First- and second-order scaffolding of argumentation competence and domain-specific knowledge acquisition: a systematic review

References

• Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 249–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew, G., & McMullen, L. (2000). Interpersonal scripts in the anger narratives told by clients in psychotherapy. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 271–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 3–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 285–309. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A Scaffolding Framework to Support the Construction of Evidence-Based Arguments among Middle School Students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401–422. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9074-1
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
   Google Scholar
• Bouyias, Y., & Demetriadis, S. (2012). Peer-monitoring vs. micro-script fading for enhancing knowledge acquisition when learning in computer-supported argumentation environments. Computers and Education, 59, 236–249. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckingham Shum, S. J. (2003). The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In P. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Program tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 3–24). London: Springer-Verlag doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_1
   Google Scholar
• Chen, C. H., & She, H. C. (2012). The impact of recurrent on-line synchronous scientific argumentation on students’ argumentation and conceptual change. Educational Technology and Society, 15, 197–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 321–333. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9159-1
   Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
   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
• Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 339–352. doi:10.1080/03075070220000716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, M. A. (2004). Emotion, argumentation and informal logic. Informal Logic, 24, 245–264.
   Google Scholar
• Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. . In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2006, June–July). Visualization participation to facilitate argumentation. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Jeong, A. C., & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 651–665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190. doi:10.1080/09500690210134857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871. doi:10.1080/0950069980200707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khine, M. S., Yeap, L. L., & Chin Lok, A. T. (2003). The quality of message ideas, thinking and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Educational Media International, 40, 115–126. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092161
   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-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology a step-by-step guide for beguinners. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk tasking, and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1250–1267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O’Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108–144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
   Google Scholar
• Loll, F., Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., & Pinkwart, N. (2010). Learning to argue using computers – A view from teachers, researchers, and system developers. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 6095, pp. 377–379). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, K., Molinari, G., Sejourne, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 273–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, C., Ashley, K. D., Pinkwart, N., & Aleven, V. (2009). Concepts, structures, and goals: Redefining ill-definedness. International Journal of AI in Education, 19, 253–266.
   Google Scholar
• Macdonald, I. (2000). What do we mean by transition, and what is the problem? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 9, 7–20.
   Google Scholar
• Marée, T. J., van Bruggen, J. M., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2013). Effective self-regulated science learning through multimedia-enriched skeleton concept maps. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31, 16–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, M. (2014). Conceptions of professional competence. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, H. Gruber, & M. Mulder (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 107–137). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Muller Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & de Pietro, J.-F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with digalo. International Journal Of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 247–272. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 153–176. doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 189–223.
   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. A., 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
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 643–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, 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, 483–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S., & Baur, E. (2006). Development, piloting and evaluation of InterLoc: An Open Source tool supporting dialogue games in education. Final Project Report, Learning Technology Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, UK & JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), Bristol, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R. B., & Hartley, J. R. (2007). Reclaiming thinking: Dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. Special Issue of British Journal of Educational Psychology: Psychological Insights into the Use of New Technologies in Education, II(5), 39–57.
   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. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9
   Google Scholar
• Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 43–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuer, O., McLaren, B., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2013). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, 42, 127–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slof, B., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). The effects of constructing domain-specific representations on coordination processes and learning in a CSCL-environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1478–1489. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40, 297–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 421–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tsovaltzi, D., Greenhow, C., & Asterhan, C. (2015). When friends argue: Learning from and through social network site discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 567–569. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsovaltzi, D., Puhl, T., Judele, R., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Group awareness support and argumentation scripts for individual preparation of arguments in Facebook. Computers & Education, 76, 108–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn (Vol. 1, pp. 177–203). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14, 25–41.
   Google Scholar
• van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575–602. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (2nd ed.). New york, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00050-0
   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
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. [Methodological Issues in Researching CSCL]. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Stegmann, K. (2013). Inducing socio-cognitive conflict in Finnish and German groups of online learners by CSCL script. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 333–349. doi:10.1007/s11412-013-9173-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh, K.-H., & 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. doi:10.1002/tea.10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar