Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education

Instructional Science

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 353-372

  van Dijk, Alieke M ^a   Gijlers, Hannie ^a   Weinberger, Armin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Collaborative learning; Drawing; Elementary education; Knowledge recall; Science education; Scripting; Transactivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897022334     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9286-1     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anjewierden, A., Gijlers, H., Kolloffel, B., Saab, N., & de Hoog, R. (2011). Examining the relation between domain-related communication and collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 57, 1741-1748. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2011. 03. 010.
2. Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer-interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133-162). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2(3), 202-221. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9507. 1993. tb00014. x.
4. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2008). Pupil grouping for learning: Developing a social pedagogy of the classroom. In R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The teacher's role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 56-72). New York: Springer.
5. Bellmore, A., Jiang, X. L., & Juvonen, J. (2010). Utilizing peer nominations in middle school: A longitudinal comparison between complete classroom-based and random list methods. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 538-550. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1532-7795. 2010. 00640. x.
6. Berkowitz, M. W. (1980a). The role of transactive discussion in moral development. The history of a six-year program of research-part I. Moral Education Forum, 5(2), 13-26.
7. Berkowitz, M. W. (1980b). The role of transactive discussion in moral development. The history of a six-year program of research-part II. Moral Education Forum, 5(3), 15-27.
8. Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing visualization and young children's exploration of "big ideas". International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 319-341. doi: 10/1080/0950069082595771.
9. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43. doi: 10. 1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5.
10. Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). Represenational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first-grade students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2069-2094. doi: 10. 1080/09500693. 2010. 525798.
11. 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 Universiteit Nederland.
12. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 6). New York: Springer.
13. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1-13. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1365-2729. 2007. 00191. x.
14. DiSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385-398. doi: 10. 1016/S0732-3123(01)00051-7.
15. Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorensen, C. D. (1997). A review of literature teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17-28.
16. ELAN Multimedia Annotation Tool. (2010). Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://tla. mpi. nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/.
17. Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Ainsworth, S., & O'Malley, C. (2011). Guided reciprocal questioning to support children's collaborative storytelling. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 577-600. doi: 10. 1007/11412-011-9129-5.
18. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 239-268. doi: 10. 1080/07370000903014352.
19. Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B., Stewart, M. I., & Eastenson, A. (1988). Conflict and the friendship relations of young children. Child Development, 59, 1590-1600. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8624. 1988. tb03686. x.
20. Joshi, M. & Rosé, C. P. (2007). Using transactivity in conversation for summarization of educational dialogue: Proceedings of the SLaTE Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education, Farmington, Pennsylvania.
21. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative learning. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 115-133). Westport: Greenwood Press.
22. Kane, J. S., & Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 555-586. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 85. 3. 555.
23. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368. doi: 10. 3102/00028312031002338.
24. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41, 291-308. doi: 10. 1016/S0360-1315(03)00050-2.
25. Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2005). Epistemic cooperation scripts in online learning environments: Fostering learning by reducing uncertainty in discourse? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 603-622. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2004. 10. 033.
26. Maldonado, H., Klemmer, S. R., & Pea, R. D. (2009). When is collaborating with friends a good idea? Insights from design education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Hong Kong, China.
27. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377. doi: 10. 1080/01411920410001689689.
28. Moore, B. H., & Caldwell, H. (1993). Drama and drawing for narrative writing in primary grades. Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 100-110. doi: 10. 1080/00220671. 1993. 9941173.
29. Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children's friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 306-347. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 117. 2. 306.
30. Newcomb, A. F., & Brady, J. E. (1982). Mutuality in boys' friendship relations. Child Development, 53, 392-395. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8624. 1982. tb01328. x.
31. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59-76. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2012. 08. 013.
32. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. O'Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179-196). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.
34. Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social development, 17, 908-921. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9507. 2008. 00473. x.
35. Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). English and Australian children's perceptions about technology. Research in Science & Technology Education, 13(1), 37-52. doi: 10. 1080/0263514950130104.
36. Savinainen, A., Scott, P., & Viiri, J. (2005). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: Designing and evaluating an instructional sequence for Newton's third law. Science Education, 89(2), 175-195. doi: 10. 1002/sce. 20037.
37. SLO. (2009). Tussendoelen en leerlijnen (TULE) Retrieved June 7, 2010, from http://tule. slo. nl/.
38. Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category-ELAN and ISO DCR. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation(LREC 2008), Marrakech, Marocco.
39. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2011). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science,. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-011-9174-5.
40. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421-447. doi: 10. 1007/s11412-007-9028-y.
41. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-218. doi: 10. 1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.
42. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Situated Cognition and Technologically Supported Environments, Lucca, Italy.
43. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311-330. doi: 10. 1016/S0959-4752(00)00002-5.
44. van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129-140. doi: 10. 1037//0022-0663-93. 1. 129.
45. van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285-325. doi: 10/1007/s10648-005-8136-3.
46. Watson, S. B., & Marshall, J. E. (1995). Heterogeneous grouping as an element of cooperative learning in an elementary education science course. School Science and Mathematics, 95(8), 401-405. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1949-8594. 1995. tb10192. x.
47. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1-30. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-004-2322-4.
48. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71-95. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2005. 04. 003.
49. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506-515. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2009. 08. 007.
50. Zajac, R. J., & Hartup, W. W. (1997). Friends as coworkers: Research review and classroom implications. The Elementary School Journal, 98(1), 3-13. doi: 10. 1086/461881.