Argument graph as a tool for promoting collaborative online reading

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 248-259

  Kiili, Carita ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Argument graph; Online reading; Reading strategies; Source based writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875830971     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00492.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Aro, M. (2004). Learning to read: The effect of orthography. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social research, 237. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1-31.
4. Bulger, M. (2006). Beyond search: A preliminary skill set for online literacy. Published online by the Transliteracies Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. Retrieved from http://transliteracies.english.ucsb.edu/research-papers/translit-bulger-onlinelit.pdf
5. Carter, L. (2003). Argument in hypertext: Writing strategies and the problem of order in a non-sequential world. Computers and Composition, 20, 3-22.
6. Castek, J., & Coiro, J. (2010). Measuring online reading comprehension in open networked spaces: Challenges, concerns, and choices Poster presented at Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Denver, April 30-May 4, 2010.
7. Cerdán, R., Marín, M. C., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2011). Perspective and source effects when high-school students read multiple contradictory documents Paper presented at the 13th Biennial Conference Earli 2011, Exeter, UK, August 30-September 3, 2011.
8. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.
9. Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63, 30-35.
10. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214-257.
11. Corbel, A., Girardot, J., & Jaillon, P. (2002). DREW: A dialogical reasoning Web tool. In A. Mendes Villas, J. A. Mesa Gonzalez, & I. Solo de Zaldivar (Eds.), Educational technology: Vol 1. Proceedings of the international conference on ICT'S in education (ICTE 2002) (pp. 516-521). Badajoz, Spain: Junta de Extremadura, Consejeria de education, cienca y technologia.
12. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363.
13. De Smet, M. J. R., Broekkamp, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Effects of electronic outlining on students' argumentative writing performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 557-574.
14. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445-455.
15. Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the Web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
16. Henry, L. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59, 614-627.
17. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38, 59-88.
18. Jones, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Describing or debunking? The net generation and digital natives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 317-320.
19. Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
20. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39, 75-95.
21. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., Marttunen, M., & Leu, D. J. (in press). Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. Journal of Literacy Research.
22. Kobayashi, K. (2009). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37, 311-324.
23. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335-353.
24. Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 205-224.
25. Le Bigot, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students' comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 445-470.
26. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
27. Leu, D. J., O'Byrne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H. (2009). Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38, 264-269.
28. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions and technologies (pp. 107-136). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., Litosseliti, L., & Lund, K. (2005). Argumentation skills as prerequisites for collaborative learning among Finnish, French and English secondary school students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 365-384.
30. Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 435-451.
31. Miyake, N. (1986). Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science, 10, 151-177.
32. Premier, B., & Ploog, M. (2007). The influence of text production on learning with the Internet. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 613-622.
33. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1-6.
34. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Schwarz, B. (2003). Collective reading of multiple texts in argumentative activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 133-151.
37. Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students' processes and products. L1 - Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4, 5-33.
38. Smith, M. C., Mikulecky, L., Kibby, M. W., Dreher, M. J., & Dole, J. A. (2000). What will be the demands of literacy in the workplace in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 378-383.
39. Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 254-277.
40. Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 254-277.
41. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. E. B. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
42. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183-218.
43. Van Drie, J., Van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575-602.
44. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52, 234-246.
45. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Stegmann, K. (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 computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 717-726). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060-1106.
47. 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, 301-311.
48. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.