Tutoring through the internet: How students and teachers interact to construct meaning

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 26, Issue 15, 2004, Pages 1875-1894

  Giordan, Marcelo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11244325632     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2004.10065602     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. BARON, N.S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: the linguistcs of e-mail. Language and Communication, 18, 133–170.
2. BELL, P. and LIN, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.
3. CRONJÉ, J.C. (2001). Metaphors and models in internet-based learning. Computers and Education, 37, 241–256.
4. CRYSTAL, D. (2001). Language and the Internet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
5. DAWES, L. (1999). First connections: teachers and the National Grid for Learning. Computers and Education, 33, 235–252.
6. DILLON, J.T. (1988a). Questioning and Teaching: A Manual of Practice (Sydney: Croom Helm).
7. DILLON, J.T. (org.) (1988b). Questioning and Discussion: A Multidisciplinary Study (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing).
8. DURHAM, M.E. (1997). Secondary science teachers’ response to student questions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4), 257–267.
9. EDWARDS, D and MERCER, N. (1987). Common Knowledge: The Development of Understanding in the Classroom (London: Methuen/Routledge).
10. GIORDAN, M. and MELLO, I.C. (2001). Tutoring through elematics in teaching and learning chemistry. Paper presented at the 6th European Conference on Research in Chemical Education, University of Aveiro/Portugal, 4–8 September.
11. GRAESSER, A.C. and PERSON, N.K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.
12. GRAESSER, A.C., PERSON, N.K. and HUBER, J. (1992). Mechanisms that generate questions. In T.W. Lauer, E. Peacock and A.C. Graesser (eds.) Questions and Information Systems (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 167–187.
13. HERRENKOHL, L.R. and GUERRA, M.R. (1998): Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.
14. HERRENKOHL, L.R. and WERTSCH, J.V. (1999): The use of cultural tool: mastery and appropriation. In I.E. Siegel (ed.) Development of Mental Representation (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence).
15. HERRING, S. (ed.) (1996). Computer Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-cultural Perspectives (Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins).
16. HOGAN, K., NASTASI, B.K. and PRESSLEY, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.
17. JOHNSON, C.M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 45–60.
18. LEMKE, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing).
19. LIGORIO, B. (2001). Integrating communication formats: synchronous versus asynchronous and text-based versus image. Computers & Education, 37, 103–125.
20. MEHAN, H. (1979). Learning Lessons (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press).
21. VAN DER MEIJ, H. and BOERSMA, K. (2002). E-mail use in elementary school: an analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 189–200.
22. MERCER, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
23. MERCER, N., WEGERIF, R. and DAWES, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.
24. MORTIMER, E.F. (1998). Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: an example from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 67–82.
25. OTERO, J. and GRAESSER, A.C. (2001). PREG: elements of a model of question asking. Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 143–175.
26. PALINCSAR, A.S. and BROWN, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
27. RAVENSCROFT, A. (2000). Designing argumentation for conceptual development. Computes in Education, 34, 241–255.
28. SHEREMETOV, L. and ARENAS, A.G. (2002). EVA: an interactive Web-based collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 39, 161–182.
29. SINCLAIR, J.McH. and COULTHARD, R.M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English used by Teachers and Pupils (London: Oxford University Press).
30. WEGERIF, R. (1998). The social dimensions of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 2(1), 34–49.
31. WERTSCH, J.V. (1998). Mind as Action (New York: Oxford University Press).
32. WILEN, W.W. (1988). Review of pedagogical perspectives. In J.T. Dillon (ed.) Questioning and Discussion: A Multidisciplinary Study (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing).
33. WOOD, D., BRUNER, J.S. and ROSS, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
34. YATES, S.J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In S. Herring (ed.) Computer Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-cultural Perspectives (Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins), 29–46.
35. VAN ZEE, E.H., IWASYK, M., KUROSE, A., SIMPSON, D. and WILD, J. (2001). Student and Teacher Questioning during Conversations about Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.