Judging the Quality of Peer-Led Student Dialogues

By Matthew W. Keefer, C. Zeitz, Lauren B. Resnick. 2000

148 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/059285046a7a9f6c0326db8bf7b8400496b622f7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching (2013, background): “Different types of dialogue can be used to achieve different goals (Burbules, 1993; Keefer et al., 2000; Walton, 1998), and this article focuses on teaching through inquiry dialogue.”
Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories (2016, background): “…portion of scholarly work focusing on argumentation to learn involves in-depth case studies (e.g., Asterhan & Schwarz, 2009b; Berland & Hammer, 2012; Chin & Osborne, 2010; Keefer et al., 2000; Schwarz, Perret-Clermont, Trognon, & Marro, 2008; von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008).”
Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory (2012, background): “As Keefer, Zeitz, and Resnick (2000) explain: ‘…a productive discussion…should include some progress in the participants' understanding of the original question or issue being debated (e.g., participants ought to show greater interest in the development of ideas and issues than they do in the…”
Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits (2003, background): “In his seminal study of Harvard undergraduates, Perry (1970) found that students varied in whether they perceived knowledge to be certain, relative, or tentative within a particular context (see also King & Kitchener, 1994; Kuhn, 1991). Schommer (1990) proposed several dimensions of epistemological ”
Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines (2010, methodology): “Resnick et al. (1993) developed a graphical coding analysis method to describe the rational structure of collaborative reasoning in social settings ( Keefer et al. 2000 ).”
Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument (2007, unknown): “Educators frequently lament students’ weaknesses in producing both oral and written arguments, and considerable research exists documenting such weaknesses (Brem & Rips, 2000; Keating, 2004; Keefer, Zeitz, & Resnick, 2000; Klaczynski, 2000; Knudson, 1992; Kuhn, 1991; Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997; Mo”
A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning (2006, background): “An indication for integration-oriented consensus building is that “participants show a willingness to actively revise or change their own views in response to persuasive arguments” (Keefer et al., 2000, p. 77).”
The development of argumentive discourse skill (2001, methodology): “This scale, adopted from Kuhn and Lao (1996), presents 13 statements of position from which participants may choose.”
The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse (2013, unknown): “Our findings extend prior research into the impact of persuasion goals on reasoning (Nussbaum, 2005; Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005; Keefer et al., 2000) by contrasting the use of two-sided reasoning in two argumentative discourse settings.”