Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 439-457

  Jonassen, David H ^a   Kim, Bosung ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Computer supported collaborative argumentation; Problem solving

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953649907     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlin, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S. Y., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46.
2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
3. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626-639.
4. Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
5. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter.
6. Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41-56.
7. Buckingham Shum, S. J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267-300.
8. Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.
9. Chinn, C. A., O'Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77-98.
10. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
12. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
13. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2& 3), 135-153.
14. Hong, N. S., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6-33.
15. Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B. (2002). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
16. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-95.
17. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
18. Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/Jossey-Bass.
19. Jonassen, D. H. (2007). What makes scientific problems difficult? In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Learning to solve complex, scientific problems (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Jonassen, D. H. (in press). Assembling and analyzing the building blocks of problem-based learning. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of training and improving workplace performance. San Francisco, CA: Wiley/Pfeiffer.
21. Jonassen, D. H., Cho, Y. H., Kwon, K., Henry, H., Easter, M., Shen, D., et al. (2009). Evaluating vs. constructing arguments. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 235-254.
22. Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53-81.
23. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham-Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
24. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
26. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
27. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
28. Leitão, S. (2001, September). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(3), Article 12. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://www. qualitative-research. net/index. php/fqs/article/view/907/1982.
29. Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20(3), 269-306.
30. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178.
31. Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1072-1088.
32. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
33. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1& 2), 113-137.
34. Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157-169.
35. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92.
36. Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384-395.
37. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110.
38. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. In P. Wilkinson & J. Weaver (Eds.), Nortre Dame. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
39. Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
41. Popper, K. (1999). All life is problem solving. London: Routledge.
42. Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 347-364.
43. Reznitskya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlin, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argumentation. Discourse Processes, 32(2& 3), 155-175.
44. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 6-33.
45. Siegal, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176.
46. Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen & P. Corrier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97-116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
47. Suthers, D. (1998) Representations for scaffolding collaborative inquiry on ill-structured problems. Paper presented at the 1998 AERA Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
48. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-219.
49. Suthers, D., & Jones, D. (1997, August). An architecture for intelligent collaborative educational systems. Paper Presented at the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-Ed 97), Kobe, Japan.
50. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
51. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Dordrecht, NL: Foris Publications.
54. vonAufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation related to their scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 45, 101-131.
55. Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350.
56. Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (1991). Preface. In F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Voss, J. F., & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58. Walton, D. N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
59. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
60. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301-311.
61. Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
62. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.