Deliberative collaboration in learning-by-designing multimodal modeling activities

References

• Anderson, C., Tornberg, A., & Tornberg, P. (2014). Societal systems – complex or worse? Futures, 63, 145–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkins, E. (1986). The deliberative process: An analysis from three perspectives. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1(4), 265–293.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, M. S. (2015). Empowering prospective teachers to become active sense-makers: Multimodal modeling of the seasons. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 610–627.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, M. S., & Ye, X. (2015). Learning through teaching in informal learning: A big idea of size and distance in astronomy. In Y. H. Cho (Ed.), Authentic problem solving and learning in the 21st century (pp. 285–305). Springer Science & Business Media Singapore Pte Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture & Activity, 9(2), 76–107.
   Google Scholar
• Barab, S., & Dodge, T. (2008). Strategy for designing embodied curriculum. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 97–110). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Barab, S. A., Kenneth, E. H., Michael, B., & Kurt, S. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices, Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 47–94
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 11–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Baumfalk, B., Bhattacharya, D., Vo, T., & Forbes, C. (2018). Impact of model-based science curriculum and instruction on elementary students’ explanations for the hydrosphere, Journals of Research in Science Teaching, 1–28
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L., Schwarz, C., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A., & Reiser, B. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan, R. (2008). The role of value in eclectic inquiry. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(3), 342–354.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. NY: Harper Business.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1992). Curriculum theory. In C. M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 287–292). New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Designs for social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 203–234). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, C. (2011). Narrative inquiry in teaching and teacher education. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum-making in teacher education (pp. 19–42). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Criag, C., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating teachers as curriculum makers. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282–305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, M, McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• De Hei, M. S. A., Sjoer, E., Admiraal, W., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Teacher educators’ design and implementation of group learning activities. Educational Studies, 42, 394–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dillenbourg P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, A., Luke, A., & Seglem, R. (2018). Looking at the next 20 years of multiliteracies: A discussion with Allan Luke. Theory into Practice, 57(1), 72–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. (2000). The new literacy studies: From ‘socially situated’ to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M, Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180–196). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hannay, L. M., & Seller, W. (1991). The curriculum leadership role in facilitating curriculum deliberation. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 6(4), 340–357.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, I. (1991). Deliberative inquiry: The arts of planning. In E. C. Short (Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry (pp. 285–307). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Y. M., Lin, Y. T., & Cheng, S. C. (2010). Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Computers & Education, 54, 47–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A. F., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jo, K., & Shin, M. (2016). CSCL in STEM education: Preliminary findings from a meta-analysis. Proceedings 49th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 11–20). Piscataway, NJ. IEEE Computer Society Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Kaendler, C., Wiedmann, M., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2015). Teacher competencies for the implementation of collaborative learning in the classroom: A framework and research review. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 505–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010a). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200–222. http://newlearningonline.com/_uploads/3_Kalantzis_ELEA_7_3_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). Learning by design. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 198–199. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.198
   Google Scholar
• Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Harvey, A. (2003). Assessing multiliteracies and the new basics. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(1), 15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Knitter, W. (1985). Curriculum deliberation: Pluralism and the practical. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 383–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong, S-C., Chiu, M. M., & Lai, M. (2018). A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers & Education, 127, 178–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to communication. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York and London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lelliott, A., & Rollnick, M. (2010). Big ideas: A review of astronomy education research 1974-2008. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 1771–1799.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D. Reinking, L. Labbo, M. McKenna, & R. Kiefer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 283–301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299–325.
   Google Scholar
• Maican, C. I., Cazan, A-M., Lixandroiu, R. C., & Dovleac, L. (2019). A study on academic staff personality and technology acceptance: The case of communication and collaboration applications, Computers & Education, 128, 113–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43, 181–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the New literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, W. C. (2003). The deliberative approach to education for democracy: Problems and possibilities. In J. J. Patrick, G. E. Hamot, & R. S. Leming (Eds.), Civic learning in teacher education (pp. 99–115). Bloomington, IN: Eric Clearinghouse.
   Google Scholar
• Pietarinen, T., Vauras, M., Laakkonen, E., Kinnunen, R., & Volet, S. (2019). High school students’ perceptions of affect and collaboration during virtual science inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35, 334–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid, W. A. (2006). The pursuit of curriculum: Schooling and the public interest. (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Rowsell, J. (2013). Working with multimodality: Rethinking literacy in a digital age. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 365–383). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J. (1978). The practical: A language for curriculum. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 287–321). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelley, M. C., Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. (Eds.) (2009). Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, G. (2015). A decade of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 337–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. (2007). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sung, Y. T., Yang, J. M., & Lee, H. Y. (2017). The effects of mobile computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis and critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 87, 768–805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, Y. S. M., & Atencio, M. (2016). Unpacking a place-based education – “What lies beyond? Insights drawn from teachers’ perceptions of outdoor education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 25–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth, L. (2008). Multimodal semiotics: Functional analysis in contexts of education. London & New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Eijck, M., & Roth, W-M. (2013). Imagination of science in education: From epics to novelization. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). Supporting teachers in guiding collaborating students: Effects of learning analytics in CSCL. Computers & Education, 79, 28–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2015). Teacher regulation of multiple computer-supported collaborating groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 233–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1987/1934). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, collected works (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285) (R. Rieber & A. Carton, Eds.; N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, M-Q., & Zheng, X-D. (2017). Embodied cognition and curriculum construction. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(3), 217–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. (2003). Lesson plans and situated learning-and-teaching. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 265–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, S. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26, 167–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zongyi, D. (2013). The “why” and “what” of curriculum inquiry: Schwab’s the practical revisited. Education Journal, 4(41), 85–105.
   Google Scholar