L. (Eds.), Cognitive development in museum settings: Relating research and practice (pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gleason, M. E., & Schauble, L. (1999). Parents’ assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 343–378.Google Scholar

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Griffin, J. (1999). Finding evidence of learning in museum settings. In Scanlon, E., Yates, S. J., & Whitelegg, E. (Eds.), Communicating science: Contexts and channels (pp. 110–119). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Grinter, R. E., Aoki, P. M., Hurst, A., et al. (2002). Revisiting the visit: Understanding how technology can shape the museum visit. In Proceedings CSCW’02. New Orleans, LA: ACM.Google Scholar

Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2010). Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits. Science Education, 94(4), 710–742.Google Scholar

Hatala, M., Tanenbaum, K., Wakkary, R., et al. (2009). Experience structuring factors affecting learning in family visits to museums. In Cress, U., Dimitrova, V., & Specht, M. (Eds.), Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines, 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2009 Proceedings. Nice, France, September 29–October 2 (pp. 37–52). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Hauser, W., Noschka-Roos, A., Reussner, E., & Zahn, C. (2009). Design-based research on digital media in a museum environment. Visitor Studies, 12(2), 182–198.Google Scholar

Heath, C., & vom Lehn, D. (2002). Misconstruing interaction. In Hinton, M. (Ed.), The proceedings of interactive learning in museums of art and design. London, England: Victoria and Albert Museum.Google Scholar

Hecht, M., & Crowley, K. (2020). Unpacking the learning ecosystems framework: Lessons from the adaptive management of biological ecosystems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(2), 264–284.Google Scholar

Hecht, M., Knutson, K., & Crowley, K. (2019). Becoming a naturalist: Interest development across the learning ecology. Science Education, 103(3), 691–713.Google Scholar

Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hetland, P., Pierroux, P., & Esborg, L. (Eds.). (2020). A history of participation in museums and archives: Traversing citizen science and citizen humanities. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992). Museums and the shaping of knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hornecker, E., & Ciolfi, L. (2019). Human-computer interactions in museums. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 12(2), i–171.Google Scholar

Hsi, S. (2002). The electronic guidebook: A study of user experiences using mobile web content in a museum setting. In IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE’02). Växjö, Sweden: IEEE.Google Scholar

Irwin, B., Pegram, E., & Gay, H. (2013). New directions, new relationships: The Smithsonian’s twenty-first century learning in natural history settings conference and the Natural History Museum, London. Curator, 56(2), 273–278.Google Scholar

Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2019). Family touch practices and learning experiences in the museum. The Senses and Society, 14(2), 221–235.Google Scholar

Jornet, A., & Damşa, C. I. (2019). Unit of analysis from an ecological perspective: Beyond the individual/social dichotomy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, s 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100329 Google Scholar

Katz, J. E., LaBar, W., & Lynch, E. (Eds.). (2011). Creativity and technology: Social media, mobiles and museums. Edinburgh, Scotland: MuseumsEtc.Google Scholar

Kenderdine, S. (2020). Hemispheres: Transdisciplinary architectures and museum-university collaboration. In Lewi, H., Smith, W., vom Lehn, D., & Cooke, S. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of new digital practices in galleries, libraries, archives, museums and heritage sites (pp. 305–318). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kidd, J. (2014). Museums in the new mediascape: Transmedia, participation, ethics. Farnham, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Kim, K. Y., & Crowley, K. (2010). Negotiating the goal of museum inquiry: How families engineer and experiment. In Stein, M. K. & Kucan, L. (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Kisiel, J. (2003). Teachers, museums and worksheets: A closer look at the learning experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(1), 3–21.Google Scholar

Kisiel, J. (2005). Understanding elementary teachers’ motivation for science fieldtrips. Science Education, 89(6), 936–955.Google Scholar

Kisiel, J. (2006). Making field trips work. The Science Teacher, 73(1), 46–48.Google Scholar

Kisiel, J., Rowe, S., Vartabedian, M. A., & Kopczak, C. (2012). Evidence for family engagement in scientific reasoning at interactive animal exhibits. Science Education, 96(6), 1047–1070.Google Scholar

Klopfer, E., Perry, J., Squire, K., Jan, M.-F., & Steinkuehler, C. (2005). Mystery at the Museum: A collaborative game for museum education. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar

Knutson, K. (2019). Rethinking museum/community partnerships: Science and natural history museums and the challenges of communicating climate change. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 101–113). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Knutson, K., & Crowley, K. (2010). Connecting with art: How families talk about art in a museum setting. In Stein, M. K. & Kucan, L. (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 189–206). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Krange, I., Silseth, K., & Pierroux, P. (2019). Peers, teachers and guides: A study of three conditions for scaffolding conceptual learning in science centers. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 241–263. doi:10.1007/s11422-018-9905-x Google Scholar

Leinhardt, G., & Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on museum conversations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

Lewi, H., Smith, W., vom Lehn, D., & Cooke, S. (Eds.). (2020) The Routledge international handbook of new digital practices in galleries, libraries, archives, museums and heritage sites. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Louw, M., & Crowley, K. (2013). New ways of looking and learning in natural history museums: The use of gigapixel imaging to bring science and publics together. Curator, 52(1), 87–104.Google Scholar

Malinverni, L., Schaper, M.-M., & Pares, N. (2019). Multimodal methodological approach for participatory design of full-body interaction learning environments. Qualitative Research, 19(1), 71–89.Google Scholar

Matusov, E., & Rogoff, B. (1995). Evidence of development from people’s participation in communities of learners. In Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 97–104). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar

McIlvenny, P. (2020). The future of ‘video’ in video-based qualitative research is not ‘dumb’ flat pixels! Exploring volumetric performance capture and immersive performative replay. Qualitative Research, 20(6), 800–818. doi:10.1177/1468794120905460 Google Scholar

McManus, P. (1985). Worksheet-induced behaviour in the British Museum (Natural History). Journal of Biological Education, 19(3), 237–242.Google Scholar

Melber, L. M. (2007). Maternal scaffolding in two museum exhibition halls. Curator, 50(3), 341–354.Google Scholar

Mortensen, M. F., & Smart, K. (2007). Free-choice worksheets increase students’ exposure to curriculum during museum visits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1389–1414.Google Scholar

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2006). Report 11: Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. Bristol: FutureLab Series. Retrieved from www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/futl15/futl15.pdf Google Scholar

Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Palmquist, S. D., & Crowley, K. (2007). From teachers to testers: Parents’ role in child expertise development in informal settings. Science Education, 91(5), 712–732.Google Scholar

Parker, E., & Saker, M. (2020). Art museums and the incorporation of virtual reality: Examining the impact of VR on spatial and social norms. Convergence, 26(5–6), 1159–1173. doi:10.1177/1354856519897251 Google Scholar

Parry, R. (2007). Recoding the museum: Digital heritage and the technologies of change. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Parry, R. (2010). Museums in a digital age. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pavement, P. (2019). The museum as media producer: Innovation before the digital age. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 31–46). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pierroux, P. (2019). Learning and engagement in museum mediascapes. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 128–142). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pierroux, P., Krange, I., & Sem, I. (2011). Bridging contexts and interpretations: Mobile blogging on art museum field trips. Mediekultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 27(50), 25–44.Google Scholar

Pierroux, P., Sauge, B., & Steier, R. (2021). Exhibitions as a collaborative research space for university-museum partnerships. In Achiam, M., Haldrup, M., & Drotner, K. (Eds.), Experimental museology: Institutions, representations, users (pp. 149–166). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Samis, P. (2019). Revisiting the utopian promise of interpretive media: An autoethnographic analysis drawn from art museums, 1991–2017. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 47–66). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sangrà, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., & Veletsianos, G. (2019). Lifelong learning ecologies: Linking formal and informal contexts of learning in the digital era. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1615–1618.Google Scholar

Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 70–85.Google Scholar

Screven, C. G. (1986). Exhibitions and information centers: Some principles and approaches. Curator, 29(2), 109–137.Google Scholar

Selvakumar, M., & Storksdieck, M. (2013). Portal to the public: Museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator, 56(1), 69–78.Google Scholar

Shapiro, B. R., & Hall, R. (2017). Making engagement visible: The use of Mondrian transcripts in a museum. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 33–40). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Siegel, D. R., Esterly, J. A., Callanan, M. A., Wright, R., & Navarro, R. (2007). Conversations about science across activities in Mexican‐descent families. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1447–1466.Google Scholar

Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Retrieved from http://www.participatorymuseum.org/Google Scholar

Sobel, D., & Lipson, J. L. (Eds.). (2016). Cognitive development in museum settings. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Stapp, C. B. (2008). Defining museum literacy. In Nichols, S. K. (Ed.), Patterns in practice: Selections from the Journal of Museum Education (pp. 112–117). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.Google Scholar

Steier, R. (2014). Posing the question: Visitor posing as embodied interpretation in an art museum. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 148–170.Google Scholar

Steier, R. (2020). Designing for joint attention and co-presence across parallel realities. In Gresalfi, M. & Horn, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 3, pp. 1309–1316).Google Scholar

Steiner, M. A., Lyon, M., & Crowley, K. (2020). Museums that connect science and citizen: Using boundary objects and networks to encourage dialogue and collective response to wicked, socio-scientific problems. In Hetland, P., Pierroux, P., & Esborg, L. (Eds.), A history of participation in museums and archives: Traversing citizen science and citizen humanities (pp. 211–235). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Stevens, R., & Martell, S. T. (2003). Leaving a trace: Supporting museum visitor interaction and interpretation with digital media annotation systems. The Journal of Museum Education, 28(2), 25–31.Google Scholar

Streeck, J. (2009). Depicting gestures: Examples of the analysis of embodied communication in the arts of the West. Gesture, 9(1), 1–34.Google Scholar

Stuedahl, D. (2019). Participation in design and changing practices of museum development. In Drotner, K., Dziekan, V., Parry, R., & Schrøder, K. C. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of museums, media and communication (pp. 219–231). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tallon, L., & Walker, K. (Eds.). (2008). Digital technologies and the museum experience: Handheld guides and other media. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

Vom Lehn, D. (2006). The body as interactive display: Examining bodies in a public exhibition. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(2), 223–251.Google Scholar

Vom Lehn, D., & Heath, C. (2005). Accounting for new technology in museum exhibitions. Marketing Management, 7(3), 11–21.Google Scholar

Vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24(2), 189–216.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Watson, B., & Werb, S. R. (2013). One hundred strong: A colloquium on transforming natural history museums in the twenty-first century. Curator, 56(2), 255–265.Google Scholar

Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wilkening, S., & Chung, J. (2009). Life stages of the museum visitor: Building engagement over a lifetime: Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar

Wishart, J., & Triggs, P. (2010). MuseumScouts: Exploring how schools, museums and interactive technologies can work together to support learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 669–678.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part IV - Learning Together

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive