Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 84-106

  Nussbaum, E Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956122336     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2011.558816     Document Type: Review

References (157)

1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, A. W., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions:Astage 1 meta-analysis. Reviewof Educational Research, 78, 1102-1134.
2. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099-1114.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (Eds.). (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A.,... Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1-46.
6. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
8. Andriessen, J., & Coirier, P. (Eds.). (1999). Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing. (G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Esperet, Series Eds.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
9. Angell, R. B. (1964). Reasoning and logic. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
10. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626-639.
11. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2006). Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152, 157-206.
12. Aulls, M. W. (1998). Contributions of classroom discourse to what content students learn during curriculum enactment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 56-89.
13. Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127-144). New York, NY: Springer.
14. Bentham, J. D. (1988). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1789)
15. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
16. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Blair, J. A. (1999). Review of (Walton, 1996). Argumentation, 13, 338-343.
18. Boushey, H., Brocht, C., Gundersen, B., & Bernstein, J. (2001). Hardship in America: The real story of working families. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
19. Bradley, R. (2003, July). Probabilism and mental kinematics. Paper presented at the Remembering Jeffrey Workshop on Bayesian Epistemology, 26th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg, Austria.
20. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21. Brown, R. A. J., & Renshaw, O. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52-66). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
22. Carbogim, D. V., Robertson, D., & Lee, J. (2000). Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 15, 119-149.
23. Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34, 91-115.
24. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions:Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230-284.
25. Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens, (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355-383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.
27. Copi, I. M., & Cohen, C. (1998). Introduction to logic (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain, New York, NY: Putnam.
29. De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 139-156.
30. Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I.-H., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 400-424.
31. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
32. Edwards, W. (1968). Conservatism and human information processing. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Formal representation of human judgment (pp. 17-52). New York: Wiley.
33. Ehninger, D. (1974). Influence, belief, and argument: An introduction of responsible persuasion. Glenview, IL: Scott Foreman.
34. Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1961). Decision by debate. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead.
35. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in the science classroom. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
36. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
37. 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.
38. Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Wekerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students' argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 577-589.
39. Fulkerson, R. (1996a). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
40. Fulkerson, R. (1996b). The Toulmin model of argument and the teaching of composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, & D. Tenney (Eds.), Argument revisited, argument redefined: Negotiating meaning in the composition classroom (pp. 45-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Garcia-Mila, M., & Anderson, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Southerland (Series Ed.), S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Volume Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 31-48). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
42. Gilbert, M. (1997). Coalescent argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Glymour, C. (2001). The mind's arrows. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing collaborative online argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167-180.
45. Graesser, A. C., Baggett, W., & Williams, K. (1996). Question-driven explanatory reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S17-S31.
46. Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42, 9-23.
47. Grennan, W. (1997). Informal logic: Issues and techniques. Buffalo, NY: McGill-Queen's University Press.
48. Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. In R. Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 59-100). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49. Haake, J. M., & Pfister, H.-R. (2007). Flexible scripting in net-based learning groups. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 155-175). New York, NY: Springer.
50. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006). A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese, 152, 207-236.
51. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704-732.
52. Hairston, M. C. (1981). Successful writing: A rhetoric for advanced composition. New York, NY: Norton.
53. Halpern, D. F. (1997). Teaching critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Hastings, A. C. (1963). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
55. Hochs, S. J. (1984). Availability and inference in predictive judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 649-662.
56. Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1989). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
57. Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 51-73). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58. Juslin, P., Nilsson, H., & Winman, A. (2009). Probability theory, not the very guide of life. Psychological Review, 116, 856-874.
59. Kant, I. (1996). Critique of practical reason (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1788)
60. Kelly, G. J., Drunker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
61. Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Southerland (Series Ed.), S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Volume Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137-157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
62. Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 116, 20-58.
63. Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006, April). A functional approach to nature of science: Using epistemological understandings to construct and evaluate explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
64. Kienpointner, M. (1992). How to classify arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 178-188). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
65. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. New York, NY: Springer.
66. Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2007, July). Fostering argumentation with script and content scheme in videoconferencing. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Mice, minds, and society: The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007, Vol. 8. Part 1 (pp. 385-394). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
67. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
68. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69. Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79, 1310-1328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x
70. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skill. Child Development, 74, 1245-1260.
71. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
72. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press.
73. Lampert, M. L., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of human development in education (pp. 731-764). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
74. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
75. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
76. Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students' learning about "rats in space" and "deformed frogs. " Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(2), 61-84.
77. Lovett, M. (2001). A collaborative convergence on studying reasoning processes: A case study in statistics. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 347-384). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning & Instruction, 15, 492-509.
79. Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Learning in the content areas (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
80. McNeil, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 416-460.
81. 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, 139-178.
82. Metz, K. E. (1998). Emergent ideas of chance and probability in primarygrade children. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Reflections on statistics: Learning, teaching, and assessment in Grades K-12 (pp. 149-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
83. Mill, J. S. (1979). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work published 1863)
84. Muller Mirza, N., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
85. Nickerson, R. S. (2004). Cognition and chance: The psychology of probabilistic reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
86. Nisbett, R. E. (Ed.). (1993). Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
87. Nussbaum, E. M. (2003). Appropriate appropriation: Functionality of student arguments and support requests during small-group classroom discussions. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 501-544.
88. Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286-313.
89. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008a). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359.
90. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008b). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument/counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549-565.
91. Nussbaum, E. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2008, August). Emotion and attitude change in middle-schoolers' arguments on current events. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference on Conceptual Change, European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Turku, Finland.
92. Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (in press). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.
93. 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, 157-169.
94. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argumentcounterargument integration in students' writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59-92.
95. Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D. L., Aqui, Y. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2007). Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 479-500.
96. O'Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concept of argument and arguing. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3-23). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
97. Palincsar, A. M, (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.
98. Parsons, S. (2001). Qualitative methods for reasoning under uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
99. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
100. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958/1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
101. Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562-571.
102. Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481-518.
103. Press, S. J. (2003). Subjective and objective Bayesian statistics: Principles, models, and applications (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
104. Pyle, C. H. (2009). Getting away with torture: Secret government, war crimes, and the rule of law. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
105. Ranney, M., & Schank, P. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S. Read & L. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 245-274). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
106. Reed, C., & Norman, T. J. (2004). A roadmap of research argument and computation. In C. Reed & T J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation (pp. 1-13). Boston, MA: Kluwer
107. Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
108. Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible reasoning: An introduction to the theory and practice of plausibilistic inference. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
109. Resnick, L., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. N., & Wathen, S. H. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Special issue in discourse and shared reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347-364.
110. Reyna, V. F., Adam, M. B., Poirier, K. M., LeCroy, C W., & Brainerd, C. J. (2005). Risky decision making in childhood and adolescence: A fuzzytrace theory approach. In J. E. Jacobs & P. A. Klaczynski (Eds.), The development of judgment and decisionmaking in children and adolescents (pp. 77-106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
111. Reynolds, G. A., & Perin, D. (2009). Comparison of text structure and selfregulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30, 265-300.
112. Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehensioninstruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319-334). New York, NY: Guilford.
113. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. Elementary School Journal, 107, 449-472.
114. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Ngyuen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155-175.
115. Rottenberg, A. T. (1985). Elements of argument: A text and reader. New York, NY: St. Martin Press.
116. Rowe, G., Macagno, F., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2006). Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 29, 111-124.
117. Royall, R.M. (1997) Statistical evidence: A likelihood paradigm. London: Chapman & Hall.
118. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
119. Savage, L. (1972). The foundations of statistics. New York: Dover.
120. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computersupported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 43-102.
121. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, A. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right. If they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461-494.
122. Sinatra, G. M., & Chinn, C. (in press). Thinking and reasoning in science: Promoting epistemic conceptual change. In K. Harris & S. Graham (Series Eds.) & K. Harris, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Volume Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook series (Vol. 1). Critical theories and models of learning and development relevant to learning and teaching. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
123. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demestes, J. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510-528.
124. Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
125. Statman, D. (1997). Introduction to virtue ethics. In D. Statman (Ed.), Virtueethics: A critical reader (pp. 1-37). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
126. Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393-400). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
127. Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
128. Thagard, P. (2004). Causal inference in legal decision making: Explanatory coherence vs. Bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18, 231-249.
129. Thagard, P. (2006). Hot thought:Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
130. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). "Mapping to know": The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286.
131. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
132. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
133. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McMillan.
134. Tversky, A., & Kahnman, D. (1984). Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
135. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
136. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. A., Krabbe, E. C. W.,... Zarefsky, D. (1996), Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
137. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
138. Vorobej, M. (2006). A theory of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
139. Voss, J. F. (Ed.). (2001). Argumentation in psychology [Special issue]. Discourse Processes, 32, 2/3.
140. Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., & Yengo, L. A. (1983). Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. In R. D. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 205-235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
141. Vye, N. J., Goldman, S. R., Voss, J. F., Hmelo, C., Williams, S., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 485-484.
142. Walton, D. (1992). The place of emotion in argument. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
143. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
144. Walton, D.N. (1998). The new dialectic. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
145. Walton, D. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123, 327-346.
146. Walton, D. (2003). Ethical argumentation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
147. Walton, D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
148. Walton, D. (2007). Dialogue theory for critical argumentation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
149. Walton, D. (2010). A dialogue model of belief. Argument and Computation, 1, 23-46.
150. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
151. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 360-381.
152. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493-516.
153. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2005). Computer supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning CSCL 2005 (pp. 717-726). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
154. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments frommultiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
155. Williamson, J. (2005). Bayesian nets and causality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
156. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: The impact of preservice instruction on teachers' understandings of model-based inquiry. American Education Research Journal, 43, 783-835.
157. Yeh, S. S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49-83.