Getting looped in to the web: characterizing learning processes and educational responses

References

• Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. (2014). How social media reduces mass political polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain and the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.pablobarbera.com/static/barbera-polarization-social-media.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barnidge, M. (2015). The role of news in promoting political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 211–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Karrar, B., & Adamic, L. (2009, July 6–10). Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content. Paper presented at Proceedings of the tenth ACM conference on electronic commerce, Stanford, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. (2012, April 16–20). The role of social networks in information diffusion. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 21st international conference on worldwide web, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5), 34–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boase, J., & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Kei-Tying teens: Using mobile phone e-mail to bond, bridge, and break with social ties – a study of Japanese adolescents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 930–943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, R. S. (2001). Bandwidth and echo: Trust, information, and gossip in social networks. In A. Casella & J. E. Rauch (Eds.), Integrating the study of networks and markets (pp. 30–74). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2011). Political involvement in “mobilized” society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1005–1024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centola, D. (2010). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329(5996), 1194–1197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cha, M., Mislove, A., & Gummadi, K. P. (2009, April 20–24). A measurement-driven analysis of information propagation in the Flickr social network. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 18th international conference on world wide web, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2007). Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students’ argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. Aleixandre-Jimenez (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 217–243). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cornella, A. (2010). Infoxicación: Buscando un orden en la información. Barcelona: Infonomía.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S. P. (1994). Knowledge restructuring and the acquisition of programming expertise. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(4), 703–726.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devedzic, V. (2006). Semantic web and education. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dias, P. (2014). From “infoxication” to “infosaturation”: A theoretical overview of the cognitive and social effects of digital immersion. Ámbitos: Revista internacional de comunicación, 24, 31–40.
   Google Scholar
• Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 367–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change. Approaches in science education. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 263–282). Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival in the digital era. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106.
   Google Scholar
• Eveland, W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gearhart, S., & Zhang, W. (2015). “Was it something I said?” “No, it was something you posted!” A study of the spiral of silence theory in social media contexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(4), 208–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science and Education, 6(1–2), 15–28.
   Google Scholar
• Gergen, K. J. (2008). Mobile communication and the transformation of the democratic process. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 297–310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Good, R. (1993). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1015–1015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and our lives: How people's trust, personal relationships, and civic and political involvement are connected to their use of social networking sites and other technologies. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/30472786/Social_networking_sites_and_our_lives_2011.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, K. N., Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., & Purcell, K. (2014). Social media and the “spiral of silence”. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/08/PI_Social-networks-and-debate_082614.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., Hsu, S. H., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 403–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kurilovas, E., Kubilinskiene, S., & Dagiene, V. (2014). Web 3.0–based personalisation of learning objects in virtual learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 654–662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, K. H., Moon, S. I., & Stefanone, M. (2014). Unspeaking on Facebook? Testing network effects on self-censorship of political expressions in social net-work sites. Quality & Quantity. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135–014-0078-8. Advance online publication
   Google Scholar
• Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20(3), 269–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leitão, S. (2007). Argumentação e desenvolvimento do pensamento reflexivo [Argumentation and development of reflective thinking]. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 20(3), 454–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leite, J., & Martins, J. (2011, July 16–22). Social abstract argumentation. Paper presented at IJCAI 2011, proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, pp. 2287–2292. IJCAI/AAAI.
   Google Scholar
• Ling, R., & Stald, G. (2010). Mobile communities: Are we talking about a village, a clan, or a small group? American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1133–1147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, D. (2014). McLuhan's nightmare. Journal of Business Strategy, 35(6), 58–65.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuda, M. (2005). Mobile communication and selective sociality. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life (pp. 123–142). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2007). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(2), 137–168.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 55–71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. C. (2014, August 26). How social media silences debate. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/upshot/how-social-media-silences-debate.html
   Google Scholar
• Miyata, K., Yamamoto, H., & Ogawa, Y. (2015). What affects the spiral of silence and the hard core on Twitter? An analysis of the nuclear power issue in Japan. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(9) 1129–1141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, R. D. (2011). Web 3.0: Implications for online learning. Tech Trends, 55(1), 42–46.
   Google Scholar
• Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1072–1088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naik, U., & Shivalingaiah, D. (2008, February 28–March 1). Comparative study of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. Paper presented at Proceedings of the international convention on automation of libraries in education and research institutions, Caliber, Allahabad.
   Google Scholar
• Ng, W. (2012). Empowering scientific literacy through digital literacy and multiliteracies. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence. A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1–2), 113–136.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-Web-20.html
   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. 83–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Porten-Cheé, P., & Eilders, C. (2015). Spiral of silence online: How online communication affects opinion climate perception and opinion expression regarding the climate change debate. Studies in Communication Sciences, 15(1), 143–150.
   Google Scholar
• Pozo, J. I., & Gómez Crespo, M. A. (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: The consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 351–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raffl, C., Hofkirchner, W., Fuchs, C. & Schafranek, M. (2008). The web as techno-social system. The emergence of Web 3.0. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems (pp. 604–609). Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Rapanta, C., Garcia-Milà, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 105–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, J., Passant, A., Groza, T., & Breslin, J. G. (2010, September 8–10). Argumentation 3.0: How semantic web technologies can improve argumentation modeling in Web 2.0 environments. In P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, & G.R. Simari (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA'10), Desenzano del Garda, (vol. 216, pp. 439–446). Amsterdam: IOS.
   Google Scholar
• Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science, 182(4112), 553–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. A., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter topic networks: From polarized crowds to community clusters. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/20/mapping-twitter-topic-networks-from-polarized-crowds-to-community-clusters/
   Google Scholar
• Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372–391.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. R. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational psychology, 25(6), 631–645.
   Google Scholar
• Torroni, P., & Gabbriellini, S. (2014, December 10). Capturing bottom-up argumentation. Proceedings of the 14th international workshop on computational models of natural argument (CMNA14), Krakow, Poland.
   Google Scholar
• Torroni, P., Prandini, M., Ramilli, M., Leite, J., & Martins, J. (2010, December 1–3). Arguments against the troll. Paper presented at Proceedings of the eleventh AI*IA symposium on artificial intelligence, Brescia, Arti Grafiche Apollonio (pp. 232–235).
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, P. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). College students’ experience of online argumentation: Conceptions, approaches and the conditions of using question prompts. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 38–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1293–1313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilken, R. (2011). Bonds and bridges: Mobile phone use and social capital debates. In R. Ling & S. Campbell (Eds.), Mobile communication: Bringing us together or tearing us apart? (pp. 127–150). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Yiong-Hwee, T., & Churchill, D. (2007). Using sentence openers to support students’ argumentation in an online learning environment. Educational Media International, 44(3), 207–218.
   Google Scholar
• Zhong, N., Liu, J., Yao, Y. Y., & Ohsuga, S. (2000, October 25–27). Web intelligence (WI). In Computer software and applications conference, 2000. COMPSAC 2000. The 24th annual international (pp. 469–470). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE CS Press.
   Google Scholar