Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences

International Journal of Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 1, Issue 1-2, 2005, Pages 113-129

  Jonassen, David ^a   Remidez, Herbert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

argumentation; discussion boards; online computer conferencing; rhetorical structures; scaffolding

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845690627     PISSN: 17411009     EISSN: 17411017     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijkl.2005.006254     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bell, M.C. and Linn, P. (1997) ‘Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning on the web’, Paper Presented at the AERA, Chicago, IL, March.
2. Buckingham Shum, S.J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V.M.E. and Hammond, N.V. (1997) ‘Graphical argumentation and design cognition’, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 12, pp.267–300.
3. Cerbin, B. (1988) ‘The nature and development of informal reasoning skills in college students’, Paper Presented at the National Institute on Issues in Teaching and Learning, Chicago, IL, April.
4. Chi, M.T.H. (1997) ‘Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide’, The Journal of Learning Science, Vol. 6, pp.271–315.
5. Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D. and de Leeuw, N.-A. (1994) ‘From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 4, pp.27–43.
6. Darses, F. (1991) ‘The constraint satisfaction approach to design: a psychological investigation’, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 78, pp.307–325.
7. Guzdial, M. (1995) ‘Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning’, Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.1–44.
8. Hoadley, C. and Linn, M. (2000) ‘Teaching science through online, peer discussions: speakeasy in the knowledge integration environment’, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp.839–857.
9. Klemm, W.R. and Snell, J.R. (1996) ‘Enriching computer mediated group learning by coupling constructivism with collaborative learning’, Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, online, http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/old/vol1no2/article1.htm
10. Knudson, R.E. (1991) ‘Effects of instructional strategies, grade and sex on students’ persuasive writing’, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp.141–152.
11. Leeman, R.W. (1987) ‘Taking perspectives: teaching critical thinking in the argumentation course’, Paper Presented at the Speech Communication Association, Boston, MA.
12. Meyer, K. and Woodruff, E. (1995) ‘A framework for inquiry discourse and consensus building in science teaching’, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April.
13. Miyake, N. and Masukawa, H. (2000) ‘Relation-making to sense-making: supporting college students’ constructive understanding with an enriched collaborative note-sharing system’, in B. Fishman and S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.) Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Mahwah, NU: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.41–47.
14. Richard, J.F., Poitrenaud, S. and Tijus, C. (1993) ‘Problem-solving restructuration: elimination of implicit constraints’, Cognitive Science, Vol. 17, pp.497–529.
15. Rick, J., Guzdial, M., Carroll, K., Holloway-Attaway, L. and Walker, B. (2002) ‘Collaborative learning at low cost: CoWeb use in English composition’, Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2002, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.435–442.
16. Roschelle, J. (1992) ‘Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.235–276.
17. Sanders, J.A., Wiseman, R.L. and Gass, R.H. (1994) ‘Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking?’, Communication Reports, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.27–35.
18. Saunders, K.M. (1994) ‘Law as rhetoric, rhetoric as argument’, Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.566–578.
19. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1994) ‘Computer support for knowledge-building communities’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.265–283.
20. Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, NY: Doubleday/Currency Press.
21. Suthers, D. (1998) ‘Representations for scaffolding collaborative inquiry on ill-structured problems’, Paper Presented at the 1998 AERA Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
22. Suthers, D. and Jones, D. (1997) ‘An architecture for intelligent collaborative educational systems’, Paper Presented at the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-Ed 97), Kobe, Japan, August.
23. Suthers, D.D. and Hundhausen, C.D. (2001) ‘Learning by constructing collaborative representations: an empirical comparison of three alternatives’, in P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings and K. Hakkarainen (Eds.) European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Universiteit Masstricht, pp.577–584.
24. Toulmin, S. (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25. Yeh, S.S. (1998) ‘Empowering education: teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students’, Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.49–83.
26. Zumbach, J. and Reimann, P. (1999) ‘Combining computer supported collaborative argumentation and problem-based learning: an approach for designing online learning environments’, Paper Presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Argumentation Workshop at the CSCL 99 Conference, Stanford, California, December.