Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 443-488

  Nussbaum, E Michael ^a   Edwards, Ordene V ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b LAMAR UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960377803     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2011.564567     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. 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.
2. Andriessen, J. (2006). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo- Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 197-230). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Arendt, H. (1968). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. New York, NY: Viking Press.
4. 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, 626-639.
5. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C.W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
6. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P., & Brown, A. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221-252.
7. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
8. Buckland, L. A., & Chinn, C. A. (2010). Model-evidence link diagrams: A scaffold for model-based reasoning. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 449-450). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
9. Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34, 91-115.
10. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230-284.
11. 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.
12. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294.
13. Davis, E. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
14. diSessa, A. A. (2008). A note from the editor. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 427-429.
15. diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 77-103.
16. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
17. Ebenezer, J., & Puvirajah, A. (2005). WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 561-589.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Freeman, J. B. (1992). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. New York, NY: Foris.
21. 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.
22. Graesser, A. C., Baggett, W., & Williams, K. (1996). Question-driven explanatory reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S17-S31.
23. Hage, J. C. (1997). Reasoning with rules: An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
24. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449-455.
25. Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Analogy. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117-142). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190.
27. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
28. Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children's collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 333-370.
29. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1-10.
30. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fisher, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaborative scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 211-224.
31. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 323-360.
34. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
35. Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 103-126.
36. 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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 416-460.
37. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95-111.
38. Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument: Elements of applied semantics. London, England: Allen & Unwin.
39. 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.
40. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008a). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359.
41. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008b). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549-565.
42. Nussbaum, E. M. (in press). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist.
43. 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.
44. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59-92.
45. 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.
46. 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: Southern Illinois University Press.
47. Pass, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
48. Paul, R. W., Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction in critical thinking: Research findings and policy recommendations. Sacramento: California State Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED437379)
49. Perkins, D. N. (1987). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Topping, D. C. Crowell, & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Gombert, A. (1999). The development of argumentative schema in writing. In. G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Esperet (Series Eds.) & J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 117-135). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
51. Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481-518.
52. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365-395.
53. Reed, C., & Norman, T. J. (2004). A roadmap of research in argument and computation. In C. Reed & T. J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation (pp. 1-13). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
54. 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.
55. Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argumentation schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319-334). New York, NY: Guilford.
56. 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.
57. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105-126.
58. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201-241.
59. Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 199-201.
60. Savage, L. J. (1972). The foundation of statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Dover.
61. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225-246.
62. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 421-447.
63. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns in distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-335.
64. 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.
65. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
66. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
68. Vorobej, M. (2006). A theory of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans. & Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
71. Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
72. Walton, D. (2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
73. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.