|
|
Szekely, P., Luo, P., & Neches, R. (1993). Beyond Interface Builders: Model-Based Interface Tools. In S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel, & T. White (Eds.), Proceedings of INTERCHI'93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 383–390). New York: ACM Press.
|
|
|
|
Sukaviriya, P., Foley, J. D., & Griffith, T. (1993). A Second Generation User Interface Design Environment: The Model and The Runtime Architecture. In S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel, & T. White (Eds.), Proceedings of INTERCHI'93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 375–382). New York: ACM Press.
|
|
|
|
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures. Organizational Learning, 14(3), 375–394.
|
|
|
|
Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1993). A Sociocultural Approach to Agency. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 336–356). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Gutierrez, K. D. (1993). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: A cross-case comparison of journal sharing. How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning, 5(3-4), 335–365.
Abstract: In this article, activity theory and conversation analysis frame a set of comparative ethnographic studies of how access to literacy learning was differentially constructed across nine classrooms in which “the writing process” was the articulated writing pedagogy. By examining the ways in which language and context socially and culturally constituted events or activities, three distinct patterns of interaction and discourse were identified and the social relationships, normative discourse practices, knowledge exchange systems, and participants' beliefs were associated with each pattern described. Data from three of the nine classrooms in the comparative ethnography study are presented to illustrate the relationships among language, context, and literacy learning. The three classrooms selected represent differences in patterns of orientation, interpretation, and implementation of writing process pedagogy. To provide a basis for comparing pedagogical practices, the patterns of interaction were examined in an event common to all three classrooms, journal sharing. These data illustrate the ways in which different contexts for learning to write and sharing writing were dynamically and socially constructed through the normative interactional and discourse practices in each of these writing process classrooms, and how the differences in contexts led to differential access to learning.
|
|
