The effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 32-58

  Hsu, P S ^a   Van Dyke, M ^b   Chen, Y ^a   Smith, T J ^a  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b O'Neill Middle School   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaborative argumentation; Computer assisted application; Graph oriented application; Middle school students; Project based learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920721005     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12080     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (2012). 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, 82, 375-397.
3. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support school students' creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667-694.
4. Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense making. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Arr (Eds.), Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation (pp. 75-96). London: Springer.
5. Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.
6. Chinn, C. A., O'Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77-97.
7. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.
8. 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 comment versus as augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 321-333.
9. Crowell, A. (2011). Assessment of a three-year argument skill development curriculum. Retrieved from http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac%3A132281
10. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
11. Dewey, J. (1959). Dewey on education. New York, NY: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
12. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 219-244. doi:10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1
13. Easterday, M. W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., & Carver, S. M. (2009). Constructing causal diagrams to learn deliberation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(4), 425-445.
14. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. doi:10.1002/tea.21076
15. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153.
16. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169. doi:10.1002/tea.20399
17. Ford, C. L., & Yore, L. D. (2012). Toward convergence of critical thinking, metacognition, and reflection: Illustrations from natural and social sciences, teacher education, and classroom practice. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in Science Education (pp. 251-271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from: http://www.link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_11
18. Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2013). Student engagement with artifacts and scientific ideas in a laboratory and a concept-mapping activity. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2254-2277. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.743696
19. Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293-327. doi:10.1080/15248372.2010.485335
20. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38, 59-88.
21. Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40-73. doi:10.1007/BF02941038
22. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 439-457.
23. Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1996). Student's interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 693-707. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<693::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I
24. Kieran, C., Forman, E., & Sfard, A. (2001). Guest editorial learning discourse: Sociocultural approaches to research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1-3), 1-12. doi:10.1023/A:1014276102421
25. Kiili, C. (2012). Argument graph as a tool for promoting collaborative online reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 248-259. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00492.x
26. Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children's collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333-370. doi:10.1080/10508400701413419
27. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31-42.
28. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552.
29. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. doi:10.1002/sce.3730770306
30. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
31. 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(5), 1310-1328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x
32. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26, 512-559.
33. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2009). The dual components of developing strategy use: Producing and inhibition. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 135-159). New York: Guilford Press.
34. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605
35. Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 26-49. doi:10.1080/01638531003653344
36. Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (2013). Computers as cognitive tools. New York, NY: Routledge.
37. Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471-492. doi:10.1080/00131911.2011.628748
38. Moursund, D. (2003). Project-based learning using information technology. Arlington, VA: ISTE.
39. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
40. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
41. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
42. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2004_2
43. Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence?: An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483-520. doi:10.3102/0034654313487606
44. Reznitskya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlin, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argumentation. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 155-175.
45. Ryve, A. (2011). Discourse research in mathematics education: A critical evaluation of 108 journal articles. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 167-199.
46. 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(3), 447-472.
47. 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. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x
48. 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(4), 449-478. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2
49. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D.,.. Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. doi:10.1002/tea.20311
50. Strijbos, J.-W. (2011). Assessment of (computer-supported) collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(1), 59-73. doi:10.1109/TLT.2010.37
51. 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(2), 183-218. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2
52. Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103-1127. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.007
53. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
54. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NU: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506-515. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007
56. White, R., & Dinos, S. (2010). Investigating the impact of mediated learning experiences on cooperative peer communication during group initiatives. Journal of Experiential Education, 32(3), 226-238. doi:10.1177/105382590903200304
57. Yu, S.-M., & Yore, L. D. (2013). Quality, evolution, and positional change of university students' argumentation patterns about organic agriculture during an argument-critique-argument experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1233-1254. doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9373-9
58. Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2012). How to improve collaborative learning with video tools in the classroom? Social vs. cognitive guidance for student teams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 259-284. doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9145-0