Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 65-87

  Zemel, Alan ^a   Koschmann, Timothy ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

CSCL; Ethnomethodology; Indexicality; Problem solving; Referential practices

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874414201     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-013-9164-5     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Azevedo, F. S., diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 270-289. doi: 10. 1016/j. jmathb. 2011. 12. 003.
2. Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623-643.
3. Caki{dotless}r, M. P. (2009). How online small groups co-construct mathematical artifacts to do collaborative problem solving. (Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University). Retrieved from http://dspace. library. drexel. edu/bitstream/1860/3122/1/Cakir_Murat. pdf
4. Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 115-149.
5. Danish, J. A., & Enyedy, N. (2007). Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education, 91, 1-35. doi: 10. 1002/(ISSN)1098-237X.
6. Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). Representational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first?grade students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2069-2094. doi: 10. 1080/09500693. 2010. 525798.
7. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331. doi: 10. 1207/s1532690xci2203_2.
8. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385-398.
9. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 405-441.
10. Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337-367.
11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 337-366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
13. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science constructed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 131-158.
14. Greiffenhagen, C. (2008). Unpacking tasks: The fusion of new technology with instructional work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 35-62. Retrieved from http://www. springerlink. com/index/N0760P8P725N2266. pdf.
15. Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (2005). Gestures in the blackboard work of mathematics instruction. Paper presented at the 2nd Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies (Interacting Bodies), Lyon France. Retrieved from http://gesture-lyon2005. ens-lsh. fr/IMG/pdf/Greiffenhagen-Gesture. pdf.
16. Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey's cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 209-238.
17. Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Hanks, W. F. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (Vol. 11, pp. 43-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder: Westview.
20. Hanks, W. F. (2000). Intertexts: Writings on language, utterance, and context. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
21. Hester, S., & Hester, S. (2010). Conversational actions and category relations: An analysis of a children's argument. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 33-48. doi: 10. 1177/1461445609347233.
22. Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.
23. Kirschner, P. A., & van Bruggen, J. (2004). Learning and understanding in virtual teams. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 135-139.
24. Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2009). Optical pulsars and black arrows: Discoveries as occasioned productions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 200-246.
25. Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2011). "So that's the ureter". The informal logic of discovery work. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 34-46. Retrieved from http://www. socialsciences. manchester. ac. uk/disciplines/sociology/about/events/ethnography/journal/issue12/documents/koschmann-zemel. pdf.
26. Livingston, E. (1986). The ethnomethodological foundations of mathematics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
27. Livingston, E. (1987). Making sense of ethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
28. Livingston, E. (1999). Cultures of proving. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 867-888.
29. Livingston, E. (2000). The availability of mathematics as an inspectable domain of practice through the use of origami. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local education order (pp. 245-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Lonchamp, J. (2009). A three-level analysis of collaborative learning in dual-interaction spaces. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 289-317. Retrieved from http://www. springerlink. com/index/c8344h6738426463. pdf.
31. Lonchamp, J. (2011). Deixis in synchronous CSCL systems. Proceedings from 3rd Conference on Computer Supported Education - CSEDU 2011.
32. Lynch, M. (1985). Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 37.
33. Lynch, M. (1994). Representation is overrated: Some critical remarks about the use of the concept of representation in science studies. Configurations, 2(1), 137-149. Retrieved from http://www. petajwhite. net/Uni/910/Legit and Representation/Representation Precis/Lynch. doc.
34. Lynch, M. (2011). Credibility, evidence, and discovery: The case of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 78-105.
35. Macbeth, D. (2011). Understanding understanding as an instructional matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 438-451. doi: 10. 1016/j. pragma. 2008. 12. 006.
36. Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2008). Bringing representational practice from log to light.
37. Mühlpfordt, M. (2006). Dual interaction Spaces: Integration Synchroner Kommunikation und Kooperation. 4. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik.
38. Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2005). Explicit referencing in chat supports collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning: The next 10 years! (pp. 460-469). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
39. Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2009). The integration of dual-interaction spaces. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 281-293). New York: Springer.
40. Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(1-2), 1-43.
41. Parnafes, O. (2010). Representational practices in the activity of student-generated representations (SGR) for promoting conceptual understanding.
42. Psathas, G. (2007). Lebenswelt origins of the sciences. Hum Stud, 30(1), 1-2. doi: 10. 1007/s10746-007-9047-8.
43. Rochelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry. In D. L. Day & D. K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, communication and mental models (pp. 13-25). London: Taylor & Francis.
44. Rochelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning, NATO ASO Series F: Computer and system sciences (Vol. 128) (pp. 69-97). Berlin: Springer.
45. Schegloff, E. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715-720.
46. Schönfeldt, J., & Golato, A. (2003). Repair in chats: A conversation analytic approach. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 241-284.
47. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (2011). Discovering a practical impossibility: The internal configuration of a problem in mathematical reasoning. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 47-58.
48. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.
49. Stahl, G., Zhou, N., & Toledo, R. (2006). The Virtual Math Teams project: A global math discourse community. Proceedings from International Conference on Computers and Education (ICCE '06), Beijing, China. Retrieved from http://www. cis. drexel. edu/faculty/gerry/pub/icce2006. pdf.
50. Suchman, L. A. (1988). Representing practice in cognitive science. Human Studies, 11(2), 305-325.
51. Suchman, L. A. (2006). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives) (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Suthers, D. D. (2005). Collaborative knowledge construction through shared representation. 38th Hawai'i International Conference on the System Sciences,.
53. Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. Proceedings from International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Dordrecht, NL. Retrieved from http://metheny. ics. hawaii. edu/papers/2003/Suthers-et-al-CSCL2003. pdf.
54. van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177-204). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
55. van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 121-138.
56. van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 575-602. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2004. 10. 024.
57. Vergnaud, G. (1998). A comprehensive theory of representation for mathematics education. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 167-181. Retrieved from http://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0364021399800573.
58. White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489-547.
59. Woolgar, S. (1988). Time and documents in researcher interaction: Some ways of making out what is happening in experimental science. Human Studies, 11(2), 171-200.
60. Zemel, A., & Cakir, M. (2009). Reading's Work in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying Virtual Math Teams (pp. 261-276). New York: Springer Publishing.
61. Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. J. (2008). "What are we missing?" Usability's indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17, 63-85.