Using exchange structure analysis to explore argument in text-based computer conferences

International Journal of Research and Method in Education

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 257-276

  North, Sarah ^a   Coffin, Caroline ^a   Hewings, Ann ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Computer conferencing; Exchange structure analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 54049090406     PISSN: 1743727X     EISSN: 17437288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17437270802417150     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Andrews, R. (1995) Teaching and learning argument, Cassell, London
2. Andrews, R. (2005) Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25, pp. 107-127.
3. Andriessen, J. (2006) Collaboration in computer conferencing. Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology, pp. 197-231. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey
4. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., Lund, K., Quignard, M. and Van Amelsvoort, M. (2007) Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, pp. 315-357.
5. Baker, M. J. (2003) Arguing to learn: Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific knowledge. Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, pp. 47-78. Kluwer, Dordrecht
6. Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Lund, K. and Sejourne, A. (2003) Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the international conference on computer support for collaborative learning 2003 Kluwer, pp. 11-20. Dordrecht
7. Clark, D. B. and Sampson, V. (2008) Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, pp. 293-321.
8. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V. and Erkens, G. (2007) Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, pp. 343-374.
9. Coffin, C. (1997) Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, pp. 196-230. Cassell, London
10. Coffin, C. (2006) Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation, Continuum, London
11. Coffin, C., North, S. and Martin, D. Exchanging and countering points of view: A linguistic perspective on school students' use of electronic conferencing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
12. Coffin, C., Painter, C. and Hewings, A. (2005) Argumentation in a multi-party asynchronous computer mediated conference: A generic analysis. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, pp. 41-63.
13. Coffin, C., Painter, C. and Hewings, A. (2005) Patterns of debate in tertiary level asynchronous electronic conferencing. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, pp. 464-480.
14. Collot, M. and Belmore, N. (1996) Electronic language: A new variety of English. Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives, pp. 13-28. Benjamins, Amsterdam
15. De Laat, M. and Lally, V. (2004) It's not so easy: Researching the complexity of emergent participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, pp. 165-171.
16. de Vries, E., Lund, K. and Baker, M. (2002) Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, pp. 63-103.
17. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. and Van Keer, H. (2006) Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers and Education, 46, pp. 6-28.
18. Duschl, R. A. (2007) Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research, pp. 159-175. Kluwer, Dordrecht
19. Eggins, S. and Martin, J. R. (1997) Genres and registers of discourse. Discourse as structure and process, pp. 230-256. Sage, London
20. Eggins, S. and Slade, D. (1997) Analysing casual conversation, Cassell, London
21. Erduran, S., Simon, S. and Osborne, J. (2004) Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, pp. 915-933.
22. Felton, D. and Kuhn, D. (2001) The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, pp. 135-153.
23. Ferrara, K., Brunner, H. and Whittemore, G. (1991) Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8, pp. 8-34.
24. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A. and Anderson, T. (1997) Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, pp. 397-431.
25. Hara, N., Bonk, C. and Charoula, A. (2000) Content analysis of on-line discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, pp. 115-152.
26. Harrison, S. (1998) E-mail discussions as conversation: Moves and acts in a sample from a listserv discussion. Linguistik Online, 1
27. Hewings, A., Coffin, C. and North, S. E-conferencing: Corpus and discourse insights. Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse, Continuum, London
28. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J. and Kanselaar, G. (2006) Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Paper presented at the 7th international conference of the Learning Sciences Bloomington, IN
29. Kirkpatrick, G. (2005) Online 'chat' facilities as pedagogic tools: A case study. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6, pp. 145-159.
30. Kneser, C., Pilkington, R. M. and Treasure-Jones, T. (2001) The tutor's role: An investigation of the power of exchange structure analysis to identify roles in CMC seminars. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, pp. 63-84.
31. Kuhn, D. and Udell, W. (2003) The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, pp. 1245-1260.
32. Lea, M. R. (2001) Computer conferencing and assessment: New ways of writing in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26, pp. 163-181.
33. Leitao, S. (2000) The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, pp. 332-360.
34. Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A. (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, pp. 243-281.
35. Martin, J. R. (1992) English text: Systems and structure, Benjamins, Amsterdam
36. Pilkington, R. M. (1999) Analysing educational discourse: The discount scheme. CBLU technical report no. 99/02, Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds
37. Pilkington, R. M. (2001) Analysing educational dialogue interaction: Towards models that support learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, pp. 1-7.
38. Pilkington, R. M. (2003) Reflecting on roles: Using synchronous CMC to develop a knowledge-building community amongst postgraduates. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 13, pp. 318-335.
39. Pilkington, R. M. and Walker, S. A. (2003) Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, pp. 41-63.
40. Rourke, L. and Anderson, T. (2004) Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52, pp. 5-18.
41. Sampson, V. and Clark, D. B. (2008) Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, pp. 447-472.
42. Sandvik, M. (1997) Reconstructing interactive argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 11:4, pp. 419-434.
43. Schellens, T. and Valcke, M. (2004) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, pp. 349-370.
44. Schrire, S. (2006) Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, pp. 49-70.
45. Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, R. M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils, Oxford University Press, London
46. Strijbos, J. -W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J. and Jochems, W. M. G. (2006) Content analysis: What are they talking about?. Computers & Education, 46, pp. 29-48.
47. Terenzini, P. T., Spinger, L., Pascarella, E. T. and Nora, A. (1995) Influences affecting the development of students' critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36, pp. 23-39.
48. Tolmie, A. and Boyle, J. (2000) Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers & Education, 34, pp. 119-140.
49. Toulmin, S. (1958) The uses of argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
50. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. and Janik, A. (1984) An introduction to reasoning, Macmillan, New York
51. Van Eemeren, F. H. (2001) Crucial concepts in argument theory, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam
52. Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions, Foris, Dordrecht
53. Walker, S. A. and Pilkington, R. M. (2001) Facilitating computer-mediated discussion classes: A study of teacher intervention strategies. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001) IEEE Computer Society, pp. 253-257. Washington, DC
54. Weinberger, A. and Fischer, F. (2006) A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, pp. 71-95.
55. Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
56. Williams, P. (2002) The learning web: The development, implementation and evaluation of internet-based undergraduate materials for the teaching of key skills. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, pp. 40-53.