Adopt & adapt: Structuring, sharing and reusing asynchronous collaborative pedagogy

ICLS 2006 - International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings

Volumn 2, Issue , 2006, Pages 599-605

  Ronen, Miky ^a   Kohen Vacs, Dan ^a   Raz Fogel, Nohar ^a  

^a HOLON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY STRUCTURE; BASIC BUILDING BLOCK; COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES; INSTRUCTIONAL SETTINGS; INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY; NEW APPROACHES; UNIQUE FEATURES; WEB-BASED SYSTEM;

TEACHING;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 84884336599     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Abrahamov, S., & Ronen, M. (2005). The double blend: integrating a web-based visual literacy layer into practical photography instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International (in press).
2. Bote-Lorenzo, M., Vaquero-Gonzalez, L., Vega-Gorgojo, G., Dimitriadis, Y., Asensio-Perez, J., Gomez-Sanchez, E., & Hernandez-Leo, D. (2004). A tailorable collaborative learning system that combines OGSA grid services and IMS-LD scripting. In Proc. of the Tenth International Workshop on Groupware: Design, Implementation and Use (pp. 305-321). Springer-Verlag.
3. Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing Learning Design: The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) In Crisp G., Thiele, D., Scholten, I., Barker, S., & Baron, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning (pp. 593-596).
4. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In Dillenburg P. (ed.) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
5. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.
6. Dimitracopoulou, A. (2005). Designing Collaborative Learning Systems: Current Trends & Future Research, CSCL2005 Conference, May 30-June 4, Taipei, Taiwan.
7. Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical Thinking in a Distributed Environment: A Pedagogical Base for the Design of Conferencing Systems, In: Bonk, C. J. and K. S. King (eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship and Discourse (p. 73). Mahawah, NJ: LEA associates.
8. Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001) Beyond Adoption to Invention: Teacher-Created Collaborative Activities in Higher Education, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10 (3), 265-279.
9. Hoeksema, K. (2004). Examples of existing standards to describe CSCL scripts. Kaleidoscope: concepts and methods for exploring the future of learning with digital technologies, D23.2.1 (Final).
10. Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tattersall, C., & Koper, R. (2004). Educational modeling language and learning design: new opportunities for instructional reusability and personalized learning. International Journal on Learning Technology, 1 (1), 111-126.
11. Kali, Y., & Ronen, M. (2005). Design principles for online peer-evaluation: Fostering objectivity, CSCL2005 Conference, May 30-June 4, Taipei, Taiwan.
12. Peter, Y., & Vantroys, T. (2005). Platform Support for Pedagogical Scenarios. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 122-137.
13. Schneider, D. (2004) Conception and implementation of rich pedagogical scenarios through collaborative portal sites. In Tokoro M. and Steels L., (eds.), A Learning Zone of One's Own Sharing Representations and Flow in Collaborative Learning Environments. Amsterdam: Washington, DC: IOS Press. http://tecfa.unige.ch/proj/seed/catalog/docs/sevilla03-schneider.pdf