LASAD: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation

Andriessen, 2006, Arguing to learn, 443 Andriessen, 2003 Bangor, 2008, An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24, 574, 10.1080/10447310802205776 Bangor, 2009, Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale, International Journal of Usability Studies, 4, 114 Belgiorno, 2008, Face to face cooperation with CoFFEE, 2008, 49 Brooke, 1996, SUS—a quick and dirty usability scale, 189 Carr, 2003, Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation, 75 Cho, 2007, Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: a web-based reciprocal peer review system, Computers & Education, 48, 409, 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004 Clark, 1991, Grounding in communication, 127 Dillenbourg, 1995, The evolution of research on collaborative learning, 189 Easterday, M.W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., 2007. ‘Tis better to construct or to receive? Effect of diagrams on analysis of social policy. In: Luckin, R., Koedinger, K.R., Greer, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 93–100). IOS Press Ekman, 1993, Facial expression and emotion, American Psychologist, 48, 384, 10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384 Gehringer, E.F., (2001). Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses. Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 139–143). Gordon, 2007, The carneades model of argument and burden of proof, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875, 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010 Hair, 1991, Legalese: a legal argumentation tool, SIGCHI Bulletin, 23, 71, 10.1145/122672.122690 Harrell, 2008, No computer program required: even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical thinking skills, Teaching Philosophy, 31, 351, 10.5840/teachphil200831437 Janssen, 2010, Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning, Instructional Science, 38, 59, 10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1 Jonassen, 2010, Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines, Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 439, 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8 Kirschner, 2003 Kuhn, 1991 Kuhn, 1993, Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking, Science Education, 77, 319, 10.1002/sce.3730770306 Laughlin, 2006, Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 644, 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644 Loll, F., 2012. Domain-independent support for computer-based argumentation. PhD Thesis. Clausthal University of Technology. Published online at〈http://www.gbv.de/dms/clausthal/E_DISS/2012/db110727.pdf〉. ISBN: 978-3-942216-92-0. Loll, 2009, Disburdening tutors in e-learning environments via Web 2.0 techniques, 279 Loll, 2010, Computer-supported argumentation learning: a survey of teachers, researchers, and system developers, 530 Loll, 2010, Learning to argue using computers—a view from teachers, researchers, and system developers, 377 Loll, 2011, Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform Loui, R.P., Norman, J., Altepeter, J., Pinkard, D., Linsday, J., Foltz, M., 1997. Progress on room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997) (pp. 207–214). ACM. Lund, 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, 10.1007/s11412-007-9019-z Lynch, 2010, Concepts, structures, and goals: redefining Ill-definedness, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 253 McAlister, 2004, Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous cmc, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 194, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00086.x McLaren, 2010, Supporting collaborative learning and e-fiscussions using artificial intelligence techniques, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20, 1 Munneke, 2003, The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning, International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113, 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00076-4 Osborne, 2010, Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse, Science, 328, 463, 10.1126/science.1183944 Pinkwart, 2008, Re-evaluating LARGO in the classroom: are diagrams better than text for teaching argumentation skills?, In LNCS, 5091, 90 Rolf, B., Magnusson, C., 2002. Developing the art of argumentation. A software approach. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 919–926). Rummel, 2005, Can people learn computer-mediated collaboration by following a script? Sampson, 2009, The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation, Science Education, 93, 448, 10.1002/sce.20306 Scheuer, 2010, Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state-of-the-art, International Journal of CSC, 5, 43 Scheuer, 2011, Automated analysis and feedback techniques to support argumentation: a survey, to appear Schwarz, 2007, The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools, International Journal of CSC, 2, 449 Schwarz, 2000, Two wrongs may make a right … if they argue together!, Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461, 10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2 Stegmann, 2007, Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts, International Journal of CSCL, 2, 421 Suthers, 1995, Belvedere: engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues, 266 Suthers, D.D., 2003. Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, pp. 27–46. Toth, 2002, Mapping to know: the effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry, Science Education, 86, 2, 10.1002/sce.10004 Toulmin, 2003 van Gelder, 2003, Enhancing deliberation through computer supported-visualization, 97 von Aufschnaiter, 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, 10.1002/tea.20213