Titlebook: Arguing to Learn; Confronting Cognitio Jerry Andriessen,Michael Baker,Dan Suthers Book 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

jeopardize

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44234-0how argumentation is structured (cf., Anderson, et al., 1997; Eemeren et al., 1996). There are related research traditions devoted to developmental aspects of argumentation (e.g., Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Stein & Bernas, 1999) and exploring the relationship between argumentation and abstract reasoning s

incisive

Mendicant

BORE

moribund

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44234-0 is one of fostering productive argumentation in instructional settings. Several of the chapters, however, testify to the difficulties attendant to facilitating such forms of argumentation among learners.

Atheroma

SCORE

Representational Guidance for Collaborative Inquiry,fied to focus on evidential relations between data and hypotheses. This change was driven in part by a refocus on collaborative learning (Koschmann, 1994; Slavin, 1980; Webb & Palincsar, 1996), which led to a major change in how we viewed the role of the interface representations. Rather than being

用樹皮

The Blind and the Paralytic: Supporting argumentation in Everyday and Scientific Issues,lls. However, while literacy definitely involves analytical skills, confining it to a series of skills is far too restricted, and puts aside contextual factors in literacy. As noticed by Olson (1994), in opposition to children’s oral propensity to identify speech acts in conversation, when interpret

ingrate

Anthem