The Origins and Nature of Arguments: Studies in Conflict Understanding, Emotion, and Negotiation

Stein, Nancy L.; Albro, Elizabeth

doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3202&3_02

Cited by 55 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In formulating an argument, learners need to explain their reasoning and thereby construct new knowledge (e.g., the "self explanation effect" --Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989). Concerning the specific process of argumentation, research is scattered (see Stein & Albro, 2001), with at least two different approaches to argumentative knowledge construction. On the one hand, some researchers aim to assess the quality of single student arguments on the basis of the structural components they include.…”

Section: Knowledge Construction In Collaborative Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning

Kollar

Fischer

Slotta

2007

Learning and Instruction

163

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated how differently structured external scripts interact with learners' internal scripts concerning individual knowledge acquisition in a Web-based collaborative inquiry learning environment. 90 students from two secondary schools participated. Two versions of an external collaboration script (high vs. low structured) supporting collaborative argumentation were embedded within a Web-based collaborative inquiry learning environment. Students' internal scripts were classified as either high or low structured, establishing a 2x2-factorial design. Results suggest that the high structured external collaboration script supported the acquisition of domain-general knowledge of all learners regardless of their internal scripts. Learners' internal scripts influenced the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge. Results are discussed concerning their theoretical relevance and practical implications for Web-based inquiry learning with collaboration scripts.Keywords: Collaboration scripts, internal scripts, computer-supported collaborative learning, inquiry learning, science education, learning environments. Internal and External Scripts 4 4 Internal and External Scripts in Computer-Supported Collaborative Inquiry LearningOver the last years, several studies have shed light on the way learners benefit from collaboration when learning science (Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2002;Kneser & Ploetzner, 2001;Howe, Tolmie, Duchak-Tanner, & Rattray, 2000). There is considerable evidence, however, that students often have difficulty engaging in fruitful collaborative argumentation.For example, they rarely relate scientific evidence to theoretical explanations (e.g., Bell, 2004;Sandoval, 2003). Also, arguments raised by one student often remain unaddressed by the student's learning partner(s), and obvious disagreements are often left unresolved. If not explicitly scaffolded, learners may fail to show substantive argumentation, leading to little acquisition of domain-general knowledge about argumentation. Even more, low-level argumentation might be reflected in poor elaboration of learning content and result in a limited acquisition of domain-specific knowledge.Several instructional approaches have been used by researchers to address these challenges in learning through argumentation (e.g., Bell, 1997;van Bruggen, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002;Baker, 2003;Munneke, van Amelsvoort, & Andriessen, 2003;Suthers, Toth, & Weiner, 1997). Suthers et al. (1997), for example, developed Belvedere, a graphical argumentation tool by aid of which learners enter hypotheses and evidence into text boxes and specify the relationships between boxes using graphical arrows. This results in a network of nodes and links representing the various pieces of evidence that support or contradict a particular hypothesis. A similar approach has been taken by Bell (1997) in developing the "SenseMaker"-tool to help scaffold students' use of evidence within arguments in Web-based inquiry projects.Another promising approach to structure collaborative argumenta...

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Construction In Collaborative Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning

Kollar

Fischer

Slotta

2007

Learning and Instruction

163

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It seems that it is important to first prepare the argumentation phase with activities in order to support and facilitate the elaboration of relevant arguments. The role-play format of the activity seemed to have permitted learners to give arguments and counterarguments in a way that was not felt to be socially threatening, affectively speaking, since they did not defend their own position but the characters' (Stein and Albro 2001;Van der Puil et al 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, how will children develop argumentation skills? From a developmental point of view, argumentation, if strictly defined as the only justification of one's position, appears at a very early age, around three or four (see for example, Dunn and Munn 1987;Stein and Albro 2001). But defined as a discourse that takes into account and refutes the opposing arguments of the defended thesis, argumentation appears later, around 17 or 18 years old, in written texts (Golder and Coirier 1994).…”

Section: Argumentation In Educational Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo

Mirza

Tartas

Perret-Clermont

et al. 2007

Computer Supported Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ICT tools have been developed to facilitate web-based learning through and learning about argumentation. In this paper we will present an example of a learning activity mediated by Digalo-software for knowledge sharing through visually supported discussiondeveloped in a university setting. Our aim is to examine, in particular, socio-cognitive construction of knowledge and argumentation by students debating a controversial question in history. We propose a descriptive approach of understanding and meaning-making processes based on two levels of analysis: (1) a topic meaning-making process oriented level and (2) an argumentation oriented level. We focus our studies on how the participants-small groups of students-develop understanding of the topic, their arguments and their interactions through the use of different functionalities of this software. Our results show that interactive and argumentative processes are themselves objects of learning and develop through collective activity. Development of the understanding of the topic through argumentation is discussed and linked to the design of the activity and the affordances of the Digalo software.

show abstract

“…Otros estudios sobre la argumentación infantil también han identificado la reiteración como un recurso argumentativo infantil y se la ha considerado como una estrategia argumentativa simple, en tanto no aporta nueva información como argumento (Eisenberg, 1987;Dunn & Munn, 1987;Stein & Albro, 2001). En este sentido, se ha denominado 'estructura circular' en las investigaciones antecedentes.…”

Section: Discusión Y Conclusionesunclassified

Estrategias argumentativas en niños pequeños: Un estudio a partir de las disputas durante el juego en contextos escolares

Migdalek¹,

Yãnez²,

Rosemberg³

2014

Rev. signos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenEn este trabajo se pone a prueba un sistema de categorías para analizar las estrategias argumentativas que despliegan niños en situaciones de juego en el contexto educativo. Se indaga si el sistema resulta adecuado para describir y evaluar las estrategias argumentativas de niños de 3, 4 y 5 años en el contexto del jardín de infantes. El estudio empírico se desarrolla a partir de la observación de interacciones de niños en situaciones naturales de juego en jardines de infantes de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. El estudio ha permitido concluir la validez del sistema para contextos institucionales. Asimismo, el análisis muestra que los niños producen mayormente expresiones de oposición argumentativa sin desplegar argumentos estructurados (razón-conclusión), lo que podría ser característico de una fase protoargumentativa, y que entre los niños de 5 años se observa un uso más recurrente del esquema argumentativo de apelación a la mayoría.Palabras Clave: Argumentación, juego, niños, oposición, puntos de vista. Estrategias argumentativas en niños pequeños:Un estudio a partir de las disputas durante el juego en contextos escolaresArgumentative strategies in young children: An study of disputes during play in school contexts

show abstract

The Origins and Nature of Arguments: Studies in Conflict Understanding, Emotion, and Negotiation

Cited by 55 publications

References 22 publications

Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning

Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning

Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo

Estrategias argumentativas en niños pequeños: Un estudio a partir de las disputas durante el juego en contextos escolares

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About