Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10497/13836
Title: | Authors: | Issue Date: | Jun-2009 |
Citation: | Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL), Rhodes, Greece, 8 - 13 June 2009 |
Abstract: | Research on argumentation has increased our understanding of knowledge construction, group learning, and scaffolding structures in CSCL although analyses of argumentation pose many difficulties. This could be due to the many theoretical positions that can be taken when approaching discourse data. In this paper, we use three popular analytic methods (interactional, content-specific, and linguistic) to compare the same fragment of scientific argumentation by Grade 4 children in Singapore. We show the complementary emphases and strengths of each disciplinary position as well as their weaknesses. The results imply that analytic methods arising from different disciplinary positions can potentially broaden our overall understanding of using argumentation in CSCL. |
URI: | File Permission: | Open |
File Availability: | With file |
Appears in Collections: | Conference Papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
CSCL-2009-113_a.pdf | 368.97 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Page view(s) 20
232
checked on Mar 25, 2023
Download(s) 50
99
checked on Mar 25, 2023
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.