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: 
Appears in Collections:Conference Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
CSCL-2009-113_a.pdf368.97 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record

Page view(s) 50

74
Last Week
0
Last month
checked on Sep 22, 2020

Download(s) 50

74
checked on Sep 22, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.