Research on information searching strategies in high school students’ quality of argumentative essay writing

References

• Allen, M. (2017). The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4). Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Boykin, A., Evmenova, A. S., Regan, K., & Mastropieri, M. (2019). The impact of a computer-based graphic organizer with embedded self-regulated learning strategies on the argumentative writing of students in inclusive cross-curricula settings. Computers & Education, 137, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using Internet. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Mateos, M., Granado-Peinado, M., & & Martín, E. (2021). Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: Instructional practices in secondary education. Instructional Science, 49(4), 515–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A. (2004). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
   Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary students’ science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, B.-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of Internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32(3), 253–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.918133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Liang, Y. R. (2014). A cooperative computerized concept mapping approach to improving students’ learning performance in web-based information-seeking activities. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0001-2
   Google Scholar
• Coffin, C. J., & O’Halloran, K. (2008). Researching argumentation in educational contexts: New directions, new methods. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802416582
   Google Scholar
• Çoklar, A. N., Yaman, N. D., & Yurdakul, I. K. (2019). Information literacy and digital nativity as determinants of online information search strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Deveci Topal, A., & Çoban Budak, E. (2019). Information literacy skills of social work students. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age (JOLTIDA), 4(1), 15–24.
   Google Scholar
• Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: A mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5–6), 617–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1-2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1660685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, Y. C., Wang, T. H., & Wang, K. H. (2020). Studying the effectiveness of an online argumentation model for improving undergraduate students’ argumentation ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(4), 526–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fettahlıoğlu, P., & Aydoğdu, M. (2020). Developing environmentally responsible behaviours through the implementation of argumentation-and problem-based learning models. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 987–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9720-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, N., Miller, D., & Moss, N. (2001). The role of individual differences in Internet search: An empirical study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(12), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, N., Miller, D., & Moss, N. (2002). Web search strategies and retrieval effectiveness: An empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 58(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410210425395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Frerejean, J., van Strien, J. L. H., Kirschner, P. A., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). Effects of a modelling example for teaching information problem solving skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 688–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hämäläinen, E. K., Kiili, C., Marttunen, M., Räikkönen, E., González-Ibáñez, R., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2020). Promoting sixth graders’ credibility evaluation of Web pages: An intervention study. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, Article 106372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for univariate and multivariate statistics. SAS Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A dialogic path to evidence-based argumentive writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1336714
   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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, G. J., & Kuo, F. R. (2011). An information-summarising instruction strategy for improving the web-based problem solving abilities of students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibieta, A., Hinostroza, E., & Labbé, C. (2019). Improving students’ information problem-solving skills on the Web through explicit instruction and the use of customized search software. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1576559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiili, C., Bråten, I., Kullberg, N., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2020). Investigating elementary school students’ text-based argumentation with multiple online information resources. Computers & Education, 147, Article 103785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiili, C., Leu, D. J., Utriainen, J., Coiro, J., Kanniainen, L., Tolvanen, A., Lohvansuu, K., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2018). Reading to learn from online information: Modeling the factor structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(3), 304–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18784640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Dialogic argumentation as a bridge to argumentative thinking and writing. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 39(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2006). Do children and adults learn differently? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0703_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2008). Integrating critical Web skills and content knowledge: Development and evaluation of a 5th grade educational program. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 666–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrain, A., Freire, P., Strasser, K., & Grau, V. (2020). The development of a coding scheme to analyse argumentative utterances during group-work. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, Article 100657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2021). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2020). Worked example or scripting? Fostering students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., & Nelson, D. W. (2005). Design of a cognitive tool to enhance problem-solving performance. Educational Media International, 42(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980500116639
   Google Scholar
• Lehmann, T., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Schmidt-Borcherding, F. (2021). Fostering integrated mental models of different professional knowledge domains: Instructional approaches and model-based analyses. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69(2), 1353–1354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09704-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, L. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Accessing online learning material: Quantitative behavior patterns and their effects on motivation and learning performance. Computers & Education, 114, 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An exploratory model. Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lust, G., Vandewaetere, M., Ceulemans, E., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Tool-use in a blended undergraduate course: In search of user profiles. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2135–2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malogianni, C., Luo, T., Stefaniak, J., & Eckhoff, A. (2021). An exploration of the relationship between argumentative prompts and depth to elicit alternative positions in ill-structured problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69(5), 2353–2375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10019-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matos, F. (2021). Collaborative writing as a bridge from peer discourse to individual argumentative writing. Reading and Writing, 34(5), 1321–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10117-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monchaux, S., Amadieu, F., Chevalier, A., & Mariné, C. (2015). Query strategies during information searching: Effects of prior domain knowledge and complexity of the information problems to be solved. Information Processing & Management, 51(5), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. The Internet and Higher Education, 31(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5), 548–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Bayat, A., van Ginkel, S., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2020). Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: Does gender matter? Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2016). The psychology of far transfer from classroom argumentation. In F. Paglieri (Ed.), The psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion (pp. 407–432). College Publications, Studies in Logic and Argumentation series.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Putney, L. G. (2020). Learning to use benefit-cost arguments: A microgenetic study of argument-counterargument integration in an undergraduate seminar course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). 21st-century readers: developing literacy skills in a digital world. OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Papathomas, L., & Kuhn, D. (2017). Learning to argue via apprenticeship. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 159, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.01.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisoğlu, İ, Çebi, A., & Bahçekapılı, T. (2019). Online information searching behaviours: Examining the impact of task complexity, information searching experience, and cognitive style. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1662456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L. J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1086/518623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmerón, L., Delgado, P., & Mason, L. (2020). Using eye-movement modelling examples to improve critical reading of multiple webpages on a conflicting topic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (2017). Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: An eye tracking and cued retrospective think-aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2010). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
   Google Scholar
• Savolainen, R. (2016). Information seeking and searching strategies as plans and patterns of action: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Documentation, 72(6), 1154–1180. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2016-0033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, K., & Cho, B. Y. (2018). Exploring bilingual adolescents’ translanguaging strategies during online reading. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1497008
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Tawfik, A. A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University press.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, P. S., & Tsai, C.C. (2014). College students' skills of online argumentation: the role of scaffolding and their conceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, G.J. (2011). The correlates of Taiwan teachers' epistemological beliefs concerning Internet environments, online search strategies, and search outcomes. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemeans, F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds.). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Laan, N., Wen, D., & Gašević, D. (2020). Exploring student information problem solving behaviour using fine-grained concept map and search tool data. Computers & Education, 145, Article 103731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103731
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. Retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/ fv751yt5934
   Google Scholar
• Wingate, U. (2012). Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006
   Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H., Nesbit, J. C., & Popowich, F. (2017). Nstudy: A system for researching information problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9327-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). Developing an information commitment survey for assessing students’ web information searching strategies and evaluative standards for web materials. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 120–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar