Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 349-369

  Tchounikine, Pierre ^a  

^a UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

Author keywords

Appropriation; CSCL scripts; Script Theory of Guidance (SToG)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84983517436     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-016-9240-8     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Artigue, M., & Winsløw, C. (2010). International comparative studies on mathematics education: A viewpoint from the anthropological theory of didactics. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 30(1), 47–82.
2. Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.
3. Betbeder, M.L., & Tchounikine, P. (2003). Symba: A Framework to Support Collective Activities in an Educational Context. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education, pp. 188–196, Hong-Kong.
4. Bosch, M. (2015). Doing research within the anthropological theory of the didactic: The case of school algebra. In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 51–69). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
5. Brousseau, G. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and construction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In H.-G. Steiner (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education (pp. 110–119). Berlin: Springer.
6. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
7. Cabassut, R. (2005). Argumentation and proof in examples taken from French and German textbooks. In: Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, pp. 391–400.
8. Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 9–27.
9. 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.
10. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.
11. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning – cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives, Computer-supported collaborative learning series. New York: Springer.
13. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.
14. Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2010). Generating CSCL scripts: From a conceptual model of pattern languages to the design a real situation (Appendix). In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning, design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
15. Hersant, M., & Perrin-Glorian, M. J. (2005). Characterization of an ordinary teaching practice with the help of the theory of didactic situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1–3), 113–151.
16. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.
17. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.
18. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–721.
19. Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, U., & Harrer, A. (2005). CSCL scripts: Modelling features and potential use. In International Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CD-Rom), Taipei (Taiwan).
20. Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
21. Rabardel, P. (2001). Instrument mediated activity in situations. In A. Blandford, J. Vanderdonckt, & P. Gray (Eds.), People and computers XV - interactions without frontiers (pp. 17–30). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
22. Rabardel, P. (2003). From artefact to instrument. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 641–645.
23. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.
24. Sarrazy, B. (2002). Effects of variability on responsiveness to the didactic contract in problem-solving among pupils of 9-10 years. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17(4), 321–341.
25. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
26. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225–246.
27. Schoonenboom, J. (2008). The effect of a script and a structured interface in grounding discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 327–341.
28. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students’ online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 927–939.
29. Stahl, G. (2016). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The contested relationship of CSCL to the learning sciences. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (ch. 5). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. 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.
31. Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 193–133.
32. Tchounikine, P. (2011). Computer science and educational software design – A resource for multidisciplinary work in technology enhanced learning. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20003-8_6.
33. Tchounikine, P. (2013). Clarifying design for orchestration: Orchestration and orchestrable technology, scripting and conducting. Computers & Education, 69, 500–503.
34. Tchounikine, P. (2016). Designing for appropriation: A theoretical account. Human Computer Interaction. doi:10.1080/07370024.2016.1203263 (in press, downloadable from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07370024.2016.1203263).
35. Vergnaud, G. (1998). Towards a cognitive theory of practice. In J. Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227–240). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
36. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.
37. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515.