D.3.3_v10_FINAL.pdf (original) (raw)

Abstract

PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (213)

  1. References Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., Wright, M., Martin, H., Ainsworth, S., Benford, S., et al. (2008). Learning 21st century science in context with mobile technologies. Retrieved August 10, 2013, from http://oro.open.ac.uk/31290/.
  2. Balacheff, N. & Sutherland, R. (1994). Epistemological domain of validity of micro worlds: the case of LOGO and Cabri-geometre. In R. Lewis & P. Mendelsohn (Eds.), Lessons from learning: proceedings of the IFIP Conference TC3/WG3. 3 , Archamps, France, 6-8 September 1993 (pp. 137-150).
  3. Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the learning sciences, 13(1), 1-14. Retrieved October 3, 2012, .
  4. Chevallard, Y. (2012). Teaching Mathematics in Tomorrow's Society: a Case for an Oncoming Counterparadigm. Plenary lecture at 12 th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seoul, Korea.
  5. Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Clark-shared understanding 1991.pdf. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: Americal Psychological Association.
  6. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Lehrer, R., Schauble, L. & others. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational researcher, 32(1), 9-13. Retrieved October 3, 2012, .
  7. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K. & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113-163. Retrieved June 19, 2013, .
  8. Dekker, R., Elshout-Mohr, M. & Wood, T. (2006). How Children Regulate their Own Collaborative Learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(1), 57-79. doi: 10.1007/s10649-006-1688-4.
  9. Dillenbourg, P. & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. Scripting computer- supported collaborative learning (pp. 275-301). Retrieved October 12, 2012, from http://www.springerlink.com/index/WHK6T977553L3N3J.pdf.
  10. Dixon, K. J., Egendoerfer, A. L. & Clements, T. (2009). Do they really need to raise their hands? Challenging a traditional social norm in a second grade mathematics classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1067-1076. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.011.
  11. Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M. McLaren, B.M., Harrer, A., Kynigos, C., Wegerif, R., & Yang, Y. (2013). Metafora: A web-based platform for learning to learn together in science and mathematics. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. 10 Jan. 2013. IEEE Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  12. Report of the Analysis of the Experiments August, 2013
  13. Computer Society Digital Library. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.4
  14. Jermann, P., Soller, A. & Lesgold, A. (2004). Computer Software Support for CSCL. In J. W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What We Know About CSCL, Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning Series (pp. 141-166). Springer Netherlands.
  15. Kynigos, C. (2007). Half-baked Logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Informatics in education, 6(2), 335-358.
  16. Kynigos, C. & Psycharis, G. (2009). Investigating the Role of Context in Experimental Research Involving the Use of Digital Media for the Learning of Mathematics: Boundary Objects as Vehicles for Integration. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(3), 265-298. doi: 10.1007/s10758-009-9154-x.
  17. Kynigos, C. & Theodossopoulou, V. (2002). Synthesizing personal, interactionist and social norms perspectives to analyze collaborative learning in the classroom in the context of a computer-based innovation program. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2/1), 63-73. Retrieved July 2, 2013, .
  18. Kynigos, C. (2012) Constructionism: theory of learning or theory of design? Regular Lecture, Proceedigns of the 12 th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seoul, S. Korea.
  19. Mavrikis, M., Kahn, K. & Dragon, T. (2012). Constructionist Discussions With and Around Microworld Referable Objects. In C. Kynigos, J.E. Clayson., N. Yiannoutsou (eds) Proceedings of Constructionism 2012: Theory Practice and Impact. (pp. 380-384). Athens, Greece.
  20. Mavrikis, M., Gutierrez-Santos, S., Geraniou, E., Noss, R., and Poulovassilis, A. (2013). Iterative context engineering to inform the design of intelligent exploratory learning environments for the classroom. In Luckin, R., Puntambekar, S., Goodyear, P., Grabowski, B. L., Underwood, J., and Winters, N., editors, Handbook of Design in Educational Technology, pages 80-92. Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group.
  21. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
  22. Morgan, C., Mariotti, M. A., & Maffei, L. (2009). Representation in computational environments: epistemological and social distance. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(3), 241-263.
  23. Morgan, C., Kynigos. C. (in press) Digital artefacts as representations: forging connections between a constructionist and a social semiotic perspective. Special Issue in Digital representations in mathematics education: conceptualizing the role of context, and networking theories, Educational Studies in Mathematics.
  24. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  25. Report of the Analysis of the Experiments August, 2013
  26. Mottier Lopez, L. & Allal, L. (2007). Sociomathematical norms and the regulation of problem solving in classroom microcultures. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 252-265. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2007.10.005.
  27. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on Mathematical Meanings: Learning Cultures and Computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  28. O'Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical Discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.
  29. Papert, S. (2005). You can't think about thinking without thinking about thinking about something. globe, 5(3/4).
  30. Plomp, T. & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2009). An Introduction to Educational Design Research. SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
  31. Radford, L., Schubring, G. & Seeger, F. (2011). Signifying and meaning-making in mathematical thinking, teaching, and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2-3), 149-156. doi: 10.1007/s10649-011-9322-5.
  32. Rogat, T. K. & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially Shared Regulation in Collaborative Groups: An Analysis of the Interplay Between Quality of Social Regulation and Group Processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 375-415. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2011.607930.
  33. Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 69-97). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
  34. Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. & Hout-Wolters, B. (2011). Support of the collaborative inquiry learning process: influence of support on task and team regulation. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 7-23. doi: 10.1007/s11409-011-9068-6.
  35. Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Supporting communication in a collaborative discovery learning environment: the effect of instruction. Instructional Science, 35, 73-98.
  36. Scott, D. & Morrison, M. (2006). Key ideas in educational research. London; New York: Continuum.
  37. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT Press.
  38. Stahl, G. (2013). Theories of Collaborative Cognition: Foundations for CSCL and CSCW Together. In S. P. Goggins, I. Jahnke, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace (pp. 43-63). Boston, MA: Springer US.
  39. Tessmer, M. & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115.
  40. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  41. Report of the Analysis of the Experiments August, 2013
  42. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students' command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281-307.
  43. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.
  44. Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-471.
  45. Yiannoutsou, N. & Kynigos, C. (in press). Boundary Objects in Educational Design Research: designing an intervention for learning how to learn in collectives with technologies that support collaboration and exploratory learning. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research: Introduction and Illustrative Cases. Enschede, The Netherlands: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
  46. Yiannoutsou, N. & Mavrikis, M. (2012). Learning how to learn with microworlds: feedback evaluation and help seeking. In C. Kynigos, J. Clayson, & N. Yiannoutsou (Eds.), Proceedings of Constructionism 2012: Theory Practice and Impact. (pp. 490-499).
  47. Athens, Greece. Retrieved March 14, 2013, .
  48. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  49. Report of the Analysis of the Experiments August, 2013
  50. Artigue, M. (coord.) (2009). Integrative Theoretical Framework -Version C. Deliverable 18. ReMath Project, www.remath.cti.gr.
  51. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  52. Guin, D. & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(3): 195-227.
  53. Hmelo-Silver, C (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), pp 235-266.
  54. Johnson, F., Smith, Rachel S., Smythe, T., Varon, R. (2009).Challenge-Based Learning: An Approach for Our Time. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
  55. Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking,and Learning in A Digital World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  56. Kynigos, C. (2007). Half-Baked Logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Informatics in Education, 6(2), 335-358.
  57. 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.
  58. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  59. Report of the Analysis of the Experiments August, 2013
  60. Ryberg, T., Glud, L. N., Buus, L., & Georgsen, M. (2010). Identifying Differences in Understandings of PBL, Theory and Interactional Interdependencies. In L. Dirckinck- Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 943-951). Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Ryberg\_2 .pdf Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334-370). New York: MacMillan.
  61. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying Virtual Math Teams. New York, NY: Springer.
  62. Stahl, G. (2010). Social practices of group cognition in virtual math teams. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning in social practices, ICT and new artefacts - transformation of social and cultural practices. Pergamon.
  63. Wegerif, R., Yang, Y., De Laat, M., Pifarre, M., Yiannoutsou, N., Moustaki, F., et al. (2012). Developing a planning and reflection tool to support learning. Proceedings of IST- Africa 2012.
  64. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  65. Report of the Analysis of the Experiments August, 2013
  66. of the users and advocating in the creation of a shared understanding which will ultimately evoke new group cognitive contributions as well as their accompanied self-explanations.
  67. Avouris N., Margaritis M., Komis V., Saez A., Melendez R., (2003). ModelingSpace: Interaction Design and Architecture of a collaborative modelling environment, Proceedings of 6th Conference Computer Based Learning in Science.
  68. diSessa, A. (1993) Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10 (2&3), 105-225.
  69. diSessa, A. & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), pp.1155-1191.
  70. Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Kiekel, P. A., & Bell, B. (2004). Advances in measuring team cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 83-106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  71. Gressick, J. & Derry, S. (2010). Distributed leadership in online groups. Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 211-236
  72. Jimoyiannis A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge framework for science teacher's professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269.
  73. Kynigos, C. (2007). Half-Baked Logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Informatics in Education, 6(2), 335-358.
  74. Mikropoulos, T. A. & Natsis, A. (2010). Educational Virtual Environments: A Ten Year Review of Empirical Research (1999 -2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769-780.
  75. Petridou, E., Psillos, D., Xatzikraniotis, E., & Viiri, J., (2009). Design and development of a microscopic model for polarization. Physics Education, 44 (6), 589-598.
  76. Sherin, B. L. (1996). The symbolic basis of physical intuition: a study of two symbol systems in physics instruction. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  77. Sherin, B. L (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19 (4), pp. 479-541.
  78. Smyrnaiou, Z, Moustaki, F, and Chronis, K (2012). Students' Constructionist Game Modelling Activities as Part of Inquiry Learning Processes. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(2), 235 -248, available online at www.ejel.org
  79. Smyrnaiou, Z., Moustaki, F., & Kynigos, C. (2011). METAFORA Learning Approach Processes Contributing To Students' Meaning Generation In Science Learning. In D. Gouscos, & M. Meimaris (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  80. Report of the Analysis of the Experiments August, 2013
  81. Games Based Learning (ECGBL) (pp. 657-664). Athens, Greece: Academic Publishing Limited.
  82. Smyrnaiou, Z. & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2007). Ιnquiry learning using a technology-based learning environment. s.l., s.n., pp. 90-100.
  83. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79-90.
  84. Wegerif, R., Yang, Y., De Laat, M., Pifarre, M., Yiannoutsou, N., Moustaki, F., Smyrnaiou, Z., et al. (2012). Developing a planning and reflection tool to support learning. Proceedings of IST-Africa.
  85. Wegerif, R. and Yang, Y., (2011). Visual Language for Learning Processes, Metafora Deliverable D2.1.
  86. Daskolia, M, Kynigos, C. (2012). Applying a constructionist frame to learning about sustainability, Creative Education, 3, 818-823.
  87. Daskolia, M. Dimos, A. Kampylis, P. (2012). Secondary teachers' conceptions of creative thinking within the context of Environmental Education", International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(2), 269-290.
  88. Daskolia, M., Kynigos, C., Yiannoutsou, N. (2012). Teachers learning about sustainability while co-constructing digital games. In the Proceedings of The International Conference on Higher Education (ICHE 2012). World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 66 (June), Paris, France, pp. 521-526.
  89. Daskolia, M., Yiannoutsou, N., Xenos, M., Kynigos, C. (2012). Exploring learning-to-learn- together processes within the context of an environmental education activity. In the Electronic Proceedings of The Ireland International Conference on Education -IICE 2012. Dublin, Ireland.
  90. Dillon, J. (2003). On learners and learning in environmental education: Missing theories, Ignored communities", Environmental Education Research, 9(2), 215-226.
  91. European Council (2010). Council conclusions on education for sustainable development, Brussels. Retrieved in 19/11/2010, from: http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms\_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/117855.pdf
  92. Huckle, J. (1999). Locating environmental education between modern capitalism and postmodern socialism: A reply to Lucie Sauvé, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 36-45.
  93. Jensen, B. & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education", Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 1997, 163-178.
  94. Kenworthy, J., R. (2006) The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization, 18, 67
  95. Kirriemuir, J., McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature Review in Games and Learning. Report 8. Futurelab Series. Futurelab. http://hal.archives- ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/04/53/PDF/kirriemuir-j-2004-r8.pdf
  96. Kynigos, C., Daskolia, M., (2011). Collaborative design and construction of digital games to learn about sustainable lifestyles. In L. Gómez Chova, I. Candel Torres, A. López Martínez (Eds.), International Technology, Education, Development Conference Proceedings -INTED2011 (pp. 1583-1592). Valencia, Spain.
  97. Liarakou G., Daskolia M., Flogaitis E. (2007). Investigating the Associative Meanings of Sustainability among Greek Kindergarten Teachers, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 1(5), 29-36.
  98. Data Analysis August, 2013
  99. Liarakou, G., Sakka, E., Gavrilakis, C., Tsolakidis, C. (2011). Evaluation of Serious Games, as a Tool for Education for Sustainable Development. In M. Flate Paulsen and A. Szucs (Eds.), Learning and Sustainability, The New Ecosystem of Innovation and Knowledge, EDEN 2011 Annual Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
  100. Masnavi, M. R. (2007) Measuring Urban Sustainability: Developing a Conceptual Framework for Bridging the Gap Between theoretical Levels and the Operational Levels. International Journal of Environmental Research, 1(2), 188-197
  101. Newman, P. (1999). Sustainability and cities: extending the metabolism model, Landscape and Urban Planning, 44, 219-226.
  102. Register, R. (1987). Ecocity Berkeley: Building Cities for a Healthy Future. North Atlantic Books.
  103. Robertson, M. (ed) (2007). Sustainable Futures: Teaching and Learning: a Case Study. Victoria: Acerpress.
  104. Robottom, I. (1991). Technocratic environmental education: A critique and some alternatives", The Journal of Experiential Education, 14(1), 1991, 20-26.
  105. Scott, W. & Gough, S. (eds) (2004). Sustainable Development and Learning. Framing the Issues. London: Routledge Falmer.
  106. Stevenson, R.B. (1987). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose and practice. In I. Robottom (Ed.), Environmental Education: Practice and Possibillities (pp. 69-82). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
  107. Stilwell, F. (2000). Towards sustainable cities, Urban Policy and Research, 18(2), 205-217.
  108. UNESCO (2005). UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014. International Implementation Scheme -Draft. UNESCO, Paris.
  109. Yanella, E.J., Levine, R.S. (1992). Does sustainable development lead to sustainability? Futures 24(8), 759-774.
  110. Data Analysis August, 2013
  111. Geraniou, G., Mavrikis, M., Hoyles, C.: Noss, R. (2011) Students' justification strategies on equivalence of quasi-algebraic expressions. International Conference on Psychology of Mathematics Education. Ancara, Turkey
  112. Mavrikis, M., Noss, R., Hoyles, C., and Geraniou, E. (2012). Sowing the seeds of algebraic generalisation: designing epistemic affordances for an intelligent microworld. Special Issue on Knowledge Transformation, Design and Technology, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00469.x
  113. Ellis, A. B. (2007). Connections between generalising and justifying: students" reasoning with linear relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 38(3), 194-229.
  114. Küchemann, D. (2010). Using patterns generically to see structure. Pedagogies: An International Journal 5(3), 233-250.
  115. Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. English (Ed.), International handbook of technology in mathematics education. London: Kluwer.
  116. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.
  117. DFE (2013) Draft national curriculum programme of study. Available online at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/nationalcurriculu m2014/ Stahl, G. (2007) Meaning making in CSCL: Conditions and preconditions for cognitive processes by groups. Paper presented at the international conference on Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL '07), New Brunswick, NJ. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/cscl07.pdf.
  118. Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209- 248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  119. Data Analysis August, 2013
  120. S2: "Let's decide what will be the moves from now on"
  121. S1: "But we already did something"
  122. S2 Gets tired, puts his head on the table. He then grabs the mouse of his computer and disconnects from S1.
  123. S1 [Calls his friend to join him]: "Wait a second, S2 …S2?"
  124. S2 [Rejoins S1]:
  125. S1: "So, what are we deleting?"
  126. S2: "Everything"
  127. S1 [Erases the map completely]: "Everything…from the beginning"
  128. S1: "So, what are we writing on it?"
  129. S2: "Nothing, wait…we put down more [cards]."
  130. S2 [Browses through the activity stages cards]: "What we did is …refine the model, explore…"
  131. S1 Takes the computer mouse from S2, they continue browsing.
  132. S2: "OK, go for the experiment"
  133. S1: "Now, at this stage we can say "build a model". Are we building a model?" 16. S2: "Yes, we are building a model"
  134. S1: "Find hypothesis. What is our hypothesis? " Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  135. Data Analysis August, 2013
  136. S2: "How about understanding the problem? Isn't there anything that talks about understanding the problem?" Here the researcher intervenes and says: "There is no card called understanding the problem, but you can use what we call "our stage" and then you can give it a name for your choice" 19. S2: "So, what happened?"
  137. S1: "So, clarifying the question"
  138. S2 puts a "Blank stage" card. Writes down "The question: What is the point in a triangle that is equidistant to all of the vertices?" He then puts the "experiment" card next to "our stage".
  139. S2: "Find hypothesis is prior…We first found an hypothesis and then experiment " 23. S2 [Writes in "find hypothesis" card:" Following the answer in…"]
  140. S1: "What kind of a triangle was it?"
  141. S2: "Equilateral"
  142. S1 [writes "…equilateral, we tried again the bisectors' intersection point "]: "Now…experimenting…we experimented with Geogebra" The two come up with the following map:
  143. S1 [Refers to S2's writing on the "experiment" card] : "Why are writing like a moron?" 29. S2 erases this text and goes to his computer.
  144. S1: "Let me explain something to you…Why are you jumping?...Come back here…Here..."
  145. S2 [Leaves his computer and goes back to communicate with S1]: "OK"
  146. S1 [Point with his finger to the "experiment" card]: "Here we talk about the experiments" 33. S2: "To test the model"
  147. S1" Then we need to check our model to see if it works we still do not know" 35. S2 tries to grab the computer mouse, S1 puts his hand between the computer mouse and his peer. And says,
  148. S1:" Yes, we test if it worked, one moment, we still do not know. And then we have an intersection. Now, if it worked"
  149. S1 [Points to his peer in an authoritative way]:" One moment!! No! No!" S2 starts moving things foreword, reflecting from the perspective of another milestone: After they checked their initial hypothesis.
  150. S2 [Grabs the keyboard and mouse. Puts the cursor in textbox of the "test model" card]: "We should use as less as possible of these [cards] ".
  151. S2: "Did it work?"
  152. S1: "The answer-No!"
  153. S2 [Also types it in the "test model" card]: "No" 43. S1 erases the intersection card.
  154. S2: [Points to card "draw conclusions" card (card 6)]: "Don't erase this one" 45. S2 types in the "experiment" card "For the conclusions, keep reading 46. S1:"Yes, and it did not work "
  155. S2 [Deletes the text in the "draw conclusions" card]:" Let's delete this " 48. S1:" Yes, since it is not really true "
  156. S2 [Types in the "draw conclusions" card: "we need to find another way"]:"We need to find… " [Moves the draw conclusions" card next to "experiment" card)
  157. S1 [ [Points to "find hypothesis" card (card number 7) on the right side of "experiment" card]:" And then we found another hypothesis. " Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  158. Data Analysis August, 2013
  159. Abdu, R. & Schwarz, B.B., (2012). "Metafora" and the Fostering of Collaborative Mathematical Problem Solving. Constructionism 2012 Conference: Theory, Practice and Impact. Athens, Greece 21-25 of August, 2012.
  160. Abdu, R. (2013, in press). Peer scaffold in math problem solving. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on CSCL, 2013. Madison, the US June 15-19, 2013.
  161. Cobb, P. Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K., (2001). Participating in Classroom Mathematical Practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113-163.
  162. Collins,A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K., (2004). Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
  163. Dillenbourg P., (1999). What do you mean by collaborative leraning? In Dillenbourg, P., (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
  164. Efklides, E., (2006). Metacognition and affect-What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review 1(1), 3-14.
  165. Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Yoon, C., (2007). "The Use of Reflection Tools to Build Personal Models of Problem-Solving". In Lesh, R., Hamilton, E., and Kaput, J. (eds.), Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education (pp. 347-365). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  166. Perret-Clermont, A.N, (2011). Social relationships and thinking spaces for growth. Proceedings of the symposium "Human and Societal Development: The role of Social Relationships". Cyprus, May 9 th 2011.
  167. Rummel, N., & Spada, H., (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-241.
  168. Rogoff, B., (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford press.
  169. Schoenfeld, A.H., (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
  170. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New-York: MacMillan.
  171. Stahl, G., (2009). Studying virtual mathematics teams. New York, NY: Springer.
  172. Wee, J. D., & Looi, C. K., (2009). A Model For Analyzing mathematics Knowledge Building in VMT. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying Virtual mathematics Teams (pp. 471-794). Springer- Verlag.
  173. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  174. Data Analysis August, 2013
  175. Veenman, M.V.J. & Spaans, M.A., (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: age and task difference. Learning and Individual Differences 15, 159-176.
  176. Wegerif, R., (2006). Towards a dialogic understanding of the relationship between teaching thinking and CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143-157.
  177. Wegerif, R., (2011). Towards a dialogic theory of how children learn to think. Thinking Skills and Creativity 6(3), 179-190.
  178. Weinberger, A., (2011). Principles of transactive Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6, 189-202.
  179. Wheelan, S. A., (1999). Creating effective teams: A guide for members and leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  180. Zimmerman, B.J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183.
  181. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  182. Data Analysis August, 2013
  183. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. 4th ed. York, England: Dialogos.
  184. Baines, E., Blathcford, P., & Chowne, A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: effects on science attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 33(5), 663-680.
  185. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., Landes, N. (2006). Report on the BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Unpublished white paper, Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
  186. Chinn, C.A., O'Donnell, A.M. & Jinks, T.S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77-97.
  187. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles of science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
  188. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by "collaborative learning"? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
  189. Galton, M., Simon, B., & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the Primary classroom. London: Routledge and kegan Paul.
  190. Galton, M., Williamson, J. (1992). Group-work in the primary school. London: Routledge.
  191. Gillies, R. & Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers'discourse during cooperative learning and their perceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teaching and teacher education, 24, 1333- 1348.
  192. Gillies, R. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 35-49.
  193. Johnson, L. & Adams, S., (2011). Challenge Based Learning: The Report from the Implementation Project. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  194. Johnson, L. F., Smith, R. S., Smythe, J. T., Varon, R. K. (2009). Challenge-Based Learning: An Approach for Our Time. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  195. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-Constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: essential research for lasting Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
  196. Mastergeorge, A., Webb, N. M., Roc, C., & Baure, G. (2000). Understanding collaborative learning environments: The development of students' mathematical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April.
  197. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  198. Data Analysis August, 2013
  199. Mercer (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
  200. Mortimer, E. F. (1998). Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: An example from theory to matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 67-82.
  201. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  202. Rojas-Drummond, S., Hernández, G., Vélez, M. & Villagrán, G. (1997). Cooperative learning and the appropriation of procedural knowledge by primary school children, Learning & Instruction, 7, pp. 37-62.
  203. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631.
  204. Sickle, A.; Witzig, S.; Vanmali, B. & Abell, S. (2013) The Nature of Discourse throughout 5E Lessons in a Large Enrolment College Biology Course. Research in Science Education, DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9281-6
  205. Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N.-H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960.
  206. Webb, N.M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer- directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73-97.
  207. Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middleschool science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38, 321-441.
  208. Yang, Y.; Wegerif, R.; Dragon, T.; Mavrikis, M. and McLaren, B. (2013). Learning how to learn together (L2L2): Developing tools to support an essential complex competence for the Internet Age. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan and S. Puntambekcar. CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings. Madison.
  209. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  210. Data Analysis August, 2013
  211. F2F Dialogue Actions 5 Baixue: Refine model, shall we refine our survey questions after this? Bibo: We should test our model, before we can refine them. Baixue: OK
  212. Bibo: After we have our survey questions, we need to take it to the market and get more feedback. Or, we could ask some experts for opinions. And then we refine our model. After this, what shall we do? Baixue: Conclude? wait, let me think, explore? Xiran: After that, we should have a discussion together, and then conclude, shouldn't we? Baixue: OK 7 Bibo: After that, we can prepare a presentation. Baixue: What other cards do we have? Xiran (read the cards): Reflect on process, Reach agreement 8 Bibo: We should reach agreement and then prepare to present. Baixue: I don't think so, we should present before we reach agreement. Xiran: Without agreement, how can you present? Bibo: Yes, if we have different opinions, we cannot take actions. Baixue: But, if I have an idea, shouldn't I present to you and see whether you agree with me? Bibo: OK From the talk in episode 1, we can see the process of agreement are reached, and how the group agreed on the meaning of the visual language to co-construct their group plan. We can also find that 'Bibo' has taken more managerial leadership moves in the group. The group has also identified her as the manager in their plan map. However, through navigating the visual language, the three participants all took intellectual leadership moves. Deliverable D.3.3 Proj. No. 257872
  213. Data Analysis August, 2013