Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories

REFERENCES

• Aikins, J. W., Bierman, K. L., & Parker, J. G. (2005). Navigating the transition to junior high school: The influence of pre-transition friendship and self-system characteristics. Social Development, 14(1), 42–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: promoting cognitive development through cognitive conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 894e897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.6.894.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amigues, R. (1988). Peer interaction in solving physics problems: socio-cognitive confrontation and metacognitive aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 141–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Wagoner, M., & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all (pp. 170–186). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Andriessen, J. E., & Baker, M. J. (2015). Arguing to Learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 439–460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Andriessen, J. E. B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller-Mirza and A-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education—theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145–174). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685–730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arzarello, F., & Sabena, C. (2011). Semiotic and theoretic control in argumentation and proof activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77, 189–206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9280-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C. (2012). Facilitating classroom argumentation with computer technology. In R. Gillies (Ed.), Pedagogies: New developments in the learning sciences (pp 105–129). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C. (2013). Epistemic and interpersonal dimensions of peer argumentation: Conceptualization and quantitative assessment. In: M. Baker, J. Andriessen, & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Affective learning together (pp. 251–272). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C. (2015). Introducing online dialogues in collocated classrooms: If, why and how. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 205–218). Washington, DC: AERA.
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Babichenko, M. (2015). The social dimension of learning through argumentation: Effects of human presence and discourse style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 740–755.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., Butler, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Goals for learning and interaction in argumentation and conceptual change. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) - Volume 1. Chicago IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Eisenmann, T. (2011). Introducing synchronous e-discussions in co-located classrooms: A study on the experiences of ‘active’ and ‘silent’ secondary school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2169–2177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Hever, R. (2015). Learning from reading SNS group discussions: Rhetoric style matters (again). Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 570–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009a). The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 373–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009b). Transformation of robust misconceptions through peer argumentation. In: B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.) Guided transformation of knowledge in classrooms (pp. 159–172). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 259–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B., & Butler, R. (2009). Inhibitors and facilitators of peer interaction that supports conceptual learning: The role of achievement goal orientations. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1633–1638). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B., & Cohen-Eliyahu, N. (2014). Outcome feedback during collaborative learning: Contingencies between feedback and dyad composition. Learning & Instruction, 34 (4), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, M. J. (2009). Intersubjective and intrasubjective rationalities in pedagogical debates. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction. New Perspectives on Learning and Instruction (pp. 145–158). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In: J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multi-faceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education , 37, 1590–1612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: The role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 399–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 68–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2012). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, B. (1975). Class and pedagogies: Visible and invisible. Educational studies, 1(1), 23–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive science, 24(4), 573–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., Galati, A., & Kuhlen, A. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 53, pp. 301–344). Burlington: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Britt, M., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (1995). Conflict between incompetences and influence of a low-expertise source in hypothesis testing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 457–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, R. (2000). What learners want to know: The role of achievement goals in shaping seeking, learning and interest. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 11–194). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, D. (1998). Language, gender and discourse: A review. Signs: Journal of Women, Culture and Society, 23, 945–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300–1309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns that promote learning. In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, and S, Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 263–273). Washington, DC: AERA.
   Google Scholar
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314–332). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 365–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, S. N. (2015).The right to speak. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 167–180). Washington, DC: AERA.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.967205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15, 363–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning within mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation & Emotion, 31, 61–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9049-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Panuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.766
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• deLeeuw, N., & Chi, M. T. H. (2003). The role of self-explanation in conceptual change learning. In G. Sinatra & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 55–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
   Google Scholar
• Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of logical operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 367–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420050309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22, 206–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
   Google Scholar
• Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015). Arguing to agree mitigating my-side bias through consensus-seeking dialogue. Written Communication, 32, 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417–446.
   Google Scholar
• Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frijters, S., ten Dam, G., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008). Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 66–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriele, A. J., & Montecinos, C. (2001). Collaborating with a skilled peer: The influence of achievement goals and perceptions of partners' competence on the participation and learning of low-achieving students. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 152–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Mila, M. E. R. C. E., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97, 497–523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257–279.
   Google Scholar
• Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2005). The antilogos ability to evaluate information supporting arguments. Learning and Instruction, 15, 353–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing collaborative online argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00251.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, T., & Ron, Y. (2014). ‘Look, each side says something different’: The impact of competing history teaching approaches on Jewish and Arab adolescents’ discussions of the Jewish-Arab conflict. Journal of Peace Education, 11, 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B., & Porat, D. (2011). Changes in narrative and argumentative writing by students discussing ‘hot’ historical issues. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 185–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guiller, J., Ross, A., & Durndell, A. (2008). Peer interaction and critical thinking: face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction, 18, 187–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping students' epistemological resources. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support or inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524–549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2007). Exploring the links between students' engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences and appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 17, 673–687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, C. (2009). Collaborative group work in middle childhood: Joint construction, unresolved contradiction and the growth of knowledge. Human Development, 52, 215–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000215072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Rattay, C. (2000). Hypothesis-testing in science: Group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Learning & Instruction, 10, 361–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00004-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iordanou, K. (2013): Developing face-to-face argumentation skills: Does arguing on the computer help? Journal of Cognition and Development, 14, 292–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 293–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2010.485335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim I., Kuo, L., Dong, T., & Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL scenario. In G. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Amsterdam: Kluwer CSCL Book Series.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In Argumentation in science education (pp. 91–115). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (1992). Thinking about theories or thinking with theories? A classroom study with natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 51–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 23–31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition & Instruction, 26, 379–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and instruction, 18(1), 53–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709907×268589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, I-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children's collaborative online discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 333–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children's knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingery, J. N., Erdley, C. A., & Marshall, K. C. (2011). Peer acceptance and friendship as predictors of early adolescence’ adjustment across the middle school transition. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 57, 215–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137–162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 1310–1328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2014). Argue with me: Developing thinking and writing through dialog. Bronxville, NY: Wessex Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child development, 74, 1245–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, L. (2011). Why Argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48, 26–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638531003653344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition & Instruction, 31, 456–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leman, P. J. (2010). Gender, collaboration and children's learning. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 216–239). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, T. J., Anderson, R. C., Jadallah, M., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Kim, I. H., Kuo, L. J., … & Li, Y. (2015). Social influences on children's development of relational thinking during small-group discussions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 83–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 281–312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, L., & Bromme, R. (2010). Situating and relating epistemological beliefs into metacognition: studies on beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.
   Web of Science ®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 & Instruction, 14, 139–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning & Instruction, 6, 359–375.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.
   Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2007). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy of Education, 27, 283–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, B. W., Anderson, R. C., Morris, J., Lin, T. J., Jadallah, M., & Sun, J. (2014). The effects of reading to prepare for argumentative discussion on cognitive engagement and conceptual growth. Learning and Instruction, 33, 67–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muis, K. R., & Edwards, O. (2009). Examining the stability of achievement goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 265–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children's friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7, 79–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument/counter-argument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (in press). The psychology of far transfer from classroom argumentation. In F. Paglieri (Ed.), The psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion. London, UK: College Publications, Studies in Logic and Argumentation series
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Argumentation, critical questions, and integrative stratagems: Enhancing young adolescents’ reasoning about current events. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 433–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 157–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 1977–1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701545919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). When I come down I'm in a domain state: Talk, gesture, and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.) Interaction and grammar (pp. 328–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ogan, A., Finkelstein, S., Walker, E., Carlson, R., & Cassell, J. (2012). Rudeness and rapport: Insults and learning gains in peer tutoring. In: S. A. Cerri, W. J. Clancey, G. Papadourakis, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Vol 7315 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 11–21). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, S. C., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?. Science Education, 95, 627–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2015). Discursive cultures of learning in (everyday) mathematics teaching: A video-based study on mathematics teaching in German and Swiss classrooms. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan & C. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 181–193). Washington DC: AERA.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l'argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porsch, T., & Bromme, R. (2011). Effects of epistemological sensitization on source choices. Instructional Science, 39, 805–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9155-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based History curriculum intervention in urban highschools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. (Eds.) (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: AERA.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. ( in press). Accountable talk: Instructional dialogue that builds the mind. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.) (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: APA.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socio-scientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socio-scientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 909–921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 447–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B. (2015). Discussing argumentative texts as a traditional Jewish learning practice. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 153–162). Washington, DC: AREA Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B. (2003). Collective reading of multiple texts in argumentative activities. The International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 133–151.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In   Muller-Mirza & A-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education—Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 395–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2016). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., & de Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 297–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., Hershkowitz, R., & Prusak, N. (2010). Argumentation and Mathematics. In C. Howe & K. Littleton (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 115–141). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and of argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction. The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 310–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right…if they argue together! Cognition & Instruction, 18, 461–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 221–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., Perret-Clermont, A-N., Trognon, A., & Marro, P. (2008). Learning processes within and between successive activities in a laboratory context. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16(1), 57–87.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., Schur, Y., Pensso, H., & Tayer, N. (2011). Perspective taking and argumentation for learning the day/night cycle. The International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 113–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., & Shahar, N. (in press). Combining the dialogic and the dialectic: putting argumentation into practice for classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction.
   Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science: the promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 374–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sins, P. H., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2011). Effects of face-to-face versus chat communication on performance in a collaborative inquiry modeling task. Computers & Education, 56, 379–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, K., Johnsson, D. W., & Johnsson, R. T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sofer-Vital, S., Schwarz, B. B., & (2012). Achievement goals, argumentation and conceptual change in science. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Conceptual Change. University of Trier, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1993). A theory of argumentative understanding: relationships among position preference, judgments of goodness, memory and reasoning. Argumentation, 7, 183–204.
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Towards a conversation analytic approach to gender and discourse. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 552–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine.
   Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tudge, J. R. H., Winterhoff, P. A., & Hogan, M. H. (1996). The cognitive consequences of collaborative problem solving with or without feedback. Child Development, 67, 2892–2909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01894.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2004). Historical reasoning: A comparison of how experts and novices contextualise historical sources. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 4, 89–97.
   Google Scholar
• van der Puil, C., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G. (2004). Exploring relational regulation in computer-mediated (collaborative) learning interaction: a developmental perspective. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 183–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkenmans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabb, E. C., … Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical background and contemporary developments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• VanLehn, K. (1999). Rule-learning events in the acquisition of a complex skill: an evaluation of cascade. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 71–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101–131. doi 10.1002/tea.20213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation: Critical reasoning and argumentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weatherall, A. (2000). Re-visions for gender and language research in the 21st century. In J. Holmes (Ed.), Gendered speech in social context: Perspectives from town and gown (pp. 39–51). Wellington, NZ: Victoria University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709908×380772
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33, 360–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Turrou, A. C., & Ing, M. (2015). An exploration of teacher practice in relation to profiles of small-group dialogue. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds) Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 87–98). Washington, DC: AERA.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2014). Where is the evidence? A meta-analysis on the role of argumentation for the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 75, 218–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 746–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegerif, N., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning & Instruction, 9, 493–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer–supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(1), 77–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendship in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 301–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, X., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Miller, B. (2013). Enhancing motivation and engagement through collaborative discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 622–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. The Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh, K. Y., & She, H. C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education 55, 586–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar