<rdf:RDF xmlns:community="http://www.bibsonomy.org/ontologies/2008/05/community#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" xmlns:swrc="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xml:base="http://www.bibsonomy.org/user/yish/communication"><owl:Ontology rdf:about=""><rdfs:comment>BibSonomy publications for /user/yish/communication</rdfs:comment><owl:imports rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology/portal"/></owl:Ontology><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/21b1e9f0a2bd377cb73128796e8644a58/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/21b1e9f0a2bd377cb73128796e8644a58/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#InCollection"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://oro.open.ac.uk/19706/"/><swrc:date>Sat Jun 11 13:06:27 CEST 2011</swrc:date><swrc:booktitle>Web 2.0-Based-E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching</swrc:booktitle><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="IGI Global"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Activating Assessment for Learning: Are we on the way with WEB 2.0?</swrc:title><swrc:year>2010</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>TEL Web2.0 accreditation assessment assessment2.0 asynchronous casestudies collaboration collaborative communication communications computer-assisted computer-mediated constructivism discussion distance e-assessment education educational evaluations formative implementation interactions learning pedagogy research summative technologies technology undergraduate web-based web-delivered </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>This chapter examines the role Web 2.0 tools can play in promoting the Assessment for Learning Agenda. It presents a number of cases of peer, self and computer assessments that display a range of characteristics proposed by Elliott (2008) for the next generation of assessment tasks. The discussion of the cases revealed a missing characteristic which is a form of feedback to the students that will take their learning forward which I have called &#039;Advice for Action&#039;. In order for assessment tasks and tools to become more effective they need to be embedded within a pedagogical framework, which in turn, requires a supportive infrastructure as proposed by the 4Ts pyramid. The major components of the pyramid consist of (a) Tool Development, (b) Staff Training, (c) Rethinking the Assessment Tasks and (d) Learning from the Assessment Tasks.</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Denise Whitelock"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author><swrc:editor><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="M. J. W. Lee"/></rdf:_1><rdf:_2><swrc:Person swrc:name="C McLoughlin"/></rdf:_2></rdf:Seq></swrc:editor></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2639a5eaa87d3e0bff4c2834ea1cbc99f/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/2639a5eaa87d3e0bff4c2834ea1cbc99f/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jonrein/pubs/belz_reinhardt2004.pdf"/><swrc:date>Tue Mar 15 21:59:10 CET 2011</swrc:date><swrc:journal>International Journal of Applied Linguistics</swrc:journal><swrc:number>3</swrc:number><swrc:pages>324--362</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="Wiley Online Library"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated German language play</swrc:title><swrc:volume>14</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2004</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>adult communication computer foreign haifa-games-course language learning online proficiency </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>Adult foreign language play has been an under-explored phenomenon in
the field of applied linguistics, despite the fact that strong claims have been
made about its importance in instructed foreign language learning. This article
documents the nature of adult foreign language play in the electronic medium
and examines the ways in which computer-mediated communication may
afford opportunities for its occurrence. It is further argued that examination
of this phenomenon provides insights into issues of advanced foreign language
proficiency. The article presents a case study of a 19-year-old American
college student who was a participant in a telecollaborative course between
the United States and Germany in the fall of 2002. Data are drawn from
(a) his course web site, (b) his in-class electronic correspondence with his
German keypals, (c) his out-of-class correspondence with these same keypals
and his German-speaking girlfriend, (d) his cumulative course portfolio, and
(e) focus group interviews.</swrc:abstract><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="1473-4192" swrc:key="issn"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Julie A. Belz"/></rdf:_1><rdf:_2><swrc:Person swrc:name="Jonathon Reinhardt"/></rdf:_2></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/244a9915317dabace7cd54cc6ea5005e6/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/244a9915317dabace7cd54cc6ea5005e6/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a921499148"/><swrc:date>Sat Oct 02 02:26:13 CEST 2010</swrc:date><swrc:journal>Learning, Media and Technology</swrc:journal><swrc:number>1</swrc:number><swrc:pages>31-52</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="Routledge"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Gamestar Mechanic: learning a designer mindset through communicational competence with the language of games</swrc:title><swrc:volume>35</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2010</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>cognition communication design designer dialog education games gamestar haifa-games-course language learning literacy meaning mechanic systems </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>This article presents the results of a three-year study of Gamestar Mechanic (www.gamestarmechanic.com), a flash-based multiplayer online role-playing game developed for the MacArthur Foundation&#039;s digital media learning initiative by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Gamelab in New York. The game&#039;s objective is to help children adopt a designer mindset, together with its associated forms of language and literacy in the context of computer game production. Using case studies and discourse analysis, this article examines the ways in which learning &#039;the language of games&#039; provided by Gamestar Mechanic can help even young students learn thinking skills and communication important to learners in the twenty-first century, and can help transform the way children understand the games they play in positive ways.</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Ivan Alex Games"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/299d9718a37d32c82e8c4a6c729283b8c/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/299d9718a37d32c82e8c4a6c729283b8c/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#InProceedings"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://journal.webscience.org/253/1/websci09_submission_161.pdf"/><swrc:date>Tue Aug 25 11:43:56 CEST 2009</swrc:date><swrc:booktitle>Web Science 2009: Society On-Line</swrc:booktitle><swrc:month>March</swrc:month><swrc:organization><swrc:Organization swrc:name="W3C, ACM"/></swrc:organization><swrc:school><swrc:University swrc:name="Massachusetts Institute of Technology"/></swrc:school><swrc:title>Designing a website for creative learning</swrc:title><swrc:year>2009</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>collaboration communication constructionism creativity learning scratch webscience </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>The Scratch Online Community is a website that allows kids from around the world to share their own interactive media. In less than two years, more than 50,000 people have uploaded close to 350,00 Scratch projects ranging from video games to animated stories to science simulations to dance projects. Continuous iterations in the design and moderation of the site have been guided by observations of the participation patterns that have emerged in the community around issues such as remixing, moral judgment and group formation. The Scratch website hopes to be an example of how web technologies can foster young people&#039;s involvement in the participatory culture to develop 21st century skills.</swrc:abstract><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="2009-03-19 10:55:58" swrc:key="posted-at"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Andrés Monroy-Hernández"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/286bf2f293e06853597e336271cb4edd0/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/286bf2f293e06853597e336271cb4edd0/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~junwang4/langev/localcopy/pdf/steels03trends.pdf"/><swrc:date>Wed Sep 24 18:38:58 CEST 2008</swrc:date><swrc:journal>Trends in Cognitive Sciences</swrc:journal><swrc:number>7</swrc:number><swrc:pages>308--312</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="Elsevier"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Evolving grounded communication for robots</swrc:title><swrc:volume>7</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2003</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>Evolving communication for grounded language learning robots </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>The computational and robotic synthesis of language
evolution is emerging as a new exciting field of
research. The objective is to come up with precise
operational models of how communities of agents,
equipped with a cognitive apparatus, a sensori-motor
system, and a body, can arrive at shared grounded communication
systems. Such systems may have similar
characteristics to animal communication or human
language. Apart from its technological interest in building
novel applications in the domain of human–robot
or robot–robot interaction, this research is of interest
to the many disciplines concerned with the origins and
evolution of language and communication</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="L. Steels"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2a9878e1b1893f13ec0d0f001e4b20864/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/2a9878e1b1893f13ec0d0f001e4b20864/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.csl.sony.fr/downloads/papers/2005/steels-05h.pdf"/><swrc:date>Wed Sep 24 18:25:04 CEST 2008</swrc:date><swrc:journal>Connection Science</swrc:journal><swrc:number>3</swrc:number><swrc:pages>213-230</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="Taylor &amp; Francis"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>The emergence and evolution of linguistic structure: from lexical to grammatical communication systems</swrc:title><swrc:volume>17</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2005</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>AI communication connectionist grammer language learning lexicon linguistics networks neural review </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>The paper discusses efforts to understand the self-organisation and evolution of language from a cognitive modeling point of view. It focuses in particular on efforts
that use connectionist components to synthesise some of the major stages in the emergence of language and possible transitions between stages. The paper does not introduce new technical results but discusses a number of dimensions for mapping out the research landscape.</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Luc Steels"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2025f8c0fed1ffd26b50bd8ddd7d2ad35/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/2025f8c0fed1ffd26b50bd8ddd7d2ad35/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788091991"/><swrc:date>Sun Sep 14 10:50:11 CEST 2008</swrc:date><swrc:journal>The Journal of the Learning Sciences</swrc:journal><swrc:number>4</swrc:number><swrc:pages>565-613</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="Lawrence Earlbaum"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>When the Rules of Discourse Change, but Nobody Tells You: Making Sense of Mathematics Learning From a Commognitive Standpoint</swrc:title><swrc:volume>16</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2007</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>cerme6 cerme6patterns commognition communication communicational learning mathematics </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>The interpretive framework for the study of learning introduced in this article and called commognitive is grounded in the assumption that thinking is a form of communication and that learning mathematics is tantamount to modifying and extending one&#039;s discourse. These basic tenets lead to the conclusion that substantial discursive change, rather than being necessitated by an extradiscursive reality, is spurred by commognitive conflict, that is, by the situation that arises whenever different interlocutors are acting according to differing discursive rules. The framework is applied in 2 studies, one of them featuring a class learning about negative numbers and the other focusing on 2 first graders learning about triangles and quadrilaterals. In both cases, the analysis of data is guided by questions about (a) features of the new mathematical discourse that set it apart from the mathematical discourse in which the students were conversant when the learning began; (b) students&#039; and teachers&#039; efforts toward the necessary discursive transformation; and (c) effects of the learning-teaching process, that is, the extent of discursive change actually resulting from these efforts. One of the claims corroborated by the findings is that school learning requires an active lead of an experienced interlocutor and needs to be fueled by a learning-teaching agreement between the interlocutor and the learners.</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Anna Sfard"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/218e587a4a9d49017c60eca4464daeb7e/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/218e587a4a9d49017c60eca4464daeb7e/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00164.x"/><swrc:date>Fri May 30 05:55:14 CEST 2008</swrc:date><swrc:journal>Journal of Computer Assisted Learning</swrc:journal><swrc:number>2</swrc:number><swrc:pages>114-136</swrc:pages><swrc:title>Exploring the mathematics of motion through construction and collaboration</swrc:title><swrc:volume>22</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2006</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>PlanetMakingStuffTogether communication computer constructionism game ijtme2006 learning lunarlander mathematics mathgamespatterns modelling mythesis programming science weblabs webreports </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>In this paper we give a detailed account of the design principles and construction of activities underlying a model-based approach to learning about the relationships between position, velocity and acceleration, and corresponding kinematics graphs. In these activities, students controlled the movement of objects in a programming environment, recording the motion data and plotting corresponding position-time and velocity-time graphs. They shared their findings on a specially-designed web-based collaboration system, and posted cross-site challenges to which others could react. We present learning episodes that provide evidence of students making discoveries about the relationships between different representations of motion. We conjecture that these discoveries arose from their activity in building models of motion and their participation in classroom and 
online community.</swrc:abstract><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="2" swrc:key="priority"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="490065" swrc:key="citeulike-article-id"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Gordon Simpson"/></rdf:_1><rdf:_2><swrc:Person swrc:name="Celia Hoyles"/></rdf:_2><rdf:_3><swrc:Person swrc:name="Richard Noss"/></rdf:_3></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/26adb9140dadebfe905db4fb3be930e71/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/26adb9140dadebfe905db4fb3be930e71/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.springerlink.com/content/3y3wh79h5ahpycep/"/><swrc:date>Sun Apr 27 20:12:12 CEST 2008</swrc:date><swrc:journal>Educational Studies in Mathematics</swrc:journal><swrc:number>1</swrc:number><swrc:pages>273-286</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="Springer"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>From describing to designing mathematical activity: the next step in developing a social approach to research in mathematics education?</swrc:title><swrc:volume>46</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2001</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>CERME-6-patterns abstraction communication communicational design learning mathematics mythesis research situated social </swrc:keywords><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Celia Hoyles"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/240dea1ba189fe25bbaa95202bd9560d8/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/240dea1ba189fe25bbaa95202bd9560d8/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><swrc:date>Thu Nov 08 15:46:23 CET 2007</swrc:date><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="DTIC Research Report ADA192242"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Plans for Discourse</swrc:title><swrc:year>1988</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>AI LDSE agents collaboration communication coordination discourse language multiagent plans </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract> Discourses are fundamentally instances of collaboration behavior. We propose a model of the collaborative plans of agents achieving joint goals and illustrate the role of these plans in discourses. Three types of collaborative plans, called Shared Plans, are formulated for joint goals requiring simultaneous, conjoined or sequential actions on the part of the agents who participate in the plans and the discourse; a fourth type of Shared Plan is presented for the circumstance where two agents communicate, but only one acts.</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Barbara J. Grosz"/></rdf:_1><rdf:_2><swrc:Person swrc:name="C.L. Sidner"/></rdf:_2></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2e58c2084d4e6f4fddc18b26ce78517de/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/2e58c2084d4e6f4fddc18b26ce78517de/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#InProceedings"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/icmas/icmas2000.html#SullivanGK00"/><swrc:date>Thu Nov 08 15:42:28 CET 2007</swrc:date><swrc:booktitle>ICMAS</swrc:booktitle><swrc:crossref>conf/icmas/2000</swrc:crossref><swrc:pages>293-300</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="IEEE Computer Society"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Intention Reconciliation by Collaborative Agents.</swrc:title><swrc:year>2000</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>AI LDSE agents collaboration collaborative communication intention learning multiagent </swrc:keywords><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICMAS.2000.858466" swrc:key="ee"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="0-7695-0625-9" swrc:key="isbn"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="2004-11-05" swrc:key="date"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="David G. Sullivan"/></rdf:_1><rdf:_2><swrc:Person swrc:name="Barbara J. Grosz"/></rdf:_2><rdf:_3><swrc:Person swrc:name="Sarit Kraus"/></rdf:_3></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2cd8438a6b302757db8c614e9adf3a270/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/2cd8438a6b302757db8c614e9adf3a270/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#InProceedings"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/lochbaum90models.html"/><swrc:date>Thu May 10 15:39:30 CEST 2007</swrc:date><swrc:address>Menlo Park, California</swrc:address><swrc:booktitle>Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence</swrc:booktitle><swrc:pages>485-490</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="AAAI Press"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Models of Plans to Support Communication: An Initial Report</swrc:title><swrc:year>1990</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>agents artificial collaboration communication discourse language multiagent mythesis natural plans shared </swrc:keywords><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Karen E. Lochbaum"/></rdf:_1><rdf:_2><swrc:Person swrc:name="Barbara J. Grosz"/></rdf:_2><rdf:_3><swrc:Person swrc:name="Candice L. Sidner"/></rdf:_3></rdf:Seq></swrc:author><swrc:editor><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Thomas Dietterich"/></rdf:_1><rdf:_2><swrc:Person swrc:name="William Swartout"/></rdf:_2></rdf:Seq></swrc:editor></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/24f8ce30ad73d0f34ec2768f2db142ac5/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/24f8ce30ad73d0f34ec2768f2db142ac5/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=225778"/><swrc:date>Wed May 09 13:02:36 CEST 2007</swrc:date><swrc:journal>Mind as motion: explorations in the dynamics of cognition table of contents</swrc:journal><swrc:pages>195-225</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA, USA"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Language as a dynamical system</swrc:title><swrc:year>1996</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>Chomski cognition communication discourse dynamic dynamical language learning mythesis system systems </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>Despite considerable diversity among theories about how humans process
language, there are a number of fundamental assumptions which are shared by
most such theories. This consensus extends to the very basic question about what
counts as a cognitive process. So although many cognitive scientists are fond of
referring to the brain as a ‘mental organ’ (e.g., Chomsky, 1975)—implying a
similarity to other organs such as the liver or kidneys—it is also assumed that the
brain is an organ with special properties which set it apart. Brains ‘carry out
computation’ (it is argued); they ‘entertain propositions’; and they ‘support
representations’. Brains may be organs, but they are very different than the other
organs found in the body.</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Jeffery L. Elman"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2eec110f03510fc062def16705527cfda/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/2eec110f03510fc062def16705527cfda/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.springerlink.com/content/0f9ma28tck235dhe/"/><swrc:date>Tue May 08 15:10:41 CEST 2007</swrc:date><swrc:journal>Educational Studies in Mathematics</swrc:journal><swrc:number>1</swrc:number><swrc:pages>187-228</swrc:pages><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="Springer"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>The mathematical discourse of 13-year-old partnered problem solving and its relation to the mathematics that emerges</swrc:title><swrc:volume>46</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2001</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>communication communicational discourse education functions graphs interaction learning mathematical mathematics mythesis problem rational solving student talk </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>This paper, written within a discursive perspective, explores the co-shaping of public and private discourse, and some of the circumstances under which one occasions the other, in the evolution of mathematical thinking by pairs of 13-year-olds. The discourse of six pairs of students, engaged in interpreting and graphing problem situations involving rational functions, was analyzed by means of recently developed methodological tools. The nature of the mathematics that emerged for each pair was found to be related to several factors that included the characteristics of the interpersonal object-level utterances both before and after the solution path had been generated, the degree of activity of the personal channels of the interlocutors, and the extent to which the thoughts of participants were made explicit in the public discourse. The analysis of the discursive interactions provided evidence that adolescents within novel problem situations can experience some difficulty in making their emergent thinking available to their partners in such a way that the interaction be highly mathematically productive for both of them.</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Carolyn Kieran"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/21628c93cec69d7641b65ba9dafb03169/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/21628c93cec69d7641b65ba9dafb03169/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Book"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike-20\&amp;path=ASIN/B0007F4FTA"/><swrc:date>Mon Oct 09 01:09:47 CEST 2006</swrc:date><swrc:howpublished>{Unknown Binding}</swrc:howpublished><swrc:publisher><swrc:Organization swrc:name="U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education"/></swrc:publisher><swrc:title>Technology in American education 1650-1900, (United States. Office of Education. Bulletin 1962)</swrc:title><swrc:year>1963</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>technology history blackboard communication education collaboration </swrc:keywords><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="2" swrc:key="priority"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="404709" swrc:key="citeulike-article-id"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:Field swrc:value="Prior to 1800 American schools were mostly one-room affairs with limited resources. Here is a note from a 1961 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education publication called &#034;Technology in American education, 1650-1900.&#034;

    The colonial schools had no blackboards, slates, or maps, although some flourishing schools could boast of owning a glove. Almost all of the school supplies for pupils were homemade. The pens were goose-quills. In fact, a teacher was sometimes hired more for his ability to cut and mend quills than for his ability to teach. If the schoolmaster was an expert penmaker, a great deal of his time would be consumed in that activity if he had a large school.

    Each family supplied their children with homemade ink, usually by dissolving ink powder in water. Many of the country fold gathered the bark of swamp-maple and boiled it down for ink. These homemade inks were often weak and pallid and sometimes dried up.

    The paper ordinarily bought for school purposes was rough and dark. Its high cost led the scholars to use it sparingly and in the new and poorer communities children frequently had to write on birch bark. The paper came in foolscap size (approximately 13&#034; x 17&#034;) and was unruled. The pupils would fold the paper and make separate pages out of it, cover the pages with a course brown wrapping paper or wallpaper, and then carefully sew it into a &#034;copy-book&#034; or &#034;sum-book.&#034;

    Once the copy book was made, the children had to rule the paper in preparation for writing. This was done with little strips of sheet lead or &#034;leaden plummets&#034; as they were called. Regardless of the primitive equipment, however, the handwriting of the colonial children seemed to suffer no visible damage.

(http://www.pballew.net/mathbooks.html)

---

Chalkboards were first used in 1810 in West point, but -

    In the 1830&#039;s educators stopped regarding the blackboard as a curious innovation and began to look upon it as essential to teaching. A lecturer in 1830 listed it as one of four essential apparatuses every school should have.

    One or more of these should be found in every school . . . This piece of school-furniture is almost invaluable. In some schools it has been deemed so important as to form part of the WALL, all around the room. (Adams, 1830, pp. 345-346)

    The Connecticut Common School Journal of February 15, 1839, advised its schools: &#034;In all the operations performed by the pupils . . . blackboards should be used for demonstrations and illustrations.&#034; (CCSJ, 1841,p. 92) In the same journal a letter from a teacher ventured that &#034;the most useful piece of school apparatus, may be simply a black board painted or stained black, attached to the wall or to a movable stand.... It is employed in teaching scholars of every stage of advancement.&#034; (CCSJ, 1841, p. 48-49)

    By the 1840&#039;s the blackboard was firmly entrenched in the school systems. Texts for teachers on the use of the blackboard began to be written.

    A few quotes from one of these (pp. VII and VIII) shows us, possibly with some exaggeration, that teachers were convinced that the blackboard was here to stay.

    I should feel in the schoolroom, without the blackboard, as though the LAST PLANK had been taken from under me!

    And again:

    The inventor or introducer of the blackboard system deserves to be ranked among the best contributors to learning and science, if not among the greatest benefactors of mankind.

    In 1842, the Connecticut Common School Journal dedicated five entire issues including illustrations to &#034;Slate and Black Board Exercises for Common Schools.&#034; 
(http://www.pballew.net/mathbooks.html)" swrc:key="comment"/></swrc:hasExtraField><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Charnel Anderson"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2a38021c31a5b4301f3b2047cf19b062d/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/2a38021c31a5b4301f3b2047cf19b062d/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#Article"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://concrescence.org/ajpt_papers/vol03/03_rankin.pdf"/><swrc:date>Sat Sep 16 20:15:36 CEST 2006</swrc:date><swrc:journal>Concrescence</swrc:journal><swrc:pages>1-12</swrc:pages><swrc:title>What is Narrative? Ricoeur, Bakhtin, and Process Approaches</swrc:title><swrc:volume>3</swrc:volume><swrc:year>2002</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>Philosophy MacIntyre consciousness process communication Bakhtin Narrative Ricoeur </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>Centuries of indifference to narrative have, according to some insightful writers, culminated in a
breakdown or crisis in narrative, characterised by a reduced significance of literary works and by a fragmented
temporal organisation of people’s lives. Yet in the twentieth century new academic interest in narrative emerged,
particularly through the works of Paul Ricoeur, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Mikhail Bakhtin. Building on their works
we may now posit narrative as a triad of the narrative work or artefact, the narrative mode of consciousness, and the
relation between these two, characterised as communication. This re-conceptualisation reveals the ongoing,
unfolding, temporal, and creative, or in other words, the processual nature of narrative. It also allows us to see that
narrative is fundamental to other human processes, such as those of dialogue, intentionality, consciousness,
knowledge, culture, community, reality construction, and, ultimately, personal identity. Narrative can now be
regarded as primordial to all human affairs and the source of what MacIntyre terms ‘the unity of a life.’</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Jenny Rankin"/></rdf:_1></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2f57d0dfcd5d9bb1ff664ce09bf5b6b52/yish"><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.bibsonomy.org/uri/bibtex/2f57d0dfcd5d9bb1ff664ce09bf5b6b52/yish"/><rdf:type rdf:resource="http://swrc.ontoware.org/ontology#InProceedings"/><owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/pub/icls2006.pdf"/><swrc:date>Sat Sep 16 13:54:24 CEST 2006</swrc:date><swrc:address>Bloomington, IL</swrc:address><swrc:booktitle>presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2006)</swrc:booktitle><swrc:title>Shared referencing of mathematical objects in chat</swrc:title><swrc:year>2006</swrc:year><swrc:keywords>mathematics IJCEELL objects communication collaboration narrative chat mathforum.org CSCL </swrc:keywords><swrc:abstract>We conceptualize referencing as a primary means of establishing intersubjective meaning and, therefore, as an important consideration in supporting collaborative learning. What we call group cognition is a discourse-centered analysis of the interactional basis of collaborative knowledge building, establishing common ground and co-constructing shared meaning. This epistemological perspective has methodological, technological and pedagogical implications. It directs empirical analysis toward the manifold forms of referencing that constitute small-group communication. Studies of how students actually make sense of, adapt and adopt referential affordances in computational media are used to inform the design of educational software environments. In particular, we are developing an online service for groups of people to discuss mathematical themes. This paper looks at how a group of students used methods of referencing to co-construct geometric objects in a chat room with graphical referencing tools.</swrc:abstract><swrc:author><rdf:Seq><rdf:_1><swrc:Person swrc:name="Gerry Stahl"/></rdf:_1><rdf:_2><swrc:Person swrc:name="Alan Zemel"/></rdf:_2><rdf:_3><swrc:Person swrc:name="Johann Sarmiento"/></rdf:_3><rdf:_4><swrc:Person swrc:name="Murat Cakir"/></rdf:_4><rdf:_5><swrc:Person swrc:name="Stephen Weimar"/></rdf:_5><rdf:_6><swrc:Person swrc:name="Martin Wessner"/></rdf:_6><rdf:_7><swrc:Person swrc:name="Martin Mühlpfordt"/></rdf:_7></rdf:Seq></swrc:author></rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
