Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 485-521

  Van Amelsvoort, Marije ^a,b   Andriessen, Jerry ^a   Kanselaar, Gellof ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 39749132860     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400701524785     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 25-62.
2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1-25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
3. 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 cognitiotis in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
4. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., Van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (in press). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative tearning.
5. Baker, M., Quignard, M., Lund, K., & Séjourné, A. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 11-20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
6. Baker, M. J. (1996). Argumentation et co-construction des connaissances [Argumentation and co-construction of knowledge]. Interaction et Cognitions, 2, 157-191.
7. Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In J. E. B. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
8. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97: The second international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 10-19). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
9. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science, 29, 443-479.
11. Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 69-105.
12. Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315-368.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Coirier, P., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specifity of argumentative writing. In J. E. B. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 1-28). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
15. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363.
16. De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63-103.
17. Erkens, G. (1997). Coäperatief probleemoplossen met computers in het onderwijs: Het modelleren van coäperatieve dialogen voor de ontwikkeling van intelligente onderwijssystemen [Co-operative problem solving with computers in education: Modeling of co-operative dialogues for the design of intelligent educational systems]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
18. Erkens, G. (2001). Multiple episode protocol analysis (Version 4.7) [Computer software]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
19. Grawemeyer, B., & Cox, R. (2005). Developing a Bayes-net based student model for an external representation selection tutor. In. C.-K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 810-812). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
20. Jaspers, J. G. M., & Erkens, G. (2000). Text composer, computer supported & collaborative (Version 1.4) [Computer software]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
21. Kanselaar, G., Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Veerman, A. (2002). Co-construction of knowledge in computer supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA). In P. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 93-130). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open Universiteit.
22. Kanselaar, G., Erkens, G., Andriessen, J. E. B., Prangsma, M. E., Veerman, A. L., & Jaspers, J. G. M. (2003). Designing argumentation tools for collaborative learning. In P. Kirschner, S. Buckingham Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 51-73). London: Springer-Verlag.
23. Kolodner, J., & Guzdial, M. (1996). Effects with and of CSCL: Tracking learning in a new paradigm. In T. Koschman (Ed.), CSCL: Theory andpractice (pp. 307-320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.
26. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
27. Lohse, G. L., Biolsi, K., Walker, N. & Rueter, H. H. (1994). A classification of visual representations. Communications of the ACM, 37(12), 36-49.
28. McCutchen, D. (1987). Children's discourse skill: Form and modality requirements of schooled writing. Discourse Processes, 10, 267-289.
29. Munneke, L., Van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113-131.
30. Nonnon, E. (1996). Activités argumentatives et elaboration des connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d'exploration [Argumentative activities and elaboration of new knowledge: the dialogue as a space of exploration]. Langue Française, 112, 67-87.
31. Postigo, Y., & Pozo, J. I. (2000). When a graph, is worth a thousand data: Graph interpretation by adolescent students. Infancia y Aprendizaje (Childhood and Learning), 23, 89-110.
32. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influences of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155-175.
33. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.
34. SCALE Team. (2002a). Teaching materials and task design for collaborative argumentation-based learning with intelligent internet tools (Unpublished Deliverable 1&2, SCALE Project, IST-1999-10664).
35. SCALE Team. (2002b). Test instruments for assessing the quality of students' argumentation, and results on school experiments for teaching collaborative argumentation in secondary schools (Unpublished Deliverable 8, SCALE Project, IST-1999-10664).
36. Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2000). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219-256.
37. Stein, N., & Miller, C. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 285-335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation, Learning and Instruction, 13, 191-203.
39. Stichting ICT op school. (2001). Vier in balans: verkenning van zaken met het oog op effectief en efficient gebruik van ICT in het onderwijs [Four in balance : Exploration with focus on effective and efficient use of ICT in education]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Author.
40. Stuurgroep Profiel Tweede Fase Voortgezet Onderwijs. (1994). De Tweede Fase vernieuwt. Scharnier tussen basisvorming en hoger onderwijs, deel 2 [The second phase is innovating: Hinge between lower secondary education and higher education, part 2]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Author.
41. Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27-46). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
42. Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 173-182). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
43. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the teaming Sciences, 12, 183-218.
44. Toth, E., Suthers, D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of evidence maps and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry skills. Science Education, 86, 264-286.
45. Van Amelsvoort, M., & Ainsworth, S. (2007). Secondary notation in argumentative diagrams. Manuscript submitted for publication.
46. Van Boxtel, C. (2000). Collaborative concept learning. Collaborative learning tasks, student interaction, and the learning of physics concepts. Enschede, The Netherlands: PrintPartners Ipskamp.
47. Van Drie, J., Van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575-602.
48. Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation. Enschede, The Netherlands: PrintPartners Ipskamp.
49. Veerman, A. L., & Treasure-Jones, T. (1999). Software for problem-solving through collaborative argumentation. In G. Rijlaarsdam & El Espéret (Series EMs.) & J. E. B. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 203-230). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
50. Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education: Research and studies (pp. 162-163). Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press.
51. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental. Psychology, 12, 129-140.
52. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 191-217.
53. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognition tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122.