The role of argumentation for domain-specific knowledge gains in computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis

Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL 2011 Conference Proceedings - Long Papers, 9th International Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference

Volumn 1, Issue , 2011, Pages 304-311

  Wecker, Christof ^a   Fischer, Frank ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING; DOMAIN-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE; EFFECT SIZE; META-ANALYSIS; RANDOM EFFECTS MODEL;

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84858382934     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Hrsg.), Cambridge handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 443-459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. American Psychological Association (APA). (2003). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Asterhan, C. S. C. (2008). Processes of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Results from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. In ISLS (Ed.), International perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences - ICLS 2008 (vol. 1, pp. 60-67). ISLS.
4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
5. *Clark, D. B., D'Angelo, C. M. & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students' own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 321-333.
6. Clark, D., Sampson, V., Erkens, G. & Weinberger, A. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343-374.
7. *Choresh, C., Mevarech, Z. R. & Frank, M. (2009). Developing argumentation ability as a way to promote technological literacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 225-234.
8. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers & Education, 46, 6-28. (Pubitemid 41562935)
9. Hedges, L. V. & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.
10. *Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A. & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38, 59-88.
11. *Joung, S. & Keller, J. M. (2004). The effects of high-structure cooperative versus low-structure collaborative design of [sic!] decision change, critical thinking, and interaction pattern during online debates. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 27th, Chicago, IL, October 19-23, 2004.
12. *Kollar, I., Fischer, F. & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708-721.
13. Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M. & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113-131.
14. *Nussbaum, M. E., Sinatra, G. M. & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.
15. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
16. Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301-321). New York: Russell Sage.
17. Schwarz, B. B., Neumann, Y., Gil, J. & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of Collective and Individual Knowledge in Argumentative Activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256. (Pubitemid 36539897)
18. *Seethaler, S. & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: an inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1765-1785. (Pubitemid 40032566)
19. *Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 421-447.
20. *van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2005a). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 572-602.
21. *van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Erkens, G. & Kanselaar, G. (2005b). Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(1), 25-41.
22. Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. *Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K. & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506-515.
24. *Wiley, J. & Bailey, J. (2006). Effects of Collaboration and Argumentation on Learning From Web Pages. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology (pp. 296-321). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. *Yeh, K. H. & She, H. C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55, 586-602.