Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 343-374

  Clark, Douglas B ^a   Sampson, Victor ^b   Weinberger, Armin ^c   Erkens, Gijsbert ^d  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Analytic frameworks; Dialogic argumentation; Online learning environments

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548582997     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2. Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
3. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (in press).
4. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Quignard, M., van Amelsvoort, M., Lund, K., Salminen, T., et al. (2002). A framework for analysing pedagogically oriented computer-mediated debates: Rainbow. Cahier de Recherche, Research report IC-3-2002. GRIC-Université Lumière Lyon2, Équipe Interaction and Cognition.
5. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115-143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2005). Analyzing The Quality Of Argumentation Supported By Personally Seeded Discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference June 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.
7. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007a). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (in press).
8. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007b). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education 29(3), 253-277.
9. Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2007). Technology for argumentation. S. Erduran & M. Aleixandre-Jimenez (Eds.). Argumentation in Science Education: Recent Developments and Future Directions (in press).
10. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103.
11. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers and Education, 46, 6-28.
12. Dönmez, P., Rosé, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning - CSCL 2005 (pp. 125-134). Taipei, Taiwan: Erlbaum.
13. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
14. Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran and M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in Science Education: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Berlin: Springer.
15. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
16. Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis (MEPA). Version 4.10. (computer software). The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
17. Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2006). Automatic coding of communication in collaboration protocols. Proceedings of the 7th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2006), Bloomington, IN.
18. Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Computer support for collaborative and argumentative writing. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.) Powerful Learning Environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157- 176). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
19. Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259.
20. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153.
21. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.) (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.
22. Forman, E., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). "You're going to want to find out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8, 527-548.
23. Hesse, F. (2007). Being told to do something or just being aware of something? An alternative approach to scripting in CSCL. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge - cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 91-98). New York: Springer.
24. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
25. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior 23(3):1105-1125.
26. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2006). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences June/July, Bloomington, IN.
27. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
28. Jermann, P., Soller, A., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2001). From mirroring to guiding: a review of state of art technology for supporting collaborative learning. Paper presented at the European Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (EU-CSCL'01), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
29. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
30. Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861-971.
31. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
32. Kolodner, J. L., Schwarz, B., Barkai, R. D., Levy-Neumand, E., Tcherni, A., & Turbovsk, A. (1997). Roles of a case library as a collaborative tool for fostering argumentation. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL 97) (pp. 150-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
34. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
35. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
36. Leitão, S. (2007). Arguing and learning. In J. Valsiner, C. Lightfoot, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Advances in cultural psychology-Constructing human development: Vol. 2, Challenges and strategies for studying human development in cultural contexts. Greenwich, CT: InfoAge (in press).
37. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127-153.
38. O'Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179-196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75, 65-104.
40. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
41. Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. Special issue: Computer support for collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285-299.
42. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 365-395.
43. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today's WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22-25, 43.
44. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2006). Assessment of Argument in Science Education: A Critical Review of the Literature. Paper presented at the international conference of the learning sciences conference July 2006. Bloomington, IN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
45. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
46. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education, 46(4), 349-370.
47. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of CSCL argumentative environments for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. In R. Saljo (Ed.), Information Technologies and Transformation of Knowledge (in press).
49. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2, 3), 235-260.
50. Sober, E. (1993). Philosophy of Biology. Boulder, Westview Press.
51. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2004). Scripting argumentation in computer-supported learning environments. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen, & R. Joiner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyabable computer-supported learning. Proceedings for the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGS instructional design and learning and instruction with computers (CD-ROM) (pp. 320-330). Tuebingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.
52. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577-592). Maastricht, The Netherlands: University of Maastricht.
53. Suthers, D. D., Toth, E. E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97: The second international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 272-279). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
54. Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361-384). Berlin: Springer.
55. Thorley, R. (1992). Classroom conceptual ecologies: contrasting discourse in conceptual change instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Boston 1992.
56. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. van Boxtel, C., & Roelofs, E. (2001). Investigating the quality of student discourse: What constitutes a productive student discourse? Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 55-62.
58. Veerman, A. L. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117-143). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
59. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians University.
61. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46, 71-95.
62. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1-30.
63. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191-211). New York: Springer.
64. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.