Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving

Cho, Kyoo-Lak, Jonassen, David H.·2002·Educational Technology Research and Development
DOI 10.1007/bf02505022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02505022

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific arguments as artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE.International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Buckingham Shum, S.J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V.M.E., & Hammond, N.V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition.Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 267–300. · DOI
  3. Carr, C.S. (1999).The effect of computer-supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) on argumentation skills in second-year law students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
  4. Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D., & de Leeuw, N.A. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts.Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Darses, F. (1991). The constraint satisfaction approach to design: A psychological investigation.Acta Psychologica, 78, 307–325. · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(91)90016-s
  6. Fisher, W.R., & Sayles, E.M. (1966). The nature and functions of argument. In G.R. Miller & T.R. Nilsen (Eds.),Perspectives on argumentation (pp. 2–22). Chicago, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
  7. Hong, N.S., Jonassen, D.H., & McGee, S. (in press). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  8. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth, (Ed.).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology, Vol 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Jonassen, D.H., & Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(10), 35–52. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Jonassen, D.H., & Remidez, H. (2002, January).Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Boulder, CO. · DOI
  11. Kitchner, K.S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing.Human Development, 26, 222–232. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Klemm, W.R., & Snell, J.R. (1996). Enriching computer-mediated group learning by coupling constructivism with collaborative learning.Journal of Instructional Science and Technology,1(2). [Online]. Available: http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/ejist/vol1no2/article1.htm
  13. Knudson, R.E. (1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade and sex on students' persuasive writing.Journal of Experimental Education, 59(2), 141–152. · DOI
  14. Lajoie, S.P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  15. Lajoie, S.P., & Lesgold, A. (1992). Apprenticeship training in the workplace: A computer coached practice environment as a new form of apprenticeship. In M. Farr & J. Psotka (Eds.),Intelligent instruction by computer: Theory and practice (pp. 15–36). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
  16. McCann, T.M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels.Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62–76. · DOI
  17. McGrath, J.E. (1984).Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  18. Meacham, J.A., & Emont, N.C. (1989). The interpersonal basis of everyday problem solving. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.),Everyday problem solving: Theory and application (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: Praeger.
  19. Poole, M.S., & Holmes, M.E. (1995). Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making.Human Communication Research, 22(1), 90–127. · DOI
  20. Richard, J.F., Poitrenaud, S., & Tijus, C. (1993). Problem-solving restructuration: Elimination of implicit constraints.Cognitive Science, 17, 497–529. · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1704_2
  21. Sanders, J.A., Wiseman, R.L., & Gass, R.H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking?Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35. · DOI
  22. Saunders, K.M. (1994). Law as rhetoric, rhetoric as argument.Journal of Legal Education, 44(4), 566–578.
  23. Simon, D.P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In D. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Suthers, D.D., & Hundhausen, C.D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.),European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577–584). Universiteit Masstricht, Maastricht, Netherlands.
  25. Tan, S.C. (2000).Supporting collaborative problem solving through computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
  26. Toulmin, S.E., Rieke, R.D., & Janik, A. (1984).An introduction to reasoning (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
  27. Veerman, A.L., Andriessen, J.E.B., & Kanselaar, G. (1999, December).Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. Paper presented at the conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 99), San Francisco, California. · DOI
  28. Voss, J.F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured domains. In C. Antaki (Ed.),Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 74–93). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
  29. Voss, J.F., Lawrence, J.A., & Engle, R.A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R.J. Sternberg & P.A. French (Eds.),Complex problem solving (pp. 119–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  30. Yeh, S.S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students.Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 49–83. · DOI

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H.
Venue
Educational Technology Research and Development
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2002-09
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
5-22
ISSN
  • 1042-1629 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6501
DOI
10.1007/bf02505022
OpenAlex
W1969688875
Cited by
444
References
4
FWCI
16.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02505022
The paper
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02505022

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.