The role of the human instructor in online learning has received increasingly more attention in the e- learning literature. In the present paper we focus on the particular case of human moderation of peer- to-peer debates in educational settings. A multi-dimensional methodology is proposed to identify and characterize different moderation styles in such settings. The method triangulates superficial and quali- tative features of both moderation actions as well as the discussion as a whole. The application of this methodology to a sample of synchronous group discussions moderated by assigned peer moderators yielded five distinctively different moderation styles: A scaffolding, an orchestrating, an authoritative, an observing and a participative style. Implications and limitations of the coding methodology are dis- cussed, as well as future directions for research and methodology development. p. 449

Kordaki, & Dimitrikapoulou, 2006; Katz & O’Donnell, 1999; Lakkal- a, Muukkonen, Ilomaki, Niemiverta, & Hakkarainen, 2001; Lim & Cheah, 2003; Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003; Packham, Jones, Tho- mas, & Miller, 2006; Schwarz & Asterhan, in press) p. 449

pedagogical frameworks for e-moderators (e.g., Berge, 1995; Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinher, 2000; Duggleby, 2000; Goodyear, Salmon, Spector, Stee- ples, & Tickner, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 2001; Salmon, 2000). p. 449

Most of these frameworks are based on personal reflections and exten- sive personal experience from e-course development in post-sec- ondary education settings. They generally aim to conceptualize the role of the human tutor in distant, online learning and provide helpful guidelines for newcomers to the field. They are therefore an important step forward. However, even though the number of re- search-based works is rapidly growing (e.g., Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001; Asterhan & Schwarz, 2010; Hlapanis, p. 449

1.1. The frequency of interventions: How much is enough? First of all, online instructors have to work out how much to intervene in students’ discussions in order to ensure a fruitful, yet critical discussion, without actually taking over in the process. The instructor’s role in asynchronous discussion forums can vary from being the ‘sage on the stage’, to the ‘guide on the side’ or even ‘the ghost in the wings’ (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003). p. 449

the Mazz- olini and Maddisson study (2003) failed to take in account one important aspect of e-moderation, namely: The content of different tutor interventions. The relation between frequency of moderation interventions and student participation is likely to be conditioned by the type of interventions that were enacted. For example, inter- ventions that contain direct tutor-centered pedagogical support (i.e., tutor solved the issue and revealed the ‘‘correct” answers) may shorten discussions, whereas those that aim to increase inter- action and responsiveness between participants may lead to longer discussions. p. 450

Our first goal is then to develop a coding scheme that capitalizes on these distinctions and examines whether these can be reliably quantified and triangulated in a multi-dimensional coding scheme. Second, we will illustrate how such a scheme may be applied to identify different e-moderation styles of synchronous peer-to-peer discus- sions. p. 450

From the total of 20 course participants, five in-service teachers were chosen to moderate the discussions, based on their involve- ment in class activities and academic achievement. We informed these teacher students in advance that they would fulfill the role of moderators in the following class. Each was instructed to mod- erate as s/he saw fit. p. 450

of moderator contributions, but to also break this down by type of ontology label. p. 452

participants in each group were given a choice between several discussant roles: School principal, teacher, or school counselor. Each group was instructed to reach an agreed-upon solution to the dilemma presented in the task. p. 452

In a similar vein, the raw and relative number of links created by moderators was taken into account. As in other diagram-based discussion environments, such as jigaDREW (Lund, Molinari, Séjourné, & Baker, 2007), and Knowledge Forum (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) Digalo participants can draw links between any two contributions. Therefore, mere link frequency is indicative of participation. Moreover, in Digalo a link represents a certain rela- tion between two contributions (opposing, supporting, neutral) which is chosen by its creator. Using many opposing and support- ing links may thus be indicative of a more involved moderation style, in which the moderator is defending and encouraging a cer- tain stance within the discussion. Vice versa, use of neutral links may be more representative of an impartial moderation style. p. 452

In addition to the frequency and type of moderator participa- tion, the temporal dimension of participation may be indicative of moderation style as well. De Laat, Lally, Lipponen & Simons (2007) already mentioned that traditional methods for online com- munication analyses often ignore the temporal dimension of stu- dent interaction processes. Prescriptive models for e-moderation, on the other hand, often describe effective moderation of e-courses as occurring in different stages that serve different goals, with stages that focus on socialization and motivation preceding the more instructionally focused stages (e.g., Salmon, 2000). In com- parison, synchronous e-discussions are much shorter and immedi- ate in nature. Even so, it is likely that the temporal distribution of moderator contributions during the course of a discussion may represent differences in moderation styles. For example, a moder- ator that prefers that students will explore their own ideas without too much intervening, may be more likely to contribute only in the end of the discussion, to encourage them to come to a common solution or closure. An even distribution on the other hand is char- acteristic of more active moderation styles. p. 452

The literature review presented at the beginning of this paper showed that different theorists and researchers have focused on different aspects of e-moderation behavior. We distinguish here between superficial and qualitative features of the protocol con- tent, based on the distinction that the latter requires a human co- der’s interpretation (such as in analyzing of free textual content), whereas the latter does not. p. 452

Finally, we also take into account the extent to which students were responsive to moderator contributions. Whereas this is not a characteristic of moderation style itself, it is an indicator of its im- pact on student discussants and of how they perceive and relate to the moderator interventions. It is operationally defined as the percentage of textual moderator contributions that were posted during the discussion session (not including link to the initial dis- cussion question) and received at least one direct response from a discussant. p. 452

In quantitative research, the most frequently featured dimen- sion is the frequency of moderator moves during a discussion ses- sion. Frequency of moderator contributions in a session represents his/her extent of participation, either in general (raw frequency) or relative to the total number of contributions in a session (relative frequency). However, discussion environments that have been particularly developed for educational settings often require users to label the nature of their discussion contribution, by choosing from an existing pallet of options. In the Digalo environment, for example, users are often asked to choose from options such as ‘‘argument”, ‘‘question”, ‘‘explanation”, ‘‘idea”, ‘‘information” and ‘‘claim”. These labels carry potentially important information for identifying different moderation behaviors. For example, frequent moderator use of ‘‘idea” and ‘‘explanation” labels may be indicative of a more directive, didactic style of intervention, according to which the moderator answers questions, provides explanations and directly steers students towards certain ideas. Use of ‘‘argu- ment” and ‘‘claim”, on the other hand may be indicative of a very involved style of participation, according to which the moderator actively participates in the argumentative discussion as a regular discussant which reveals his/her personal opinions and tries to persuade others to his/her side. Therefore, in the current scheme it was decided to count not only the total and relative frequency p. 452

Total and relative frequency of textual contributions and links created by a moderator, the relative distribution of type of shapes (ontology labels) and links, temporal distribution of textual moderator contributions, and discussant’ reciprocity to moderator contributions. p. 452

The data in Table 1 reveals that, in contrast to face-to-face class- room discussions in which teachers are usually very active (Mer- cer, 1996), the majority of the contributions and links in the discussion maps are created by the discussants and not by the moderator. The percentage of moderator contributions out of the total number ranged from 5% to 32% for the shape creations, and from 15% to 29% for the link creations. The types of shapes used by the moderators were not uniform across groups. Whereas this is also true for the types of links, the majority of links were of the neutral type, which is typical of a moderator that is careful not to manifest his/her own personal standpoint in the discussion. p. 452

In this section, we describe our attempts to characterize and categorize the moderation actions according to the textual content of the assigned moderators’ contributions in the discussion maps. The unit of analysis chosen for this analysis constitutes a conversa- tion turn. In the current environment a conversation turn is de- fined as the text within a discussion map contribution, that is: Within a geometrical shape. The coding scheme for analyzing the content of moderator contributions was developed and validated according to a procedure similar to the verbal analysis method de- scribed by Chi (1997): p. 453

Sounds like the difference between domain-specific and domain-independent support p. 453

posed that these can be further divided into direct pedagogical sup- port, such as providing correct explanations and giving factual information, and indirect support, such as attempts to scaffold stu- dents’ reasoning and knowledge building. We refer to the latter as pedagogical scaffolding support. p. 453

(1) A thorough reading of the protocols to examine them for moderator contributions that are and that are not in line with the five different moderation dimensions of modera- tion suggested by Lund (2004), and to develop a method of coding to capture these impressions. (2) This was followed by a period of coding scheme refinement during which two human raters (the author and a research assistant) independently coded the moderator contributions, compared outcomes, discussed disagreements and fine- tuned the scheme accordingly. (3) The entire corpus was then independently coded by a third rater and inter-rater reliability was calculated (Cohen’s j = .90, p < .001). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. p. 453

3.2.2. Interaction support This category includes overt attempts by the moderator to di- rect the social interaction by encouraging students to participate more frequently and to be responsive to each other. p. 453

According to Lund’s distinctions, pedagogical support aims at improving students’ learning, for example by providing factual information, scaffolding reasoning and knowledge construction and providing explanations. p. 453

3.2.3. Managerial support This type of support focuses on task design, task completion and task monitoring (Lund, 2004). p. 453

Asterhan and Schwarz (2010) pro- p. 453

3.2.5. Involved participation This category includes the discussion contributions posted by moderators in which it is clear that they do not provide any ex- plicit support, but instead participate as equal-status discussants, by arguing with the others and articulating their own personal opinion. p. 454

managerial support during group discussions was mainly manifested in the form of moves that aimed at task comple- tion. Four instances of managerial moves were detected: In one in- stance a moderator drew students’ attention towards the proper choice of ontology and in three others the moderators summarized the discussion and/or the commonly reached decision. p. 454

For example, we did not have access to data showing which of the contributions were read by moderators during the course of the session. p. 454

In co-located synchronous settings, it is clear that a teacher or tutor makes a lot of face-to-face preparatory moves prior to the discussion session, actions that are not logged in the dig- ital discussion environment. These involve among others, designing the task, arranging student seating and group formation, instilling ground rules for productive discussions, and compiling the palette of ontology labels students can choose from. p. 454

social and technical support not found - tech not because collocated, don't need it, social because happen day-to-day in classroom, but some was also nested within other category statements p. 454

3.2.4. Moving forward In four additional contributions moderators proposed a com- promise or introduced a new perspective to the dilemma the group was asked to solve. They were posted after the discussion had been going on for some time and it seemed to have reached some sort of impasse, such as when discussants from opposite sides of the de- bate were unable to convince each other or, vice versa, when there was a strong consensus on a certain solution pathway without con- sidering alternative perspectives. p. 454

For example, social sup- port could be conveyed through the phrasing of a certain inter- vention (in a more supportive rather than a direct manner) or as nested within a different move. This is evident in the following contribution by group 2’s moderator: ‘‘You raised good points, but are you sure that they are ‘explanations’?” (contribution # 34). p. 454

This type of moves cannot be assigned exclusively to any of the existing categories proposed by Lund (2004). They are different from managerial moves, since they do not summarize the views proposed during the discussion; instead they add something new and creative to the discussion that allows students to move for- ward and beyond the impasse. And even though they contain some elements of scaffolding (i.e., by improving the group level of rea- soning quality), we feel that such moves should be separately as- sessed, since their primary intention is to create a pivotal turn in the discussion, either by integrating the different viewpoint into a compromise or by opening up a new direction in the discussion p. 454

The application of the multi-method coding scheme presented in the previous section to the moderated discussion maps that were collected, yielded the identification of five distinctively differ- ent moderation profiles. p. 455

4.1. Moderation as orchestrating The moderator in the first discussion group was relatively active throughout the discussion. Six out of the eight moves were charac- terized by interaction or managerial support in which the moder- ator encouraged discussants to participate, drew their attention towards the proper choice of ontology, commented on the need to arrange graphical moves on the screen to prevent their overlap- ping each other and directed the ‘school principal’ to a question referring to her. Moreover, the majority of shapes (Idea, Comment, Question) and links were of a neutral type. Thus, this moderator was not really a part of the discussion itself and did not really intervene on the level of content, but seemed to concentrate on orchestrating the interaction and the activity. p. 455

The low responsiveness to scaffolding moderation is surprising and troubling, since they are expected and intended to elicit direct responses. Following the session, we conducted a reflective group discussion with the participants. It revealed that the discussants often overlooked the moderator’s contributions and that they found it difficult to distinguish between the different roles (i.e., the educational personas they played and the moderator’s role). It seems then that the combination of a concurrent flow of infor- mation from various speakers and the additional constraints that were placed on the discussion caused an overload, which, among others, caused difficulties to relate to the moderator interventions. p. 455

4.3. Involved participation The moderator in group 4, in contrast, behaved as a regular par- ticipant in the discussion. His contributions to the discussion did not reflect his specific, instructive role in the discussion at all. We termed this (lack of) moderation as an involved style p. 455

4.4. Moderation as observation The moderators in groups 3 and 5 were rather inactive. They only created 1 and 3 textual contributions and 6 and 3 links, respectively. The moderator moves were all enacted at the end of the discussion. The group 3 moderator only summarized the group decision concerning the educational dilemma at the end of the dis- cussion: ‘‘The group decision is to not allow the award of excel- lence to Shai” (shape no. 23). The six links she created were all between different discussants’ shapes. This seems to indicate that in spite of the lack of textual proof of involvement throughout the discussion, she was in fact monitoring the discussion and its content. We, therefore, refer to this type of (absence of) modera- tion as observing. p. 455

4.2. Scaffolding reasoning The moderator in group 2 was also active throughout the dis- cussion. However, the types of moves he enacted testify of a differ- ent moderation style: Four out of the eight moderator moves were identified as scaffolding interventions for reasoning and knowl- edge building. For example, the moderator wrote ‘‘You raised good points, but are you sure that they are ‘‘explanations”?” (contribu- tion # 34) or ‘‘I am sure that your idea is interesting, but could you please rephrase and explain your idea?” (contribution # 38). p. 455

4.5. Authoritative moderation Whereas the group 5 moderator was also inactive for the most of the discussion, the three moves she made towards the end of the discussion were of an entirely different nature than from the group 3 moderator: She allowed the discussants to present their views, p. 455

yet towards the end of the discussion she proposed a compromise (contribution # 23) by suggesting that they should come to a com- mon decision concerning clearly defined criteria for awarding prices of excellence. However, when one of the discussant com- mented that it is too late for that, she enacted an involved move, by insisting that she is convinced that this is the correct way of solving the dilemma (Argument, contribution # 27). In contribu- tion # 29, she used her authority in order to impose her solution: ‘‘I think that the teachers should propose a list of recommended children for getting the award and we will vote for appropriate stu- dents from the list”. This moderation style is, therefore, termed authoritative. p. 456

Overall, the ontology labels that moderators chose for their tex- tual interventions (e.g., Idea, Claim, Argument) proved to be the least useful for characterizing and identifying moderation styles. Even though in principle, the choice of a certain label over another could potentially provide useful information about the moderator’s intentions, in reality moderators may not be so distinctive in their usage of this function, especially in synchronous discussion for- mats where all participants have less time to reflect (Asterhan & Eisenmann, 2009). Another reason for the rather limited informa- tional value of moderators’ ontology label use may be found in the particular labels that were offered to participants in this study. The labels were chosen to facilitate and support student reasoning, and not meant to be indicative of different types of moderator sup- port. If, on the other hand, moderators would be allowed to choose from a palette of different moderation ontology labels (e.g., ‘‘Rea- soning”, ‘‘Interaction”, ‘‘Task completion”) or different sentence openers (e.g., ‘‘What do you mean by. . .?”, ‘‘Could you please refer to. . .?”) label usage may be found to be more indicative of moder- ation style. p. 456

Interesting idea to scaffold not only students but also moderators -- especially if using peer-moderators, of course p. 456

Choosing to phrase interventions in a certain way may therefore be considered as some form of so- cial support. To properly assess these differences, however, is not just a mat- ter of segmenting conversational turns into smaller coding units, such as idea units, or partial sentences. Consider for example the following moderator contribution: ‘‘Could it be possible that there p. 456

their own moderation effectiveness in real-time. For this, a phe- nomenological approach is warranted, one that focuses on process, rather than on discrete actions. This can be accomplished by, for example, applying the technique of cued retrospective reporting (Van Gog, Kester, Nievelstein, Giesbers, & Paas, 2009) to the study of e-moderation. This technique has been successfully applied in a first study (Schwarz & Asterhan, in press), in which moderators were asked to retrospectively report on their thoughts during physical actions of moderation, while looking at a screen-recording of their moderation session. The screen-recordings also showed their mouse and keyboard actions made during the task. p. 457

is another perspective that we haven’t looked at yet?” This interven- tion cannot be subdivided into one particular part that aims at ped- agogical scaffolding support (i.e., improving the reasoning quality of the discussion) and a separate one for social support. Instead, the social support is embedded in the pedagogical support by using face-saving phrasings (e.g., the use of ‘‘we”, and ‘‘could it be that”) instead of more direct, confronting choices of words. We therefore suggest that in order to adequately assess these more subtle man- ifestations of social and motivational support, a separate, indepen- dent coding scheme should be developed that can be used alongside the present content analysis scheme. Recent develop- ments in conversation analysis have shown that such an approach is not only feasible but can be very productive. Asterhan (in press) developed a dual coding scheme in which epistemic features of student–student dialogue (what was said) are separately coded from social regulation features of dialogue content (how it was said). Future studies should explore whether a similar dual coding approach could be successfully applied to study moderator–stu- dent communication. p. 457

Even though in the present study it was possible to characterize each moderation session according to one distinctive style, the present coding scheme may also be used in more prolonged interactions. For example, it may be interesting to see whether and how moderators change their moderation styles over time and how this may be associated with changes in student needs and/or type of learning activity. p. 457

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, 1–17. Ashton, S., Roberts, T., & Teles, L. (1999). Investigating the role of the instructor in collaborative online environments. Poster presented at the CSCL1999 conference. Palo Alto, Stanford University, CA, USA. Asterhan, C. S. C. (in press). Competitive and collaborative regulation of peer argumentation: Conceptualization and quantitative assessment. In M. Baker, J. Andriessen, & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Affective learning together. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Eisenmann, T. (2009). Online and face-to-face discussions in the classroom: A study on the experiences of ‘active’ and ‘silent’ students. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer- supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 conference proceedings (pp. 132–136). Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e- argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 1556–1607. Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (Submitted for publication). Guiding computer-mediated discussions in the classroom: Epistemic and interactional human guidance for small-group argumentation. Bennett, S., & Marsh, D. (2002). Are we expecting online tutors to run before they can walk? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 14–20. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 15, 22–30. Available from http://www. emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315. Collison, G., Elbaum, G., Haavind, S., & Tinher, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Darnon, C., Doll, S., & Butera, F. (2007). Dealing with a disagreeing partner: Relational and epistemic conflict elaboration. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 227–242. De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, P. (2007). Online teaching in networked communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257–286. Denise, B., Watland, P., Pirotte, S., & Verday, N. (2004). Roles and competencies of the e-tutor. In Proceedings of the 2004 networked learning conference. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/ nlc2004/proceedings/contents.htm. Duggleby, J. (2000). How to be an online tutor. Hampshire, UK.: Gower Publishing. Hlapanis, G., Kordaki, M., & Dimitrikapoulou, A. (2006). Successful e-courses: The role of synchronous communication and e-moderation via chat. Campus-wide Information Systems, 23, 171–181. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432. p. 457

Moderation effectiveness of peer discussions in learning settings is likely to be dependent on a large number of factors. A partial, non-exhaustive list of such factors should in- clude, among others, intended goal of the learning activity (e.g., scaffold student reasoning, learning content, brainstorming or information sharing), student population (e.g., college students, high-school pupils), type of discussion topic (e.g., scientific, ethical, personal), and the moderator’s pedagogical philosophy and previ- ous experience with online communication and moderation. p. 457

Finally, in the present study we reported on a multi-dimen- sional methodology to study e-moderation behavior based on ver- bal interaction protocols. Whereas this approach proved to be fruitful for characterizing and distinguishing between different moderation styles, it does not provide direct insights into the phe- nomenological side of e-moderation, that is: How moderators make decisions about when and how to intervene, what discussion features they focus on during moderation, and how they monitor p. 457

Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49, 65–72. Katz, S., & O’Donnell, G. (1999). The cognitive skill of coaching collaboration. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL’99) (pp. 291–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Ilomaki, L., Niemiverta, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Approaches for analyzing tutors’ role in a networked inquiry discourse. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 389–396). Maastricht: Maastricht McLuhan Institute. Lentell, H., & O’Rourke, J. (2004). Tutoring large numbers: An unmet challenge. In International review of research in open and distance learning 5. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/171/253. Lim, C. P., & Cheah, P. T. (2003). The role of the tutor in asynchronous discussion boards: A case study of a pre-service teacher course. Educational Media International, 40, 33–48. Lund, K. (2004). Human support in CSCL: What, for whom and by whom? In J.-W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirshner, R. L. Martens, & P. Dillenbourg (Eds.). What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education (Vol. 3, pp. 167–198). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 273–295. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40, 237–253. Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS, 1(19). Available from http://pchfstud1.hsh.no/hfag/litteratur/jenssen/deosnews/ mason.htm. McPherson, M., & Nunes, M. (2004). The role of tutors as an integral part of online learning support. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved April 24 2006 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Maggie_MsP. html. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning & Instruction, 6, 359–375. Packham, G., Jones, P., Thomas, B., & Miller, C. (2006). Student and tutor perspectives of on-line moderation. Education & Training, 48(4), 241–251. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Salmon, G. E. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning on-line. London: Kogan Page. Salmon, G. K., & Giles, K. E. (1997). Training virtual management teachers. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Available from http://www.eurodl.org/ eurodlen/index.html. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, K. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (in press). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences. Van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 325–331. p. 458