The educational research-practice interface revisited: A scripting perspective

Educational Research and Evaluation

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 221-236

  Bauer, Korinna ^a   Fischer, Frank ^b  

^a Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35148822604     PISSN: 13803611     EISSN: 17444187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13803610701626150     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogical research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167-185.
2. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classroom: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models. Vol. II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 286-290). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bromme, R., Jucks, R., & Wagner, T. (2005). How to refer to "diabetes"? Language in online health advice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 569-586.
4. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
5. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-14.
6. Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.
7. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568.
8. Carmien, S., Kollar, I., Fischer, G., & Fischer, F. (2007). The interplay of internal and external scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 303-326). New York: Springer.
9. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. Ie Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287-300). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
11. Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 13-48). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
12. Davenport, T. H., & Prùsak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13. Ellis, D., Oldridge, R., & Vasconcelos, A. (2004). Community and virtual community. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 145-186.
14. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (2007). Perspectives on collaboration scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 1-10). New York: Springer.
15. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
16. Greeno, J. G., & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
17. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum.
18. Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P. V., & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 45-59.
19. Hargreaves, D. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 122-144.
20. Havelock, R. G. (1973). The change agent's guide to innovation in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
21. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519-539.
22. Huberman, A. M. (1983). Improving social practice through the utilization of university-based knowledge. Higher Education, 12, 257-272.
23. Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 363-391.
24. Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 4-12.
25. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts-A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159-185.
26. Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183-214.
27. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30, 333-349.
28. Logan, R. A. (2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23(2), 135-163.
29. Mandl, H., & Stark, R. (2001, April). Pasteur's quadrant in educational psychology: Use-inspired basic research to overcome the gap between theory and practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
30. McDonald, S. K., Keesler, V., Kauffman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006). Scaling-up Exemplary Interventions. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 15-24.
31. Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B., & Mohrman, A. M. (2001). Doing research that is useful for practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 357-375.
32. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. O'Donnell, A., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120-141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
36. Peterson, S. M., & Emrick, J. A. (1983). Advances in practice. In W. J. Paisley & M. Butler (Eds.), Knowledge utilization systems in education: Dissemination, technical assistance, networking (pp. 219-250). London: Sage.
37. Phillips, D. C. (2006). A guide for the perplexed: Scientific educational research, methodolatry, and the gold versus platinum standards. Educational Research Review, 1, 15-26.
38. Rogers, E. M. (1995). The diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
39. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
40. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-241.
41. Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15-34.
42. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
44. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
46. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
47. The Design-Based Research Collective (DBRC). (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.