Effects of knowledge interdependence with the partner on visual and action transactivity in collaborative concept mapping

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL

Volumn , Issue PART 2, 2008, Pages 91-98

  Molinari, Gaëlle ^a   Sangin, Mirweis ^a   Nüssli, Marc Antoine ^a   Dillenbourg, Pierre ^a  

^a EPFL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCEPT MAPPING; CONCEPT MAPS; EYE-GAZE; INDIVIDUAL CONCEPTS; KNOWLEDGE INTERDEPENDENCE; LEARNING OUTCOME; PRIOR KNOWLEDGE;

COMPUTER SCIENCE;

EYE MOVEMENTS;

EID: 84878708801     PISSN: 15734552     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Berkowitz, M., & Gibbs, J. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 399-410.
2. Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2001). Complementarity of information and quality of relationship in cooperative learning. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 335-357.
3. Buchs, C., Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (2004). Resource interdependence, student interactions and performance in cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24(3), 291-314.
4. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
5. Dillenbourg, P. & Tchounikine P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1-13.
6. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
7. Engelmann, T. & Tergan, S.-O. (2007). "Knowledge and information awareness" for enhancing computer-supported collaborative problem solving by spatially distributed group members. In S. Vosniadou, D. Kayser, & A. Protopapas (Eds.), Proceedings of EuroCogSci 07 - The European Cognitive Science Conference (pp.71-76). Hove, East Sussex: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232.
9. Glaser, R. & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631-66.
10. Joshi, M. & Rosé, C. P. (to appear). Using transactivity in conversation summarization in educational dialog. Proceedings of the SLaTE Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education.
11. Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., O'Donnell, A. M., Young, M. D., Skaggs, L. P., Hall, R. H., & Rocklin, T. R. (1987). Manipulating cooperative scripts for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 424-430.
12. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 273-295.
13. Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 25-45.
14. Molinari, G. & Tapiero, I. (2007). Integration of new domain-related states and events from texts and illustrations by subjects with high and low prior knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 304-321.
15. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
16. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract dyad representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321-354.
17. Stoddart, T, Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D. (2000) Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning - a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1221-1246.
18. Suthers, D. D. (2006a). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315-337.
19. Suthers, D. D. (2006b). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 1-28.
20. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27-46). Kluwer book series on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Pierre Dillenbourg (Series Editor). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
21. Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361-384). Berlin: Springer.
22. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416-426.