Playful Talk: Negotiating Opportunities to Learn in Collaborative Groups

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 5-52

  Sullivan, Florence R ^a   Wilson, Nicholas C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927129136     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2013.839945     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. American Association of University Women. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Anderson, D., Thomas, G. P., & Nashon, S. M. (2009). Social barriers to meaningful engagement in biology field trip group work. Science Education, 93, 511–534.
3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
4. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.
5. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.
6. Carter, R. (1999). Common language: Corpus, creativity and cognition. Language and Literature, 8(3), 195–216.
7. Carter, R. (2002). Language and creativity. London, England: Routledge.
8. Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 29–49.
9. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Research in Education, 64(1), 1–35.
10. Dekker, R., Elshout-Mohr, M., & Wood, T. (2006). How children regulate their own collaborative learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(1), 57–79.
11. Esmonde, I. (2009). Ideas and identities: Supporting equity in cooperative mathematics learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1008–1043.
12. Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.
13. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
14. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15. Hepburn, A. (2004). Crying: Notes on description, transcription and interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 251–290.
16. Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2009). Transcription. Retrieved from http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjap/transcription/transcription.htm
17. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.
18. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. ix–xvi). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.
21. Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does Lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49, 1097–1111.
22. Lytra, V. (2009). Play frames and social identities. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
23. Margolis, J. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race and computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2012). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu
25. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–377.
26. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16474–16479. Retrieved from www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
27. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10593–10597.
28. Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
29. Resnick, M. (2009, June). Kindergarten is the model for lifelong learning. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/kindergarten-creativity-collaboration-lifelong-learning
30. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35, 443–452.
31. Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning about and through design. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 141–150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
33. Rusk, N., Berg, R., & Resnick, M. (2005). Rethinking robotics: Engaging girls in creative engineering. Retrieved from http://www.wellesley.edu/Physics/Rberg/research.html
34. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–21.
35. Strough, J. N., Berg, C. A., & Meegan, S. P. (2001). Friendship and gender differences in task and social interpretations of peer collaborative problem solving. Social Development, 10, 1–22.
36. Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills, and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.
37. Sullivan, F. R. (2011). Serious and playful inquiry: Epistemological aspects of collaborative creativity. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 14(1), 55–65.
38. Tannen, D. (1993). What’s in a frame: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14–56). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39. Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40. Underwood, J., & Underwood, G. (1990). Computers and learning: Helping children acquire thinking skills. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
41. Underwood, J., Underwood, G., & Wood, D. (2000). When does gender matter? Interactions during computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 10, 447–462.
42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizick, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 607–651.
44. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology. New York, NY: Springer.