Can an orchestration system increase collaborative, productive struggle in teaching-by-eliciting classrooms?

References

• Alavi, H., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012). An ambient awareness tool for supporting supervised collaborative problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(3), 264–274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2012.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshal, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408600105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Formative assessment in mathemtaics. In R. E. Bennett, G.J. Cizek, & H.L. Andrade (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment in the Disciplines (pp. 35–67). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuendet, S., et al. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Computers & Education, 68(557-569).
   Google Scholar
• Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New Science of learning: Cognition, Computers and collaboration in Education (pp. 525–552). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• FaSMEd. (2017). Improving progress for lower achievers through formative assessment in science and mathematics education (FaSMEd). Retrieved from https://research.ncl.ac.uk/fasmed/
   Google Scholar
• Haklev, S., et al. (2017). Orchestration graphs: Enabling rich social pedagogical scenarios in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning@Scale. Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman, J., et al. (2014). Implementation and effects of LDC and MDC in Kentucky districts (CRESST Policy Brief No. 13). University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, & Student Testing (CRESST): Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Herman, J., et al. (2015). The implementation and effects of the mathematics design collaborative (MDC): Early findings from Kentucky ninth-grade algebra 1 courses (CRESST Report 845).University of California at Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing: Los Angeles, p. 144.
   Google Scholar
• Holstein, K., McLaren, B., & Aleven, V. (2018). Student learning benefits of a mixed-reality teacher awareness tool in AI-enhanced classrooms. In Artificial intelligence in Education (pp. 154–168). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Inverness Research. (2016). Mathematics assessment program (MAP): Project portfolio. Retrieved from http://inverness-research.org/mars_map/1_welcome.html
   Google Scholar
• Joubert, M., & Larsen, J. (2014). A patchwork of professional development: One teacher's experiences over a school year. In Proceedings of the 8th British Congress of mathematics Education, pp. 207–214.
   Google Scholar
• Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lenovo. (2018). LanSchool: A classroom management system.
   Google Scholar
• Looi, C.-K., Lin, C.-P., & Liu, K.-P. (2008). Group scribbles to support knowledge building in a jigsaw method. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(3), 157–164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2008.20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-Maldonado, R., et al. (2012). An interactive teacher's dashboard for monitoring groups in a multi-tabletop learning environment. In S. A. Cerri et al. (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: 11th international conference, ITS 2012 (pp. 482–492). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., & Kay, J. (2015). TSCL: A conceptual model to inform understanding of collaborative learning processes at interactive tabletops. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 83, 62–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathematics Assessment Project. (2018). Assessing 21st century Math. 2018. Retrieved from http://map.mathshell.org/index.php
   Google Scholar
• McLaren, B., Scheuer, O., & Miksatko, J. (2010). Supporting collaborative learning and e-discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 20, 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• MDC. (2016). The mathematics design collaborative. Retrieved from http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/student-success/high-standards/literacy-tools/mathematics-design-collaborative/
   Google Scholar
• Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9005-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, E. (2016). Teacher orchestration and student learning during mathematics activities in a smart classroom. International Journal Smart Technology and Learning, 1(1), 33–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMARTTL.2016.078160
   Google Scholar
• Molenaar, I., Knoop-van Campen, C. A., & Hasselman, F. (2017). The effects of learning analytics empowered technology on students’ arithmetic skill development. In Learning analytics and knowledge LAK ‘17. Vancouver, BC: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Molenaar, I., & Knoop-van Campen, C. A. (2017). Teacher dashboards in practice: Usage and impact. In European conference on technology enhanced learning: EC-TEL. Springer, pp. 125–138.
   Google Scholar
• Molenaar, I., & Knoop-van Campen, C. A. (in press). How teachers make dashboard information actionable. IEEE Trans. on Learning Technologies, 614–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netop. (2018). Vision: A classroom management system. Retrieved from https://www.netop.com/edu.htm
   Google Scholar
• NetSupport. (2018). School: A classroom management system.
   Google Scholar
• Prieto, L. P., et al. (2011). Orchestrating technology enhanced learning: A literature review and conceptual framework. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(6), 583–598. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2011.045449
   Google Scholar
• Prieto, L. P., et al. (2014). Supporting orchestration of CSCL scenarios in web-based distributed learning environments. Computers & Education, 73, 9–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research for Action. (2015). MDC's influence on teaching and learning. Philadelphia, PA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Rojas, I. G., Garcia, R. M. C., & Kloos, C. D. (2012). Enhancing orchestration of lab sessions by means of awareness mechanisms. In A. Ravenscroft et al. (Eds.), 7th European conference of technology enhanced learning (pp. 113–125). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers & Education, 69, 523–526. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14554450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. H., & Floden, R. (2014). The TRU math scoring rubric. Retrieved from http://ats.berkeley.edu/tools/TRUMathRubricAlpha.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395–442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.553257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanLehn, K. (2016). Some less obvious features of classroom orchestration systems. In L. Lin & R. K. Atkinson (Eds.), Educational technologies: Challenges, applications and learning Outcomes (pp. 73–94). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Scientific Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• VanLehn, K., et al. (2018a). The effect of digital versus traditional orchestration on collaboration in small groups. In C. Rosé et al (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Proceedings of the 19th international conference (pp. 369–373). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• VanLehn, K., et al. (2018b). How can FACT encourage collaboration and self-correction? In K. Millis et al. (Eds.), Multi-disciplinary approaches to deep learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Viswanathan, S. A., & VanLehn, K. (2018). Using the tablet gestures and speech of pairs of students to classify their collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(2), 230–242. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2704099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetzel, J., et al. (2018). A preliminary evaluation of the usability of an AI-infused orchestration system. In C. Rosé et al. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Proceedings of the 19th international conference (pp. 378–383). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Xuetangx. (2018). Rain Classroom.
   Google Scholar