Argument reconceived?

Educational Review

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 301-313

  Coffin, Caroline ^a   O'Halloran, Kieran A ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argument; Collaborative argumentation; Conflict; Confrontation; Dialogic exchange; Discourse; Education; New technologies

Indexed keywords

EID: 74949130588     PISSN: 00131911     EISSN: 14653397     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00131910903045948     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. (NB all articles comprising the corpus are marked with an asterix.)
2. Andrews, R. 1989. Narrative and argument. Milton Keynes, UK: Open Univ. Press.
3. Andrews, R. 1997. Reconceiving argument. Educational Review 49, no. 3: 259-69.
4. Andriessen, J., M. Baker, and D. Suthers. 2003. Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J. Andriessen, M.J. Baker, and D. Suthers, 1-25. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Baker, M.J., M. Quignard, K. Lund, and M. van Amelsvoort. 2002. Designing a computer- supported collaborative learning situation for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2002), June 24-28, in Amsterdam.
6. Berrill, D. 1992. Issues of audience: Egocentrism revisited. In Rebirth of rhetoric, ed. R. Andrews, 81-101. London: Routledge.
7. Buckingham Shum, S.J. 2003. The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense- making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr, 3-24. Berlin: Springer.
8. Burton, J. 1987. Resolving deep-rooted conflict: A handbook. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of America.
9. Christie, F. 2002. Classroom discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
10. Coffin, C. 2006. Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.
11. Coffin, C. 2007. The language and discourse of argumentation in computer conferencing and essays: Full research report. Vol. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-1453. Swin- don, UK: Economic and Social Research Council.
12. Coffin, C., and A. Hewings. 2005. Engaging electronically. Using CMC to develop students' argumentation skills in Higher Education. Language and Education 19, no. 1: 32-49.
13. Coffin, C., A. Hewings, and S. North. 2007. Argumentation and text-based conferencing: What can language data and corpus methods illuminate? Paper presented at 10th International Pragmatics Conference, July 9-13, in Gothenburg, Sweden.
14. Coffin, C., and K.A. O'Halloran, eds. 2008. Researching argumentation in educational contexts: New methods, new directions. Special issue, International Journal of Research and Method in Education 31, no. 3: 219-27.
15. Coffin, C., C. Painter, and A. Hewings. 2005. Patterns of debate in tertiary level asynchronous electronic conferencing. International Journal of Educational Research 43, nos. 7-8: 464-80.
16. Crosswhite, J. 1996. The rhetoric of reason. Madison: The Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
17. Davis, M., and A. Rouzie. 2002. Cooperation vs. deliberation: Computer mediated conferencing and the problem of argument in international distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 3, no. 1. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl.
18. Dawkins, R. 2006. The God delusion. London: Bantam.
19. Dennett, D. 2006. Breaking the spell. London: Penguin.
20. Dillenbourg, P., ed. 1999 Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational processes. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
21. Doise, W., G. Mugny, A. St. James, and N. Emler. 1984. The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
22. Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumenta- tion in classrooms. Science Education 84: 287-312.
23. Engelbart, D.C. 2003. Afterward. In Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr, 205-8. Berlin: Springer.
24. Erduran, S., S. Simon, and J. Osborne. 2004. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88, no. 6: 915-33.
25. Felton, M.K., and S. Herko. 2004. From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents' persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 47, no. 8: 672-83.
26. Firth, J.R. 1957. Papers in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
27. Halliday, M.A.K., and C.M.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning. A language based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.
28. Hewings, A., C. Coffin, and S. North. 2007. Supporting undergraduate students' acquisition of academic argumentation strategies through computer conferencing: Higher Education Academic Research Report. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research.
29. Jeong, A., and S. Joung. 2007. Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education 48, no. 3: 427-45.
30. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., A. Rodrigues, and R. Duschl. 2000. "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84, no. 6: 757-92.
31. Keefer, M., C.M. Zeitz, and L.B. Resnick. 2000. Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction 18, no. 1: 53-81.
32. Kirschner, P.A., S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr, eds. 2003. Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Berlin: Springer.
33. Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
34. Leitão, S. 2000. The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development 43, no. 6: 332-60.
35. Leitão, S. 2001. Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal] 2, no. 3. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/907/1982.
36. Littleton, K., D. Faulkner, D. Miell, R. Joiner, and P. Hakkinen. 2000. Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn. Special issue, European Journal of Psychology of Education 15, no. 4.
37. Marttunen, M., and L. Laurinen. 2002. Quality of students' argumentation by e-mail. Learning Environments Research 5: 99-123.
38. McAlister, S., A. Ravenscroft, and E. Scanlon. 2004. Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, no. 3: 194-204.
39. Mercer, N., and K. Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
40. Mitchell, S., and M. Riddle. 2000. Improving the quality of argument in higher education: Final report. London: School of Lifelong Learning and Education, Middlesex University.
41. Munford, D., and C. Zembal-Saul. 2002. Learning science through argumentation: Prospective teachers' experiences in an innovative science course. Paper presented at Annual Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), April 6-10, in New Orleans, LA.
42. O'Halloran, K.A. 2007. Critical discourse analysis and the corpus-informed interpretation of metaphor at the register level. Applied Linguistics 28, no. 1: 1-24.
43. Painter, C., C. Coffin, and A. Hewings. 2003. Impacts of directed tutorial activities in computer conferencing: A case study. Distance Education 4, no. 2: 159-74.
44. Piaget, J. 1932. The moral judgment of the child. New York: The Free Press, 1965.
45. Ravenscroft, A., R.B. Wegerif, and J.R. Hartley. 2007. Reclaiming thinking: Dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. British Journal of Educational Psychology 11, no. 5: 39-57.
46. Sandole, D.J.D., and H. van der Merwe. 1993. Conflict resolution theory and practice: Integration and application. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press.
47. Schellens, T., and M. Valcke. 2004. Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education 46: 349-70.
48. Simon, S., S. Erduran, and J. Osborne. 2006. Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education 28, nos. 2-3: 235-60.
49. Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
50. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
51. Van Gelder, T. 2003. Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, ed. P.A. Kirschner, S.J.B. Shum, and C.S. Carr, 97-115. Berlin: Springer.
52. Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
53. Wasson, B., S. Ludvigsen, and U. Hoppe, eds. 2003. Designing for change in networked learning environments. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
54. Weinberger, A., and F. Fischer. 2006. A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education 46, no. 1: 71-95.