Argumentation in a changing world

• Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

  Google Scholar 

• Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.).

  Google Scholar 

• Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NL: Erlbaum.

  Google Scholar 

• Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Buber, M. (1923). Ich und Du. Frankfurt: Rütten & Loening.

  Google Scholar 

• Cazden, B. C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  Google Scholar 

• Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–164.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2005). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan, (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005. Computer support for collaborative learning: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 170–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  Google Scholar 

• Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

  Google Scholar 

• Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press (Original work published in 1927).

  Google Scholar 

• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers and Education, 45(3), 337–356.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–179.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Scardamalia, M. A., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schwarz, B. B. (2003). Collective reading of multiple texts in argumentative activities. The International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 133–151.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schwarz, B. B. (2005). Do EU funded projects enable collaboration between scientists? The case of R&D in web-based Collaborative Learning Environments. Computers and Education, 45, 375–382.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: fostering argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  Google Scholar 

• Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). Designing CSCL argumentative environments for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. In R. Säljö (Ed.), Information and communication technology and the transformation of learning practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer (in press).

• Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 221–258.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

  Google Scholar 

• 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: Kluwer.

  Google Scholar 

• Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirshner, J. M. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177–204). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  Google Scholar 

• van Diggelen, W., Overdijk, M., & De-Groot, R. (2005). ‘Say it out loud in writing’: A dialectical inquiry into the potentials and pitfalls of computer supported argumentative discussions. Paper presented at CSCL 2005; May 30 – June 4, 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.

• Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 143–157.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495–519.

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references