The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scripting and Orchestration of Learning Across Contexts: A Role for Intelligent Agents and Data Mining
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Teachers often juggle multiple, time-sensitive tasks simultaneously in often very hectic and noisy classrooms (Roschelle et al., 2013); Tissenbaum & Slotta, 2015).”
From A Feasibility and Implementation Integrity Study of the Community Builder (CoBi): An AI-based Collaboration Support System in K-12 Classrooms (2025) · cites this paper as Tissenbaum & Slotta, 2015
Citations
Cites
Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1 · Cited by 2,642 · cited 1×
“Generally, design-based research does not attempt to validate a particular curriculum; rather it strives to advance a set of theories on learning that transcend the particulars in which they were enacted (Barab and Squire 2004).”
BackgroundBrusilovsky, P. (2001) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1023/a:1011143116306 · Cited by 2,057
Research works printed but not linked: 43
- Alavi, H. S., Pierre, D., & Frederic, K. (2009). Distributed awareness for class orchestration. In Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (pp. 211–225). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. · DOI
- Anderson, T., & Whitelock, D. M. (2004). The educational semantic web: Visioning and practicing the future of education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2004(1), 1–15. · DOI
- Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 269–292.
- Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., et al. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100–107.
- Chan, T. W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, S. M., Brown, T., et al. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Enhanced Learning, 01(01), 3–29. · DOI
- Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152. · DOI · Paper page
- Cuendet, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). The benefits and limitations of distributing a tangible interface in a classroom. Paper presented at the 10th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning, Madison, WI.
- Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer. · DOI
- Dillenbourg, P., Zufferey, G., Alavi, H., Jermann, P., Do-Lenh, S., & Bonnard, Q. (2011). Classroom orchestration: The third circle of usability. Cscl2011 Proceedings, 1, 510–517.
- Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363. · DOI
- Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. · DOI · Paper page
- Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Scriptable classrooms. Classroom of the future: Orchestrating collaborative spaces (2005) (pp. 141–162). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. · DOI
- Kohen-Vacs, D., Ronen, M., Ben Aharon, O., & Milrad, M. (2011). Incorporating mobile elements in collaborative pedagogical scripts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE. · DOI
- Kuhn, A., McNally, B., Schmoll, S., Cahill, C., Lo, W. T., Quintana, C., & Delen, I. (2012, May). How students find, evaluate and utilize peer-collected annotated multimedia data in science inquiry with Zydeco. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3061–3070). ACM, New York. · DOI
- Looi, C., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H., Chen, W., & Wong, L. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169. · DOI
- Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25. · DOI
- Milrad, M., Wong, L.-H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G.-J., Looi, C.-K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless learning: An international perspective on next generation technology enhanced learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), The handbook of mobile learning (pp. 95–108). New York: Routledge.
- O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups the theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. · DOI · Paper page
- Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Shechtman, N. (2006). Co-design of innovations with teachers: Definition and dynamics. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 606–612).
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. · DOI
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
- Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learning with technology outside school (Report 7). Bristol: Futurelab.
- Sharples, M. (2013). Shared orchestration within and beyond the classroom. Computers & Education, 69, 504–506. · DOI
- Simon, B., Dolog, P., Miklos, Z., Olmedilla, D., & Sintek, M. (2004). Conceptualising smart spaces for learning. Journal of Interactive in Education, 2004(1), 1–25.
- Slotta, J. D. (2010). Evolving the classrooms of the future: The interplay of pedagogy, technology and community. In K. Makitalo-Siegl, F. Kaplan, J. Zottmann, & F. Fischer (Eds.), The classroom of the future orchestrating collaborative learning spaces (pp. 215–242). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher. · DOI
- Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York/London: Teachers College Press.
- Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2010). Knowledge communities in the classroom. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 8, pp. 189–196). Oxford: Elsevier. · DOI
- Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2013). Emerging technologies for the classroom. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective (pp. 93–112). New York: Springer. · DOI
- Slotta, J., & Peters, V. (2008, June). A blended model for knowledge communities: Embedding scaffolded inquiry. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on international conference for the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 343–350). International Society of the Learning Sciences, Madison.
- Slotta, J. D., Tissenbaum, M., Lui, M., & Zukowski, M. (2012). Smart classrooms for knowledge communities: EPIC technology environment. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference of the learning sciences, Sydney (Vol. 2, pp. 64–71). International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS), Madison.
- Tedjamulia, S. J., Dean, D. L., Olsen, D. R., & Albrecht, C. C. (2005, January). Motivating content contributions to online communities: Toward a more comprehensive theory. In HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2005. (pp. 193b–193b). IEEE. · DOI
- Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2012, July). Scaffolding a knowledge community for high school physics. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2012), Sydney.
- Tsovaltzi, D., McLaren, B. M., Rummel, N., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., Pinkwart, N., & Braun, I. (2008, January). Using an adaptive collaboration script to promote conceptual chemistry learning. In Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 709–711). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. · DOI
- Vickery, G., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2007). Participative web and user-created content: Web 2.0 wikis and social networking. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
- Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 5–23. · DOI
- Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987–995. · DOI
- Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. Learning Technology, 2830(435), 1–35.
- Wong, L.-H., & Looi, C.-K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381. · DOI
- Zhao, X., & Okamoto, T. (2011). Adaptive multimedia content delivery for context-aware u-learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization, 5(1), 46–63. · DOI
- Zuboff, S., & Maxim, J. (2004). The support economy: Why corporations are failing individuals and the next episode of capitalism. London: Penguin.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Breideband, T., Bush, J. B., Reitman, J. G., Rose, S., Weatherley, J., Penuel, W. R., & D’Mello, S. K. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-025-00509-2 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Slotta, James D.
- Venue
- Seamless Learning in the Age of Mobile Connectivity
- Publisher
- Springer Singapore
- Published
- 2015
- Pages
- 223-257
- OpenAlex
- W2106116984
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.71
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Keywords
- intelligent agents, physics curriculum, knowledge communities, social tagging, metadata, collaborative inquiry, educational data mining, design principles
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review