Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 387-427.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 235-276.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436.
Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings
Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2): 201-241.
Barron, B. (2009). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359.
Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4(3), 321-354.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. New York: Springer.
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habits: Stewarding technology for communities. CPsquare.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Main Library: LB 1028.5 S696 2006
Sawyer, K. R. (2013). Zig zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. New York: Jossey-Bass
Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
Main Library: HD 30.29 S29 2007
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.
Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2008). The cambridge handbook of situated cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
University Library: HD 30.2 W46 2002
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. New York: Jon Wiley & Sons.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Main library: BF 318 L36 1991
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Science Library-QA 402m425 2008
Tuomela, R. (2013). Social ontology: Collective intentionality and group agents. New York: Oxford University Press.
The main title of this book is social ontology, with a focus on the two topics of collective intentionality and group agency.
Searle, J. R. (2007). Social ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological Theory, 6(1), 12-29.
[Abstract] This article extends and develops a theory I began in my book, The Construction of Social Reality. Its aim to explore social ontology in a way that will make it clear that social ontology is both created by human actions and attitudes but at the same time has an epistemically objective existence and is part of the natural world. The fundamental concepts necessary to explain its creation and continued existence are: the distinction between observer-relative and observer-independent phenomena, the distinction between the epistemic and the ontological senses of the objective-subjective distinction, the notions of collective intentionality, the assignment of function, and constitutive rules. The upshot of the discussion is that the basic notion in institutional ontology is that of a status function. Status functions are the glue that holds society together because they create deontic powers, powers that work by creating desire-independent reasons for action. Thus, social ontology locks into human rationality. I discussion some of the implications of this work for sociology and anthropology.
The Design-based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Design-based research (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992) is an emerging paradigm for the study of learning in context through the systematic design and study of instructional strategies and tools. Good DBR exhibits five characteristics:
DBR methods focus on designing and exploring the whole range of designed innovations: artifacts as well as less concrete aspects such as activity structures, institutions, scaffolds, and curricula. Importantly, DBR goes beyond merely designing and testing particular interventions. Interventions embody specific theoretical claims about teaching and learning, and reflect a commitment to understanding the relationships among theory, designed artifacts, and practice. At the same time, research on specific interventions can contribute to theories of learning and teaching. (p.5)
In DBR, practitioners and researchers work together to produce meaningful changes in contexts of practice (e.g., classrooms, after-school programs, teacher on-line communities). (p. 6)
The overarching, explicit concern in DBR for using methods that link processes of enactment to outcomes has power to generate knowledge that directly applies to educational practice. The value of attending to context is not simply that it produces a better understanding of an intervention, but also that it can lead to improved theoretical accounts of teaching and learning. The intention of DBR in education is to inquire more broadly into the nature of learning in a complex system and to refine generative or predictive theories of learning. (p. 7)