Learning through collaborative argumentation

The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 314-332

  Chinn, Clark A ^a   Clark, Douglas B ^b  

^a Rutgers University   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897071653     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203837290-27     Document Type: Chapter

References (78)

1. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-459). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, an dthe educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1-25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
3. 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.
4. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315-357.
5. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
6. Buckland, L. A., & Chinn, C. A. (2010, June). Model-evidence link diagrams: A scaffold for model-based reasoning. In ICLS 2010: Proceedings of International Society of the Learning Sciences. Raleigh, NC: Lulu.
7. 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.
8. Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378-411.
9. Chinn, C. A., Duschl, R. A., & Duncan, R. G., Buckland, L. A., Pluta, W. P. (2008, June). A microgenetic classroom study of learning to reason scientifically through modeling and argumentation. In ICLS 2008: Proceedings of International Society of the Learning Sciences. Raleigh, NC: Lulu
10. Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77-97.
11. 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.
12. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253-277.
13. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.
14. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V. D., Stegmann, K., Marttunen, M., Kollar, I., Janssen, J.,… Laurinen, L. (2010). Scaffolding scientific argumentation between multiple students in online learning environments to support the development of 21st century skills. In B. Ertl (Ed.), E-Collaborative knowledge construction: Learning from computer-supported and virtual environments (pp. 1-39). New York: IGI Global.
15. Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343-374.
16. Cobb, P., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 1-78.
17. Cohen, E. G. (1994a). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
18. Cohen, E. G. (1994b). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
19. Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I.-H., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 400-424.
20. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht: Springer.
21. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
22. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.
23. 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.
24. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153.
25. Fischer F., Kollar, I. Stegmann, K, & Wecker, C. (in press). Toward a script library of guidance in computer-supported collabortative learning. Educationsl Psychologist.
26. Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
27. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
28. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1105-1125.
29. Jeong, A., Clark, D. B., Sampson, V. D., & Menekse, M. (2010). Sequentially analyzing dialogical scientific argumentation across asynchronous online discussion environments. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Interactions in CSCL: Methodologies, approaches and issues (pp. 207-234), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
30. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. B. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning enviornments (pp. 205-226). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
31. Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2011). Fostering argument justification using collaboration scripts and content schemes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 636-649.
32. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-333). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810-824.
35. 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, 1310-1328.
36. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245-1260.
37. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38. Linnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of motivational beliefs in conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 115-135). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
39. MacArthur, C., Ferretti, R. P., & Okolo, C. M. (2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability of early 20th-century American immigration. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 160-172.
40. McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 194-204.
41. Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 177-194). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
42. Mirza, N. M., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, T., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychological processes in argumentation. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 67-90). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
43. National Research Council. (2009, February, 5-6). Exploring the intersection of science education and the development of 21st century skills (National Research Council Workshop). Washington, DC: Author.
44. National Research Council. (2011). Conceptual framework for new science education standards. (National Academy of Sciences Board on Science Education). Washington, DC: Author.
45. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84-106.
47. Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573-595.
48. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59-92.
49. Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic Press.
50. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486-511.
51. Reiser, B. J., Smith, B. K., Tabak, I., Steinmuller, F., Sandoval, W. A., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Reznitskaya, A. (in press). Dialogic classroom: Rethinking theory, research, and practice. Educational Psychologist.
53. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. Elementary School Journal, 107, 449-472.
54. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155-175.
55. Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-j., Clark, A.-M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 29-48.
56. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
57. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448-484.
58. Sampson, V. D., & Clark, D. B. (2011). Comparison of more and less successful groups in collaboration. Research in Science Education, 41, 63-75.
59. Sampson, V. D., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 76, 42-47.
60. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
61. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-115). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
62. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 43-102.
63. Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 91-126). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
64. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285-296.
65. Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651-663.
66. Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32, 113-133.
67. Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27-46). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
68. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C., D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183-218.
69. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
70. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
71. VanSledright, B. A. (2002). Fifth graders investigating history in the classroom: Results from a researcher-prac-titioner design experiment. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 131-160.
72. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
73. Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
74. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
75. Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
76. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fisher, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1-30.
77. 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.
78. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.