Argumentative reasoning

Handbook of Epistemic Cognition

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 39-53

  Iordanou, Kalypso ^a   Kendeou, Panayiota ^a   Beker, Katinka ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84967692969     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315795225     Document Type: Chapter

References (103)

1. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135-167.
2. Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Low, G., & McGuinn, N. (2009). Teaching argument writing to 7- to 14-year-olds: an international review of the evidence of successful practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(3), 291-310.
3. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76.
4. Barzilai, S. & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13-35.
5. Bell, P. & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 2(8), 797-817.
6. Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.
7. Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9-24.
8. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 879-902.
9. Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2008). I Agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 52-84.
10. Britt, M. A. & Larsson, A. A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 794-810.
11. Britt, M. A. & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), The quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and mental structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Sperl, C. T. (2001). Profiling persuasion: The role of beliefs, knowledge and interest in the processing of persuasive texts that vary by argument structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(2), 269-301.
13. Butler, J. A. & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication, 28(1), 70-96.
14. Chambliss, M. J. & Garner, R. (1996). Do adults change their minds after reading persuasive text? Written Communication, 13(3), 291-313.
15. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141-167.
16. Collins, A. M. & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 240-247.
17. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
18. Crowell, A. & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381.
19. De La Paz, S. & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 203-222.
20. Dole, J. A. & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2-3), 109-128.
21. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291.
22. Eisenberg-Berg, N. & Geisheker, E. (1979). Content of preachings and power of the model/preacher: The effect on children's generosity. Developmental Psychology, 15(2), 168.
23. Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463-486.
24. Ferguson, L. E. & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 49-61.
25. Golanics, J. D. & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167-180.
26. Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353-361.
27. Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers' cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147-179.
28. Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students' self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 245-257.
29. Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2006). A Bayesian approach to informal fallacies. Synthese, 152, 207-237.
30. Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7), 699-714.
31. Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293-327.
32. Iordanou, K. (2013). Developing face-to-face argumentation skills: Does arguing on the computer help? Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(2), 292-320.
33. Iordanou, K. & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57.
34. Iordanou, K. & Constantinou, C. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment Science Education, 99(2), 282-311.
35. Iordanou, K., Muis, K. R., & Kendeou, P. (2015). Epistemological understanding, prior knowledge and meta-level processing of evidence during reading in young adolescents and adults. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "Doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
37. Kardash, C. M. & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effect of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates' cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 524-535.
38. Kardash, C. M. & Scholes, R. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 260-271.
39. Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors on reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365-383.
40. Kendeou, P. & O'Brien, E. J. (2014). The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) Framework: Processes and mechanisms. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353-377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O'Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 39, 854-865.
42. Kendeou, P., Walsh, E. K., Smith, E. R., & O'Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51(5-6), 374-397.
43. Köymen, B., Rosenbaum, L., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Reasoning during joint decision-making by preschool peers. Cognitive Development, 32, 74-85.
44. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45. Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1-8.
46. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328.
48. Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skils in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310-1328.
49. Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2014). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students' thinking and writing. Bronxville, NY: Wessex Press.
50. Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23(4), 435-451.
51. Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentative discourse. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 26-49.
52. Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31 (4), 456-496.
53. Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Dandotkar, S. (2006, July). Representing argument claims: Availability and accessibility of the predicate and implications on argument evaluation. Poster presented for the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
54. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. A. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339-366.
55. Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 205-224.
56. Lin, T. J., Horng, R. Y., & Anderson, R. C. (2014). Effects of argument scaffolding and source credibility on science text comprehension. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 264-282.
57. Lu, J. & Zhang, Z. (2013). Scaffolding argumentation in intact class: Integrating technology and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 69, 189-198.
58. Mason, L. & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103-128.
59. Mason, L. & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492-509.
60. McNamara, D. S. & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297-384.
61. Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26(3), 177-191.
62. Mercier, H., Bernard, S., & Clément, F. (2014). Early sensitivity to arguments: How preschoolers weight circular arguments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 125, 102-109.
63. Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(02), 57-74.
64. Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 321(1-2), 131-151.
65. Murphy, P. K. (2001). What makes a text persuasive? Comparing students' and experts' conceptions of persuasiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 675-698.
66. Murphy, P. K. (2007). The eye of the beholder: The interplay of social and cognitive components in change. Educational Psychologist, 42, 41-53.
67. Murphy, P. K. & Alexander, P. A. (2004). Persuasion as a dynamic, multidimensional process: An investigation of individual and intraindividual differences. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 337-363.
68. Murphy, P. K. & Alexander, P. A. (2008). Examining the influence of knowledge, beliefs, and motivation in conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 583-616). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69. Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2016/this volume). Interrogating the relation between conceptual change and epistemic beliefs. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 439-459). New York: Routledge.
70. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2013). The Nation's Report Card. Retrieved from http://nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf.
71. Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., VanDerHeide, J., Kuhn, D., & Andriessen, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273-304.
72. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549-565.
73. 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.
74. Nussbaum, E. M. & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157-169.
75. Nussbaum, E. M. & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92.
76. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.
77. Oaksford, M., Chater, N., & Hahn, U. (2008). Human reasoning and argumentation: The probabilistic approach. In J. E. Adler & L. J. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 383-413). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
78. O'Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 209-249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79. Page-Voth, V. & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230-240.
80. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
81. Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Gombert, A. (1999). The development of argumentative schema in writing. In G. Rijlaardsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.) & J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 117-135). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
82. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478-493.
83. Ryu, S. & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
84. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
85. Sandoval, W. (2014). Science education's need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383-387.
86. Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scienitic explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
87. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498.
88. 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.
89. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D. & Hofer, B. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49, 123-148.
90. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
91. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press (original work published in 1958).
92. Van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
93. Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3(2), 169-184.
94. Weinstock, M. (2005). Cognitive bases for effective participation in democratic institutions: Argument skill and juror reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 33(1), 73-102.
95. Weinstock, M. (2011). Knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming arguments in mock jurors' verdict justifications. Thinking & Reasoning, 17(3), 282-314.
96. Weinstock, M. & Cronin, M. A. (2003). The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror-reasoning skill. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 161-181.
97. Weinstock, M. P., Neuman, Y., & Glassner, A. (2006). Identification of informal reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level, grade level, and cognitive ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 327-341.
98. Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of 'playing historian' on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 63-72.
99. 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(2), 301.
100. Wolfe, C. R. (2012). Individual differences in the "myside bias" in reasoning and written argumentation. Written Communication, 29, 474-498.
101. Wolfe, C. R. & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1-27.
102. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183-209.
103. Wolfe, M. B., Tanner, S. M., & Taylor, A. R. (2013). Processing and representation of arguments in one-sided texts about disputed topics. Discourse Processes, 50(7), 457-497.