The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Personally‐Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation
Abstract
Research shows that scientific knowledge develops through a process of decision‐making as well as discovery, and that argumentation is a genre of discourse crucial to the practice of science. Students should therefore be supported in understanding the scientific practices of dialectical and rhetorical argumentation as part of learning about scientific inquiry. This study focuses on supporting scientific argumentation in the classroom through a customized online discourse system. “Personally‐seeded discussions” support learning and collaboration through an activity structure that elicits, shares, and contrasts students’ own ideas to engage them in the discourse of science argumentation and inquiry. Students use an online interface to build principles to describe data they have collected. These principles become the seed comments for the online discussions. The software sorts students into discussion groups with students who have built different principles so that each discussion group can consider and critique multiple perspectives. This study explores the efficacy of this personally‐seeded approach based on a coding scheme developed by Erduran, Osborne, and Simon that analyzes argument structure from a Toulmin perspective. As part of this exploration, the study outlines a method for parsing personally‐seeded discussions into oppositional episodes for analysis, and discusses future directions for supporting argumentation in asynchronous online discussions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups
Cohen, E. G. (1994) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543064001001 · Cited by 2,120
Cited by
Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20438 · Cited by 366
International Handbook of the Learning Sciences
(2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315617572 · Cited by 331
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006 · Cited by 310
Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21006 · Cited by 294
Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: a Meta-Analysis
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7 · Cited by 278
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D.
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-02-26
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 253-277
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2129403298
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Personally‐Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09500690600560944
- The paper
- Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally‐Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944
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.