Facilitating classroom argumentation with computer technology

Pedagogy: New Developments in the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 105-129

  Asterhan, Christa S C ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Computer mediated communication; Computer supported collaborative learning; Design features

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892120116     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (107)

1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., and Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, 1-17
2. Andrews, R. (1994). Democracy and the teaching of argument. The English Journal, 83, 62-69.
3. Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). Assessing e-moderation behavior from synchronous discussion protocols with a multi-dimensional methodology. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 449-458. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2010.09.008
4. Asterhan, C. S. C. (in press). Competitive and collaborative regulation of peer argumentation: Conceptualization and quantitative assessment. M. Baker, J. Andriessen& S. Jarvela (Eds), Affective learning together. New York, NY: Routledge, Advances in Learning & Instruction series.
5. Asterhan, C. S. C. & Eisenmann, T. (in press). Introducing synchronous e-discussions in co-located classrooms: A study on the experiences of 'active' and 'silent' secondary school students. Computers in Human Behavior.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.011
6. Asterhan, C. S. C. &Gazit, Y. (in preparation). Role-playing as a means to facilitate student online argumentation on controversial issues.
7. Asterhan, C. S. C. Butler, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (submitted). Peer argumentation that supports conceptual learning: The role of individual achievement goals, goal instructions and gender. Paper submitted for publication.
8. 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.
9. Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 373-399.
10. Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B. & Gil, J. (in press). Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02030.x
11. Baker, M. (2003).Computer-mediated interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In: J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Utrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artefacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
13. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 15, 22-30. Available [Online]: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html
14. Blau, I., &Caspi, A. (2008). Do media richness and visual anonymity influence learning? A comparative study using Skype™. In Eshet, Y., Caspi, A., Geri, N. (Eds.) Learning in the Technological Era (pp. 18-24). Ra'anana, Israel: Open University of Israel.
15. Brem, S. & Rips, L. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573-604.
16. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., &Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-534.
17. Cho, K.L., &Jonassen, D.H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research Development, 50, 5-22.
18. 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(4), 321-333.
19. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253-277.
20. Condon, S. L. &Cech, C. G. (1996). Discourse Management Strategies in Face-To-Face and Computer-Mediated Decision Making Interactions. Electronic Journal of Communication/La revue électronique de communication 6(3).
21. Cress, U., Kimmerle, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2009). Impact of temporal extension, synchronicity, and group size on computer-supported information exchange. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 731-737.
22. De Groot, R. (in press). Teachers' use of the Argunaut system in the classroom. In N. Pinkwart, & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills. Bentham Science Publishers.
23. De Vries, E.,, Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63-103.
24. Denise, B., Watland, P., Pirotte, S. &Verday N. (2004). Roles and Competencies of the e-Tutor. Proceedings of the 2004 Networked Learning Conference. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from: http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/c ontents.htm
25. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
26. Dillenbourg, P., &Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1-13.
27. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
28. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.) (2007).Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
29. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
30. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153.
31. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge. Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
32. Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers'andstudents'verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257-279.
33. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., &Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: a special report. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 65-72. doi:10.1007/BF02504508
34. Hamburger, Y. A., & Ben Artzi, E. (2000). The relationship between extraversion and neuroticism and the different uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 441-449.
35. Hamburger, Y. A., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). On the internet no one knows I'man introvert: Extraversion, neuroticism and internet interaction. Cyperpsychology & Behavior, 5, 125-128
36. Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18, 105-121. UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach toresearching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338-376). New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 31-45.
39. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379-432.
40. Hoppe, H. U., De Groot, R., &Hever, R. (2009). Implementing Technology-Facilitated Collaboration and Awareness in the Classroom: Roles for Teachers, Educational and Technology Researchers. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of Knowledge through Classroom Interaction: New Perspectives in Learning and Instruction (pp. 130-142). New York, NY: Routledge.
41. Hron, A., Hesse, F. W., Cress, U. &Giovis, C. (2000). Implicit and explicit dialogue structuring in virtual learning groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 53-64.
42. Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11 (3), 293-327.
43. Jeong, A. (2005). The Effects of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers on Group Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6.Retrieved at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/258
44. Jeong, A., &Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427-445.
45. Jermann, P., &Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL scenario. In G. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). Amsterdam: Kluwer CSCL Book Series.
46. Joiner, J. & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research 39, 861-871.
47. Kim, I-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. &Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children's collaborative online discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333-370.
48. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J.;&Carr, C. S. (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer-Verlag.
49. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts-a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159-185.
50. 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.
51. Kuhn, D. (199). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
52. 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, 1311-1329.
53. Kuhn, D., &Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90-104.
54. Kuhn, D., &Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74 (5), 1245-1260.
55. Kuhn, D., Wang, Y. & Li, L. (2011). Why Argue? Developing Understanding of the Purposes and Values of Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Processes, 48, 26-49. DOI: 10.1080/01638531003653344
56. Larkin, J. H. &and Simon, H. A. (1995). Why a diagram is (sometimes0 worth a thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
57. Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
58. Lentell, H., & O'Rourke, J. (2004). Tutoring Large Numbers: An unmet challenge. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 5. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/171/253
59. Lund, K. (2004). Human support in CSCL: what, for whom and by whom? In J-W.Strijbos, P.A. Kirshner, R. L. Martens, & P. Dillenbourg (Eds), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education, CSCL Vol. 3 (167-198). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
60. Lund,K., Molinari,G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M.(2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 273-295
61. Marttunen, M. &Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127-153, DOI: 10.1023/A:1003931514884
62. Mason, L. &Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492-509
63. Mazzolini, M., &Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40, 237-253.
64. McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A. & Scanlon, E. (2003). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 194-204.
65. McLaren, B.M., Scheuer, O., &Mikšátko, J. (in press). Supporting collaborative learning and e-Discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED).
66. 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 & Instruction, 14, 139-179.
67. Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking: a sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
68. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., &Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable Talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283-297.
69. 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, 1072-1088. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003
70. Murray, D.E. (1989). When the Medium Determines Turns: Turn-taking in Computer Conversation. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Working with Language (pp. 251-266). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
71. Newman, D. R., Webb, N., & Cochrane, B. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3, 56-77.
72. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., &Poliquin, A. M. (2008). The role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1977-1999.
73. Oh, S.C.& Jonassen, D.H. (2007). Scaffolding argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (2), 95-105.
74. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to Learn in Science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463. DOI: 10.1126/science.1183944
75. Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom-the realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
76. Perkins, D. N., Faraday, 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. 83-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
77. Puntambekar, S., &Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4001 1
78. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2010).How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss& R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163-194). New York: Springer.
79. 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(2), 201-241.
80. Rummel, N., Spada, H, & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 69-92.
81. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor & Francis.
82. Scardamalia, M., &Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
83. 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.
84. Schwarz, B. B. &Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 395-442. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.553257
85. Schwarz, B. B., &Asterhan, C. S. C. (2010).Argumentation and Reasoning. Inn: K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. KleineStaarman (Eds). International Handbook of Psychology in Education (pp. 137-176). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
86. Schwarz, B. B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 297-313.
87. Schwarz, B. B. &Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 449-478. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2
88. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., &Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 221-258.
89. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421-447.
90. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7,321-326.
91. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments (pp. 27-46). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
92. Suthers, D., and Hundhausen, C. (2003). An Empirical Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-219.
93. Suthers, D., Hundhausen, C., & Girardeau, L. (2003). Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-faceand online computer supported collaborative learning. Computers& Education, 41: 335-351.
94. Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: a survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 371-384.
95. Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485-521.
96. Van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A. &Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning & Instruction, 12, 121-138.
97. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkenmans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H,Krabb, E. C., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J. &Zarefsky, D.(1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation theory: A handbook of historical background and contemporary developments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
98. Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., &Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronouselectronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269-290.
99. Veerman, A. L., & Treasure-Jones, T. (1999). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 203-229). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
100. Walker, A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil's advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 172-182.
101. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation: Critical reasoning and argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
102. Weasenforth, D., Biesenbach-Lucas, S., &Meloni, C. (2002). Realizing constructivist objectives through collaborative technologies: Threaded discussions. Language, Learning & Technology, 6, 58-86.
103. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1-28.
104. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1-30.
105. 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.
106. Wegerif, N., Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning & Instruction, 9.493-516.
107. Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher's role in collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 423-440.