Empowering argumentation in the science classroom with a complex CSCL environment

Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 348-357

  Chen, Wenli ^a   Looi, Chee Kit ^a   Xie, Wenting ^a   Wen, Yun ^a  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Assessment for learning; Collaborative argumentation; Science learning

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING; AUTOMATED ASSESSMENT; COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATIONS; COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING; SCIENCE CLASSROOM; SCIENCE LEARNING; SECONDARY SCIENCE; TEACHING AND LEARNING;

SCAFFOLDS;

EID: 84896458098     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Amelsvoort, M. Van, Andriessen, J., &Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485-521.
2. 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.
3. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359.
4. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 114-144). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
5. Bouyias, Y., &Demetriadis, S. (2012). Peer-monitoring vs. micro-script fading for enhancing knowledge acquisition when learning in computer-supported argumentation environments. Computers & Education, 59(2), 236-249.
6. Bouyias, Y. N., Demetriadis, S. N., &Tsoukalas, I. A. (2007). Scripting argumentation in technology-enhanced learning: A proposed system architecture, In K. Boyanov, R. Nikolov, I. Nikolova, & M. Nisheva (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd Balkan Conference on Informatics (BCI'07), (pp. 337-348). Sofia: Demetra Ltd.
7. Bricker, L. &Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
8. Chappuis, S., &Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational Leadership, 60, 40-43.
9. 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 (6), 915-933.
10. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., &Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 213-232.
11. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer- supported collaborative learning? Computers and Education, 49(4), 1037-1065.
12. Jermann, P., &Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL scenario. In G.
13. Kanselaar, G., Erkens, G., Andriessen, J., Prangsma, M., Veerman, A., & Jaspers, J. (2002). Designing Argumentation Tools for Collaborative Learning. In: Paul A. Kirschner, Simon J. Buckingham Shum and Chad S. Carr (Eds), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-Making(pp.51-74). London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 51-74.
14. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57-74.
15. Kolodner, J., &Guzdial, M. (1996). Effects with and of CSCL: Tracking learning in a new paradigm. In T. Koschman (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice (pp. 307-320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Larkin, J. H., &Simon, H. A. (1987).Why a diagram is (sometimes)worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
17. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
18. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19. Lin, H., Hong, Z., Wang, H., & Lee, S. (2011). Using reflective peer assessment to promote students' conceptual understanding through asynchronous discussions, Educational Technology & Society, 14, 178-189.
20. Munneke, L., Van Amelsvoort, M., &Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 113-131.
21. Nussbaum, E. M., & Jacobson, T. (2004). Reasons that students avoid intellectual arguments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.
22. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. a., Mulder, M., &Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59-76.
23. Paolucci, M., Suthers, D., Weiner, A. (1995). Belvedere: stimulating students' critical discussion. CHI95 conference companion, interactive posters, May 7-11, Denver, CO (pp. 123-124).
24. Rummel, N., &Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-241.
25. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43-102.
26. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom in world three. In: K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons, integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
27. Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., &Ilya, M. (2000). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity:Anempirical study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219-256.
28. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer- supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27-46). Springer.
29. Van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In: J. Andriessen, M. Baker, D. Suthers (Eds.), Confronting cognitions: Arguing to learn. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30. Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
31. Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., &Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269-290.
32. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Fading scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of distributed monitoring. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on CSCL:Mice, minds and society (pp. 764-772), Brunswick, NJ.