Examining how different modes mediate adolescents’ interactions during their collaborative multimodal composing processes

References

• Beach, R., & O’Brien, D. (2015). Fostering students’ science inquiry through app affordances of multimodality, collaboration, interactivity, and connectivity. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(2), 119–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, D. L. (2009). Writing with visual images: Examining the video composition processes of high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 43, 426–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnett, C. (2016). Being together in classrooms at the interface of the physical and virtual: Implications for collaboration in on/off-screen sites. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(4), 566–589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Grounded theory. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, B., Robinson, K., Lavvorn, J., Smith, B. E., Alvey, T., Mo, E., … Proctor, C. P. (2015). Fifth-grade students’ multimodal compositions: Modal use and design intentionality. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 548–569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hodge, R., & Kress, G. R. (1988). Social semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, W. Y., & Hu, S. S. (2013). Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Computers & Education, 62, 308–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., & Robinson, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around and geeking out: Kids learning and living in new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jahnke, I., Norqvist, L., & Olsson, A. (2013, September 21–25). Designing for iPad-classrooms. European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), Cyprus.
   Google Scholar
• Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jewitt, C., & Henriksen, B. (2016). Social semiotic multimodality. In H. Stockl (Ed.), Language inmultimodal contexts (pp. 145–164). London: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Jocius, R. K. (2018). Becoming entangled: An analysis of 5th grade students’ collaborative multimodal composing practices. Computers and Composition, 47, 14–30.
   Google Scholar
• Kohlbacher, F. (2006, January). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. In Forum qualitative Sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research (Vol. 7, No. 1).
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to Contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metatla, O., Bryan-Kinns, N., Stockman, T., & Martin, F. (2012, September). Supporting cross-modal collaboration in the workplace. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers (pp. 109–118). British Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryberg, T. (2007). Patchworking as a metaphor for learning: Understanding youth, learning and technology. Aalborg University: e-Learning Lab Publication Series, 10.
   Google Scholar
• Sangin, M., Dillenbourg, P., Rebetez, C., Bétrancourt, M., & Molinari, G. (2008). The effects of animations on verbal interaction in computer supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 394–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, B. E. (2017). Composing across modes: A comparative analysis of adolescents’ multimodal composing processes. Learning, Media & Technology, 42(3), 259–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, B. E.. (2019). Collaborative multimodal composing: Tracing the unique partnerships of three pairs of adolescents composing across three digital projects. Literacy, 53(1), 14–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, B. E., & Shen, J. (2017). Scaffolding digital literacies for disciplinary learning: Adolescents collaboratively composing multimodal science fictions. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61, 85–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spradley, J. P.. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 17, 273–285.
   Google Scholar
• Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002, January). The effects of representation on students’ elaborations in collaborative inquiry. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 472–480). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Takayoshi, P., & Seife, C. L. (2007). Thinking about multi- modality. In C. L. Seife (Ed.), Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers (pp. 1–12). Cresskill, NJ: Hampto.
   Google Scholar
• Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In Discourse, tools and reasoning (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202–208.
   Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wikan, G., Mølster, T., Faugli, B., & Hope, R. (2010). Digital multimodal texts and their role in project work: Opportunities and dilemmas. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 225–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar