Using argument map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups

Cscl 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 449-485

  Bell, Philip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85071806603     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410601544-24     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington DC: AAAS.
2. Bell, P. (1996). Debate as an instructional form in science education. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
3. Bell, P. (1998). Designing for students’ science learning using argumentation and classroom debate. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
4. Bell, P., Davis, E.A., & Linn, M.C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference '95 (pp. 14-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning on the Web in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
6. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
7. Cavalli-Sforza, V., Weiner, A., & Lesgold, A. (1994). Software support for students engaging in scientific activity and scientific controversy. Science Education, 78(6), 577-599.
8. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E.Scanlon & T.O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
9. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6(11), 38-46.
10. Davis, E.A. (1998). Scaffolding students’ reflection for science learning. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
11. diSessa, A.A. (1991). Local sciences: Viewing the design of human-computer systems as cognitive science. In J.M.Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer Interface (pp. 162-202). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12. diSessa, A.A. (1995). Epistemology and systems design. In A.A.diSessa, C.Hoyles, R.Noss, & L.Edwards (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
13. diSessa, A.A. (1996). What do “just plain folk�? know about physics? In D.R.Olson (Ed.), Handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching, and schooling. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
14. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadephia: Open University Press.
15. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Glaser, R., Ferguson, E.L., & Vosniadou, S. (1996). Introduction: Cognition and the design of environments for learning. In S.Vosniadou, E.D.Corte, R.Glaser, & H.Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 363-377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C.M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-36.
18. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 74-103.
21. Linn, M.C. (1990). Establishing a science and engineering base for science education. In M. Gardner, J.G.Greeno, F.Reif, A.H.Schoenfeld, A.diSessa, & E.Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 323-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Linn, M.C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103-126.
23. Linn, M.C., Bell, P., & Hsi, S. (1998). Using the internet to enhance student learning in science: The knowledge integration environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 4-38.
24. Linn, M.C., diSessa, A., Pea, R.D., & Songer, N.B. (1994). Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 7-15.
25. Mendelsohn, P. (1996). Mapping models of cognitive development to design principles of learning environments. In S.Vosniadou, E.D.Corte, R.Glaser, & H.Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 323-344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G.Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Ranney, M., & Schank, P. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S.Read and L. Miller (Eds.). Connectionist of Social Reasoning and social behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Reiner, M., Pea, R.D., & Shulman, D.J. (1995). Impact of simulator-based instruction on diagramming in geometrical optics by introductory physics students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(3), 199-226.
30. Salomon, G. (1990). Studying the flute and the orchestra: Controlled experimentation vs. whole classroom research on computers. International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 37-47.
31. Salomon, G. (1996). Studying novel learning environments as patterns of change. In S.Vosniadou, E.D.Corte, R.Glaser, & H.Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 363-377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68.
33. Smolensky, P., Fox, B., King, R., & Lewis, C. (1988). Computer-aided reasoned discourse or, how to argue with a computer. In R.Guindon (Ed.), Cognitive engineering in the design of human-computer interaction and expert systems (pp. 109-162). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
34. Songer, N.B., & Linn, M.C. (1992). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? In M.K.Pearsall (Ed.), Scope, sequence and coordination of secondary school science, Vol. If: Relevant research (pp. 197-219). Washington, DC: National Science Teacher’s Association.
35. Suthers, D.D., Toth, E.E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. In R.Hall, N.Miyake, & N.Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL’97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 272-279). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
36. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.