Abu-Zayd, N. H. (2008). ‘Trial of thought: modern inquisition in Egypt’. In Drees, W. B. and van Koningsveld, P. S. (eds.), The Study of Religion and the Training of Muslim Clergy in Europe: Academic and Religious Freedom in the 21st Century (pp. 153–73). Leiden University Press. With an Appendix by Mona Zulficar, ‘My testimony on the case of Abu Zayd’ (pp. 174–8).Google Scholar

Aikins, J. W., Bierman, K. L. & Parker, J. G. (2005). Navigating the transition to junior high school: the influence of pre-transition friendship and self-system characteristics’. Social Development, 14(1), 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Al-Alwâni, T. J. (1986/1995). Islam: Conflit d’opinions. Pour une éthique du désaccord (trans. from the 3rd edn. of Adab al-ikhtilâl fî al-islâm [1986] by Benmahdjoub, I. and Messaoudi, M.). Paris: Al-Qalam.Google Scholar

Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Alexander, R. J. (2005). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. London: Dialogos.Google Scholar

Allen, A. (2002). ‘Power, subjectivity, and agency: between Arendt and Foucault’. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 10(2), 131–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Amigues, R. (1988). ‘Peer interaction in solving physics problems: socio-cognitive confrontation and metacognitive aspects’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Waggoner, M. & Nguyen, K. (1998). ‘Intellectually stimulating story discussions’. In Osborn, J. and Lehr, F. (eds.), Literacy for All (pp. 170–86). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J. (2006). ‘Arguing to learn: confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments’. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.), The Learning Sciences (pp. 443–59 ). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J. & Baker, M. J. (2015). ‘Arguing to learn’. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd edn., pp. 439–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (eds.). (1999). Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar

Andriessen, J. & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). ‘Argumentative design’. In Muller-Mirza, N. and Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices (pp. 145–174). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J. & Suthers, D. (eds.). (2003). Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J. & van der Puil., C. (2011). ‘Socio-cognitive tension in collaborative working relations’. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I. & Säljö, R. (eds.), Learning Across Sites: New Tools, Infrastructures and Practices (New Perspectives on Learning and Instruction Series) (pp. 222–42). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation: Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arendt, H. (1954/2006). ‘The crisis of education’. In Arendt, H., Between Past and Future. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Arendt, H. (1998/1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arzarello, F. (2008). ‘The proof in the 20th century’. In Boero, P. (ed.), Theorems in Schools: From History, Epistemology and Cognition to Classroom Practices (pp. 43–64). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar

Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D. & Robutti, O. (2008). ‘The transition to formal proof in geometry’. In Boero, P. (ed.), Theorems in Schools: From History, Epistemology and Cognition to Classroom Practices (pp. 307–424). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. (2012). ‘Facilitating classroom argumentation with computer technology’. In Gillies, R. (ed.), Pedagogies: New Developments in the Learning Sciences (pp. 105–29). New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. (2013). ‘Epistemic and interpersonal dimensions of peer argumentation: conceptualization and quantitative assessment’. In Baker, M., Andriessen, J. & Jarvela, S. (eds.), Affective Learning Together (pp. 251–72). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. (2015). ‘Introducing online dialogues in collocated classrooms: if, why and how’. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C. & Clarke, S. (eds.), Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 205–18). Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Babichenko, M. (2015). ‘The social dimension of learning through argumentation: effects of human presence and discourse style’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 740–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Eisenmann, T. (2011). ‘Introducing synchronous e-discussions in co-located classrooms: a study on the experiences of “active” and “silent” secondary school students’. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Rosenberg, H. (2015). ‘The promise, reality and dilemmas of secondary school teacher student interactions in Facebook: the teacher perspective’. Computers & Education, 85, 134–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). ‘The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2009a). ‘Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue’. Cognitive Science, 33, 374–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2009b). ‘Transformation of robust misconceptions through peer argumentation’. In Schwarz, B. B., Dreyfus, T. & Hershkowitz, R. (eds.), Guided Transformation of Knowledge in Classrooms (pp. 159–72). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). ‘Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation’. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 259–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). ‘Argumentation for learning: well-trodden paths and unexplored territories’. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B. & Butler, R. (2009). ‘Inhibitors and facilitators of peer interaction that supports conceptual learning: the role achievement goal orientations’. In Taatgen, N. A. and van Rijn, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahaw, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B. & Cohen-Eliyahu, N. (2014). ‘Outcome feedback during collaborative learning: contingencies between feedback and dyad composition’. Learning & Instruction, 34(4), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B. & Gil, J. (2012). ‘Guiding computer-mediated discussions in the classroom: epistemic and interactional human guidance for small-group argumentation’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 375–97.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J.M. (1997). Observing Interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. J. (2003). ‘Computer-mediated interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions’. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & Suthers, D. (eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Baker, M. J. (1999a). ‘Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge’. In Mirza, N.M. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (eds.) Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices (pp. 127–44). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Baker, M. J. (1999b). ‘Intersubjective and intrasubjective rationalities in pedagogical debates’. In Schwarz, B. B., Dreyfus, T. & Hershkowitz, R. (eds.), Transformation of Knowledge Through Classroom Interaction (New Perspectives on Learning and Instruction) (pp. 145–58). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Baker, M. J. (1999c). ‘Argumentation and constructive interaction’. In Coirier, P. and Andriessen, J. (eds.), Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar

Baker, M. J. (2002). ‘Forms of cooperation in dyadic problem-solving’. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 16(4–5), 587–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. J. (2015). ‘The integration of pragma-dialectics and collaborative learning research: dialogue, externalisation and collective thinking’. In van Eemeren, F. H. and Garssen, B. (eds.), Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice (pp. 175–99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Baker, M. J. & Lund, K. (1997). ‘Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 13, 175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. J. & Séjourné, A. (2007). ‘L’élaboration de connaissances chez les élèves dans un débat médiatisé par ordinateur’. In Specogna, A. (ed.), Enseigner dans l’interaction (pp. 81–111). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar

Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J. E. B. & Järvelä, S. (2013). Affective Learning Together: Social and Emotional Dimensions of Collaborative Learning. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. J., Bernard, F. X. & Dumez-Féroc, I. (2012). ‘Integrating computer-supported collaborative learning into the classroom: the anatomy of a failure’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 161–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. J., Hansen, T., Joiner, R. & Traum, D. (1998). ‘Grounding’ for Intersubjectivity and Learning (Rep. No. CR-15/98). Lyon, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar

Baker, M. J., Hansen, T., Joiner, R. & Traum, D. (1999a). ‘The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks’. In Dillenbourg, P. (ed.), Collaborative Learning : Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 31–63). Amsterdam: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Lund, K. & Séjourné, A. (2003). ‘Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate’. In Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, U. (eds.), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003 (pp. 11–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M. & Quignard, M. (2007). ‘Rainbow: a framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates’. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. Emerson, C. and Holquist, M., trans. McGee, V. W.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtine, M. (1929/1977). Le Marxisme et la Philosophie du Langage [Marxism and Philosophy of Language] (1st edn., Voloshinov, Leningrad, 1929). Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar

Balacheff, N. (1991) ‘The benefits and limits of social interaction: the case of mathematical proof’. In Bishop, A., Mellin-Olson, S. & van Doormolen, J. (eds.), Mathematics Knowledge: Its Growth through Teaching (pp. 173–92). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Bar-On, D. (2010). ‘Storytelling and multiple narratives in conflict situations: from the TRT Group in the German-Jewish context to the dual-narrative approach of PRIME’. In Salomon, G. & Cairns, E. (eds.), Handbook on Peace Education (pp. 199–212). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Barnes, D. (1976). From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Education.Google Scholar

Barnes, D. (2008). ‘Exploratory talk for learning’. In Mercer, N. & Hodgkinson, S. (eds.), Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes. (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Barnlund, D. C. (1975). Public and Private Self in Japan and the United States: Communicative Styles of Two Cultures. Tokyo: Simul.Google Scholar

Barron, B. J. S. (2000). ‘Achieving coordination in collaborative problem solving groups’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., et al. (1998). ‘Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem and project-based learning’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311.Google Scholar

Barth, E. M. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logic and Argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartolini-Bussi, M., Boero, P., Ferri, F., Garuti, R. & Mariotti, M. A. (1997). ‘Approaching geometry theorems in context’. In Pehkonen, E. (ed.), Proceedings of 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 180–95). Lahti: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Barzilai, S. & Zohar, A. (2012). ‘Epistemic thinking in action: evaluating and integrating online sources’. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M. & Dorph, R. (2015). ‘The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation’. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Battistoni, R. M. & Hudson, W. E. (eds.). (1997). Experiencing Citizenship: Concepts and Models for Service Learning in Political Science. Washington: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar

Bauman, Z. (1988). ‘Strangers: the social construction of universality and particularity’. Telos, 78, 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M. V., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Bell, P. (1997). ‘Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups’. In Hall, R., Miyake, N. & Enyedy, N. (eds.), Proceedings of CSCL’97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Bell, P. & Linn, M. C. (2000). ‘Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE’. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berkeley, . (1715/2006). Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Berland, L. K. & Hammer, D. (2012). ‘Framing for scientific argumentation’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 68–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berland, L. K. & Lee, V. R. (2012). ‘Pursuit of consensus: disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation’. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12). DOI:10.1080/09500693.2011.645086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2011). ‘Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation’. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Beyond Learning. Democratic Education for a Human Future. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar

Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). The Beautiful Risk of Education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar

Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (2nd edn.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blattberg, C. (2003). ‘Patriotic, not deliberative, democracy’. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 6(1), 155–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blau, I. & Caspi, A. (2008). ‘Do media richness and visual anonymity influence learning? A comparative study using Skype. In Eshet, Y., Caspi, A. & Geri, N. (eds.), Learning in the Technological Era (pp. 18–24). Ra’anana, Israel: Open University of Israel.Google Scholar

Blaye, A. (1990). ‘Peer interaction in solving a binary matrix problem: possible mechanisms causing individual progress’. In Mandl, H., De Corte, E., Bennett, N. & Friedrich, H. F. (eds.), Learning and Instruction, Vol. 2. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Bloch, M. (1914/1995). ‘Critique historique et critique du temoignage’. In Bloch, M., Histoire et Historiens : Texts Gathered by Etienne Bloch (pp. 8–16). Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Bloch, M. (1941). Apologie pour l’histoire ou Métier d’historien. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Blondheim, M. & Blum-Kulka, S. (2001). ‘Literacy, orality, television: mediation and authenticity in Jewish conversational arguing, 1–2000 CE’. Communication Review, 4, 511–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boero, P., Garuti, R. & Lemut, E. (2007). ‘Approaching theorems in grade VIII: some mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures, and conditions suitable to enhance them’. In Boero, P. (ed.), Theorems in schools: From History, Epistemology and Cognition to Classroom Practices (pp. 251–66). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouchard, R. (1988). ‘La conversation-palimpseste’. In Cosnier, J., Gelas, N. & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (eds.), Échanges sur la conversation (pp. 105–21). Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (2001). Langage et pouvoir symbolique. [Language and Symbolic Power]. Paris: Points Essais.Google Scholar

Bowen, J. (1981). A History of Western Education, Vol. 3: The Modern West. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar

Brem, S. & Rips, L. (2000). ‘Explanation and evidence in informal argument’. Cognitive Science, 24, 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, S. E. & Lockridge, C. B. (2006). ‘Computer-mediated communication: a cognitive science approach’. In Brown, K. (ed.), ELL2, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edn., pp. 775–80). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Brennan, S. E., Galati, A. & Kuhlen, A. K. (2010). ‘Two minds, one dialog: coordinating speaking and understanding’. In Ross, B. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 53 (pp. 301–44). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Breuer, M. (2003). The Tents of Torah: The Yeshiva, Its Structure and History. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History.Google Scholar

Britt, M. & Aglinskas, C. (2002). ‘Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information’. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buber, M. (1923). Ich und Du. Leipzig: Insel-Verlag.Google Scholar

Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Burbules, N. & Rice, (1991). ‘Dialogue across differences: continuing the conversation’. Harvard Educational Review, 61(4), 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butera, F. & Mugny, G. (1995). ‘Conflict between incompetencies and influence of a low-expertise source in hypothesis testing’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 457–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butler, R. (2000). ‘What learners want to know: the role of achievement goals in shaping seeking, learning and interest’. In Sansone, C. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance (pp. 11–194). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Buty, C. & Plantin, C. (2008). Argumenter en classe de sciences: Du débat à l’apprentissage [Arguing in the Science Classroom: From Debate to Learning]. Lyon: INRP.Google Scholar

Cameron, D. (1998). ‘Language, gender and discourse: a review’. Signs: Journal of Women, Culture and Society, 23(4), 945–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carmien, S., Kollar, I., Fischer, G. & Fischer, F. (2007). ‘The interplay of internal and external scripts: a distributed cognition perspective’. In Fischer, F., Kollar, I, Mandl, H. & Haake, J. (eds.), Scripting Computer-Supported Communication of Knowledge: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives (pp. 303–26). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Carnevale, P. J. & Probst, T. (1998). ‘Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carugati, F. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2015). ‘Learning and instruction: social-cognitive perspectives’. In Wright, James D. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn., Vol. 13, pp. 670–6). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (2nd edn.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Cazden, C., Bond, J. T., Epstein, A. S., Matz, R. D. & Savignon, S. J. (1977). ‘Language assessment: where, what and how’. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 8: 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. & Lavancher, C. (1994). ‘Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding’. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–77.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & de Leeuw, N. (1994). ‘From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts’. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T. & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). ‘Learning from tutoring’. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (2010). ‘Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: case studies in science classrooms’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1998). ‘An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–54.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C. & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). ‘Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion’. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M. & Jinks, T. S. (2000). ‘The structure of discourse in collaborative learning’. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chiu, M. M. (2004). ‘Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: how to improve student problem solving and time on-task’. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 365–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, D. B. & Sampson, V. (2008). ‘Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A. & Erkens, G. (2007). ‘Analytical frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments’. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). ‘Grounding in communication’. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. & Teasley, S. D. (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127–49). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). ‘Contributing to discourse’. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clarke, S. (2015). ‘The right to speak’. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, S. C. S. & Clarke, S. (eds.), Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 167–80). Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar

Cobb, P. & Bauersfeld, H. (eds.). (1995). The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: interaction in Classroom Cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K. & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). ‘Participating in classroom mathematical practices’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1–2), 113–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, J. (1998). ‘Democracy and liberty’. In Ellster, J. (ed.), Deliberative Democracy (pp. 185–231). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. (1992). An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Cohen-Elyahu, N. (2011). ‘Dyadic interactions and Conceptual Change: The case of Proportional Reasoning’. PhD thesis. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Coleman, E. B. (1998). ‘Using explanatory knowledge during problem solving in science’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 387–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, J. S. (1988). ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Suppl.), S95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Condorcet, J.-A.-N. (1955/1795). Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, trans. Barraclough, June. New York: Noonday Press.Google Scholar

Copleston, F. (1950). A History of Philosophy, Vol. II: Medieval Philosophy. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.Google Scholar

Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the Black Box of Classroom Practice: Change without Reform in American Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Darnon, C. & Butera, F. (2007). ‘Learning or succeeding? Conflict regulation with mastery or performance goals’. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 145–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darnon, C., Butera, F. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). ‘Achievement goals in social interactions: learning within mastery vs. performance goals’. Motivation & Emotion, 31, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Panuzzo, N. & Butera, F. (2006). ‘Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Vries, E., Lund, K. & Baker, M. (2002). ‘Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Derrida, J. (1982). ‘Difference’. In Margins of Philosophy (pp. 1–17). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1910). Democracy and Education. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier/Macmillan.Google Scholar

Diderot, D. (1769). D’Alembert’s Dream. Trans. by Johnston, I. C.. Available online at: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp15890.Google Scholar

Dieudonné, J. (1989). A History of Algebraic and Differential Topology 1900–1960. Basel: Birkhaüser.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P. (ed.). (1999). Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon/Elsevier.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). ‘Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design’. In Kirschner, P. A. (ed.), Three Worlds of CSCL: Can We Support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. & O’Malley, C. (1996). ‘The evolution of research on collaborative learning’. In Spada, E. & Reimann, P. (eds.), Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar

DiSessa, A. (1988). ‘Knowledge in pieces’. In Forman, G. & Pufall, P. (eds.), Constructivism in the Computer Age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

DiSessa, A., Gillespie, N. M. & Esterly, J. B. (2004). ‘Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force’. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984). The Social Development of the Intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Doise, W., Mugny, G. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1975). ‘Social interaction and the development of logical operations’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 367–83.Google Scholar

Dominicy, M. (2015). Perelman et l’école de Bruxelles [Perelman and the Brussels School]. Available online at: http://digitheque.ulb.ac.be/fileadmin/user_upload/Web_Bibliotheques/images/bibliotheques/BECS/Perelman/Marc_Dominicy_Article_Perelman.pdf.Google Scholar

Doosje, B. & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). ‘Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Douek, N. (1999). ‘Argumentation and conceptualisation in context: a case study on sun shadows in primary school’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Douek, N. (2008) ‘Some remarks about argumentation and proof’. In Boero, P. (ed.), Theorems in Schools: From History, Epistemology and Cognition to Classroom Practices. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar

Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). ‘Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms’. Science Education, 84, 287–312.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durand-Guerrier, V., Boero, P., Douek, N., Epp, S. S. & Tanguay, D. (2012). ‘Argumentation and proof in the mathematics classroom’. In Hanna, G. & de Villiers, M. (eds.), Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education (New ICMI Study Series 15, pp. 349–67). New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar

Duschl, R. & Osborne, J. (2002). ‘Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education’. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duval, R. (1998). ‘Geometry from a cognitive point of view’. In Mammana, C. & Villani, V. (eds.), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century: An ICMI Study (pp. 37–62). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Dweck, C. (1986) ‘Motivational processes affecting learning’. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Ellsworth, E. (1989). ‘Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy’. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). ‘Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom’, Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ennis, R. H. (1989). ‘Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research’. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education (Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research Series). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erduran, S., Osborne, J. F. & Simon, S. (2004). ‘Enhancing the quality of argument in school science’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.Google Scholar

Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.Google Scholar

Felton, M. & Kuhn, D. (2001). ‘The development of argumentative discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M. & Gilabert, S. (2009). ‘Deliberation versus dispute: the impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom’. Informal Logic, 29, 417–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fernandez, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. & Rojas-Drummond, S. M. (2002). ‘Reconceptualising “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning’. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36, 40–54.Google Scholar

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischbein, E. & Kedem, I. (1982). ‘Proof and certitude in the development of mathematical thinking’. In Vermandel, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 128–31). Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen.Google Scholar

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H. & Haake, J. (eds.). (2007). Scripting Computer-Supported Communication of Knowledge: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K. & Wecker, C. (2013). ‘Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning’. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishkin, J. S. & Luskin, R. C. (2005). ‘Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion’. Acta Politica, 40(3), 284–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Ford, M. J. (2008). ‘Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning’. Science Education, 92, 404–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, M. J. (2012). ‘A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning’. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foucault, M. (1972). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (1988). ‘“For the miracles”: the prosperity of the Torah world (Yeshivot and Kollels) in Israel’. In Etkes, I. (ed.), Yeshivot and Battei Midrash (pp. 431–42). Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History.Google Scholar

Frijters, S., ten Dam, G. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008). ‘Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking’. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Funkenstein, A. (1989). ‘Collective memory and historical consciousness’. History & Memory 1(1). 5–26.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (1971/1995). Langage et vérité [Language and Truth]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Galston, W. (1995). ‘Liberal virtues and the formation of civic character’. In Glendon, M. A. & Blankenhorn, D. (eds.), Seedbeds of Virtue. New York: Madison Books.Google Scholar

Galston, W. (1998). ‘Civic education in the liberal state’. In Oxenberg Rorty, A. (ed.), Philosophers on Education (pp. 470–80). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Galton, M., Simon, B. & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the Primary School (the ORACLE Project). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D. & Pell, A. (1999). Inside the Primary Classroom: 20 Years On. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S. & Felton, M. (2013). ‘The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse’. Science Education, 97(4), 497–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garuti, R., Boero, P. & Lemut, E. (1998). ‘Cognitive unity of theorems and difficulties of proof’. In Olivier, A. & Newstead, K. (eds.), Proceedings of 22nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 345–52). Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University Press.Google Scholar

Garuti, R., Boero, P., Lemut, E. & Mariotti, M. A. (1996). ‘Challenging the traditional school approach to theorems: a hypothesis about the cognitive unity of theorems’. In Puig, L. & Gutierrez, A. (eds.), Proceedings of 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 2, pp. 113–20). Valencia, Spain: University of Valencia Press.Google Scholar

Gilbert, N. & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gillies, R. M. (2004). ‘The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning’. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gillies, R. M. (2009). Evidence-Based Teaching: Strategies That Promote Learning. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, C. (1999). History, Rhetoric and Proof. Boston: University Press of New England.Google Scholar

Giroux, H. (2008). Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: Beyond the Politics of Greed. Boulder, CO.: Paradigm Publishers, University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar

Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey Press.Google Scholar

Giroux, H. (1994). ‘Border pedagogy and the politics of postmodernism’. In McLaren, P. (ed.), Postmodernism, Post-colonialism and Pedagogy (pp. 37–64). Albert Park, Victoria, Australia: James Nicholas.Google Scholar

Glachan, M. & Light, P. (1982). ‘Peer interaction and learning: can two wrongs make a right?’ In Butterworth, G. & Light, P. (eds.), Social Cognition: Studies in the Development of Understanding (pp. 238–62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Glassner, A. & Schwarz, B. B. (2014). ‘Learning argumentation practices in school with a graphical synchronous discussion tool’. In L. Shedletsky (ed.), Cases on Teaching Critical Thinking through Visual Representation Strategies (pp. 418–45).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glassner, A. & Schwarz, B. B. (2005). ‘The antilogos ability to evaluate information supporting arguments’. Learning and Instruction, 15, 353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Godsay, S., Henderson, W., Levine, P. & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2012). State Civic Education Requirements, Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar

Golanics, J. D. & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). ‘Enhancing collaborative online argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, T. (2013). ‘“It’s in my veins”: identity and disciplinary practice in students’ discussions of a historical issue’. Theory & Research in Social Education, 41(1), 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B. & Porat, D. (2008). ‘Living and dormant collective memories as contexts of history learning’. Learning & Instruction, 18(3), 223–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B., & Porat, D. (2011). ‘Changes in narrative and argumentative writing by students discussing “hot” historical issues’. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A. & Manning, F. (2013). ‘Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment’. In Britt, M. A., Goldman, S. R. & Rouet, J. F. (eds.). Reading – From Words to Multiple Texts (pp. 180–99). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Greeno, J. G., Benke, G., Engle, R. A., Lachapelle, C. & Wiebe, M. (1998). ‘Considering conceptual growth as change in discourse practices’. In Gernsbacher, M. A. and Derry, S. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 442–7). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gregg, M. & Leinhardt, G. (2002). ‘Learning from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute: documenting teacher development’. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 553–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grize, J.-B. (1982). De la logique à l’argumentation [From Logic to Argumentation]. Geneva: Librairie Droz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grize, J.-B. (1996). Logique naturelle et communications. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guerrini, J.-C. & Majcherczak, E. (1999). L’argumentation au pluriel: polyphonie, valeurs, points de vue [Argumentation in the Plural: Polyphony, Values and Viewpoints]. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar

Guiller, J., Ross, A. & Durndell, A. (2008). ‘Peer interaction and critical thinking: face-to-face or online discussion?’ Learning and Instruction, 18, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2002). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1984–1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, 2 vols. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. Lawrence, F.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R. & Schwarz, B. B (2000). ‘The role of surprise and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in computerized environments’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1&2), 127–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R. & Schwarz, B. B. (2002). ‘Between task design and students’ explanations in geometrical activities’. Canadian Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2, 529–52.Google Scholar

Halbwachs, M. (1925/1992). On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (originally published in Les Travaux de L’Année Sociologique. Paris : F. Alcan, 1925).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halldén, O. (1994). ‘On the paradox of understanding history in an educational setting’. In Leinhardt, G., Beck, I. L. & Stainton, C. (eds.), Teaching and Learning in History (pp. 27–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Halmos, P. R. (1985). I Want to Be a Mathematician – An Automathography in Three Parts. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Hamburger, Y. A. & Ben Artzi, E. (2000). ‘The relationship between extraversion and neuroticism and the different uses of the Internet’. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 441–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamesse, J. (1999). ‘The scholastic model of reading’. In Cavallo, G. & Chartier, R. (eds.), A History of Reading in the West (pp. 103–19). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar

Hanna, G. (1995). ‘Challenges to the importance of proof’. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15, 42–50.Google Scholar

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J. & Thrash, T. M. (2002). ‘Revision of achievement goal theory: necessary and illuminating’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harman, G. (1986). Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1991). ‘Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity’. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. & Teasley, S. D. (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 331–48). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar

Hedge, L. (1830). Elements of Logick; or, a Summary of the General Principles and Different Modes of Reasoning. Buffalo, NY: Phinney and Company.Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and Time, trans. Macquarrie, J. & Robinson, E. (1962). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Henningsen, M. & Stein, M. K. (1997). ‘Mathematical tasks and student cognition: classroom-based factors that support or inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning’. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herrenkohl, L. R. & Guerra, M. R. (1998). ‘Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade’. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2004). ‘Computer-mediated discourse analysis: an approach to researching online behavior’. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R. & Gray, J. H. (eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 338–76). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2011). ‘Computer-mediated conversation: introduction and overview’. Language@Internet 8; available at: www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2011/Herring.Google Scholar

Hershkowitz, R. (1990). ‘Psychological aspects of learning geometry’. In Nesher, P. & Kilpatrick, J. (eds.), Mathematics and Cognition (pp. 70–95). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hess, D. & Avery, P. (2008). ‘Discussion of controversial issues as a form and goal of democratic education’. In Arthur, J., Davis, I. and Hahn, C. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy (pp. 506–18). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Hicks, S. R. C. (2004). Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Tempe, AZ: Scholargy Press.Google Scholar

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., et al. (1996). ‘Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: the case of mathematics’. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M. & Vedder, P. (2007). ‘Exploring the links between students’ engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences and appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofer, B. K. (2004). ‘Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: thinking aloud during online searching’. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofstede, G. (2011). ‘Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context’. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1); availavle online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). ‘Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K. & Pressley, M. (1999). ‘Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions’. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horton, M. (1998). The Long Haul: An Autobiography. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Howe, C. (2009). ‘Collaborative group work in middle childhood: joint construction, unresolved contradiction and the growth of knowledge’. Human Development, 52(4), 215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V. & Rattray, C. (2000). ‘Hypothesis testing in science: group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge’. Learning and Instruction, 10, 361–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hron, A., Hesse, F. W., Cress, U. & Giovis, C. (2000). ‘Implicit and explicit dialogue structuring in virtual learning groups’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hynd, C. & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). ‘The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts’. Journal of Reading, 29(5), 440–6.Google Scholar

Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P. & Simpson, A. (2007) ‘Modeling mathematical argumentation: the importance of qualification’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iordanou, K. (2010). ‘Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains’. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iordanou, K. (2013). ‘Developing face-to-face argumentation skills: does arguing on the computer help?’ Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(2), 292–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iordanou, K. & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). ‘Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues’. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I., et al. (2011). ‘Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions’. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jaffe, A. & Quinn, F. (1993). ‘Theoretical mathematics: towards a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoretical physics’. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 29, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jeong, A. & Joung, S. (2007). ‘Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels’. Computers & Education, 48, 427–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jermann, P. & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). ‘Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL scenario’. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & Suthers, D. (eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 205–26). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (1992). ‘Thinking about theories or thinking with theories? A classroom study with natural selection’. International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1975). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition, and Individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W. & Johnsson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction.Google Scholar

Jonassen, D. H. & Kim, B. (2010). ‘Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines’. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 58(4), 439–57.Google Scholar

Jones, K. (2000). ‘Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: students’ interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kapur, M. (2008). ‘Productive failure’. Cognition & Instruction, 26, 379–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kedem, O. (1999). ‘“Temporarily definitive”: the planning, development, production and educational implementation of a series of films and its effects on students’ conceptions and views regarding the nature of science’. PhD dissertation. University of Salford, UK.Google Scholar

Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M. & Resnick, L. B. (2000). ‘Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues’. Cognition and instruction, 18(1), 53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keil, F. C. (2006). ‘Explanation and understanding’. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Keith, S. & Martin, M. E. (2005). ‘Cyber-bullying: creating a culture of respect in a cyber world’. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(4), 224–8.Google Scholar

Kennedy, K. (ed.) (2004). Citizenship Education and the Modern State. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar

Kienhues, D., Bromme, R. & Stahl, E. (2008). ‘Changing epistemological beliefs: the unexpected impact of a short-term intervention’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 545–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). ‘Social psychological aspects of computermediated communication’. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. & Archodidou, A. (2007). ‘Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kincheloe, J. L. & Steinberg, S. (1997). Changing Multiculturalism: New Times, New Curriculum. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar

King, A. & Rosenshine, B. (1993). ‘Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction’. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kingery, J. N., Erdley, C. A. & Marshall, K. C. (2011). ‘Peer acceptance and friendship as predictors of early adolescence’ adjustment across the middle school transition’. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 57(3), 215–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klahr, D. & Nigam, M. (2004). ‘The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning’. Psychological Science, 15, 661–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kleine Staarman, J. & Mercer, N. (2010). ‘The guided construction of knowledge: talk between teachers and students’. In Littleton, K., Wood, C. & Kleine Staarman, J. (eds.), International Handbook of Psychology in Education (pp. 75–104). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1992). ‘The couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: on the relationship between experiment and laboratory in science’. In Pickering, A. (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (pp. 113–38). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kollar, I., Fischer, F. & Slotta, J. D. (2007). ‘Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning’. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kontopodis, M. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2016). ‘Educational settings as interwoven socio-material orderings: an introduction’. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E. & Siegel, J. (2002). ‘Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work’. In Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (eds.), Distributed Work (pp. 137–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Krummheuer, G. (1995) ‘The ethnography of argumentation’. In Cobb, P. & Bauersfeld, H. (eds.), The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, D. (1999). ‘A developmental model of critical thinking’. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, D. & Crowell, A. (2011). ‘Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking’. Psychological Science, 22, 545–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). ‘The development of argument skills’. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2007). ‘Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument’. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, D., Cheney, R. & Weinstock, M. (2000). ‘The development of epistemological understanding’. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L. & Khait, V. (2014). Argue with Me: Developing Thinking and Writing through Dialog. Bronxville, NY: Wessex Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Wang, Y. & Li, L. (2011). ‘Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse’. Discourse Processes, 48, 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M. & Flaton, R. (1994). ‘Historical reasoning as theory: evidence coordination’. In Carretero, M. & Voss, J. F. (eds.), Cognitive and instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences (pp. 377–402). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K. & Shaenfield, D. (2008). ‘Arguing on the computer: a microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment’. Child Development, 79, 1310–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A. & Zavala, J. (2013). ‘Developing norms of argumentation: metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence’, Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laborde, C. (1995). ‘Designing tasks for learning geometry in computer-based environment, the case of Cabri-géomètre’. In Burton, L. & Jaworski, B. (eds.), Technology in Mathematics Teaching: A Bridge between Teaching and Learning (pp. 35–68). London: Chartwell-Bratt.Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lampert, M. (1990a). ‘Connecting inventions with conventions’. In Steffe, L. P. & Wood, T. (eds.), Transforming Children’s Mathematics Education (pp. 253–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Lampert, M. (1990b). ‘When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: mathematical knowing and teaching’. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, Literacy and Learning: Taking Bloom in the Midst of the Whirlwind. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Lee, P. J. (2005). ‘Putting principles into practice: Understanding history’. In Donovan, M. S. & Bransford, J. D. (eds.), How Students Learn: History in the Classroom (pp. 29–78). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Lee, P. J. & Ashby, R. (2000). ‘Progression in historical understanding among students ages 7–14’. In Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P. and Wineburg, S. (eds.), Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History: National and International Perspectives (pp. 199–222). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Leman, P. J. (2010). ‘Gender, collaboration and children’s learning’. In Littleton, K. & Howe, C. (eds.), Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction (pp. 216–39). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Levstik, L. S. (2000). ‘Articulating the silences: teachers’ and adolescents’ conceptions of historical significance’. In Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P. & Wineburg, S. (eds.), Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History: National and International Perspectives (pp. 284–305). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Light, P. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1989). ‘Social context effects in learning and testing.’ In Gellatly, A., Rogers, D. & Sloboda, J.-A. (Eds.). Cognition and Social Worlds (pp. 99–112). Oxford: Oxford Science Publications, University Press.Google Scholar

Limón, M. (2001). ‘On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal’. Learning & Instruction, 11, 357–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lin, T-Z., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Baker, A. R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., et al. (2015). ‘Less is more: teachers’ influence during peer collaboration’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Littleton, K. & Howe, C. (eds.) (2010). Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lulle, R. (c. 1280). The Book of Blaquerne [Le livre de l’ami et de l’aimé}, trans. G. Levis Mano and J. Palau, 1953.Google Scholar

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Maltz, D. & Borker, R. (1982). ‘A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication’. In: Gumperz, J. (ed.), Language and Social Identity (pp. 281–312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mariotti, M. A. (2001). ‘Introduction to proof: the mediation of a dynamic software environment’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1&2), 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mason, L. & Bromme, R. (2010). ‘Situating and relating epistemological beliefs into metacognition: studies on beliefs about knowledge and knowing’. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mason, L. & Scirica, F. (2006). ‘Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding’. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matusov, E. (1996). ‘Intersubjectivity without agreement’. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy-Young, K. & Leinhardt, G. (1998). ‘Writing from primary documents: a way of knowing in history’. Written Communication, 15(1), 25–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McLaren, P. (2015). Pedagogy of Insurrection. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Means, M. L. & Voss, J. F. (1996). ‘Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels’. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 139–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Megill, A. (1989). ‘Recounting the past: “description,” explanation, and narrative in historiography’. American Historical Review, 94, 627–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mehan, H. (1977), ‘Students’ formulating practices and instructional strategies’. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 285, 451–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meloth, M. S. & Deering, P. D. (1999). ‘The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processing during collaborative learning’. In O’Donnell, A. M. & King, A. (eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning (pp. 235–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Mercer, N. (1996). ‘The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom’. Learning & Instruction, 6, 359–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mercer, N. (2008). ‘The seeds of time: why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mercer, N. & Hodgkinson, S. (eds.) (2008). Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. & Dawes, L. (1999). ‘Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom’. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mercer, N., Dawes, R., Wegerif, R. & Sams, C. (2004). ‘Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science’. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 3, 367–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mevarech, Z. R. & Light, P. (1992). ‘Peer-based interaction at the computer: looking backward, looking forward’. Learning and Instruction, 2 (3), 275–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Michaels, S. (1999). ‘A pedagogy for multiliteracies: circle up time in the investigators club as a case in point’. Unpublished manuscript, Jacob Hiatt Center for Urban Education, Clark University, Worcester, MA.Google Scholar

Michaels, S, O’Connor, C. & Resnick, L. B., (2008). ‘Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Michaels, S, O’Connor, C. & Hall, M. W., with Resnick, L. B. (2002). Accountable Talk: Classroom Conversation That Works (3 CD-ROM set). University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A. & Middleton, M. (2001). ‘Performance-approach goals: good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost?’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, M. (1987). ‘Argumentation and cognition’. In Hickman, M. (ed.), Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought (pp. 225–49). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Miyake, N. (1986). Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science, 10, 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moscovici, S. & Zavalloni, M. (1969). ‘The group as a polarizer of attitudes’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2009). Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. (1998). ‘Conversational structure and facework in arguing’. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Naess, A. (1966). Communication and Argument: Elements of Applied Semantics. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Newcomb, A. F. & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). ‘Children’s friendship relations: a meta-analytic review’. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). ‘Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance’. Psychological Review, 91, 328–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nisan, M. & Shalif, Y. (2006). ‘The sense of the worthy as a motivation for studying: the case of the Yeshiva. Interchange, 37(4), 363–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nonnon, E. (1996). ‘Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: le dialogue comme espace d’exploration. [Argumentative activities and elaboration of new knowledge: dialogue as a space of exploration]’. Langue Française, 112, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M. & Chizari, M. (2012). ‘Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): a synthesis of 15 years of research’. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). ‘The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation’. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 286–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). ‘Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument/counter-argument integration in reflective writing’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). ‘Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education’. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M. & Bendixen, L. M. (2003). ‘Approaching and avoiding arguments: the role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits’. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573–95.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M. & Edwards, O. V. (2013). ‘Critical questions and argument stratagems: a framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices.’ Journal of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M. & Kardash, C. M. (2005). ‘The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M. & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). ‘Argument and conceptual engagement’. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M. & Poliquin, A. (2008). ‘Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning’. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (1991). ‘Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement’. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Connor, M. C., Godfrey, L. & Moses, R. P. (1998). ‘The missing data point: negotiating purposes in classroom mathematics, science’. In Greeno, J. & Goldman, S. (eds.), Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science (pp. 89–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. & Jacoby, S. (1997). ‘Down to the wire: the cultural clock of physicists and the discourse of consensus’. Language in Society, 26(4), 479–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ochs, E., Gonzales, P. & Jacoby, S. (1996). ‘When I come down I’m in a domain state: talk, gesture, and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists’. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 328–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oh, S. C. & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). ‘Scaffolding argumentation during problem solving’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Osborne, J. (2010). ‘Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse’. Science, 328, 463–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). ‘Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities’. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–75.Google Scholar

Paul, R. (1990). Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.Google Scholar

Pauli, C. & Reusser, K. (2015). ‘Discursive cultures of learning in (everyday) mathematics teaching: a video-based study on mathematics teaching in German and Swiss classrooms’. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. & Clarke, C. (eds.), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 181–93). Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar

Pedemonte, B. (2007). ‘How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analyzed’? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. N., Farady, M. & Bushey, B. (1991). ‘Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence’. In Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N. & Segal, J. W. (eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1980). Social Interaction and Cognitive Development in Children. London: Academic.Google Scholar

Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2015). The Architecture of Social Relationships and Thinking Spaces for Growth. In Psaltis, C., Gillespie, A. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (eds.), Social Relations in Human and Societal Development (pp. 51–70). Basingstokes (Hampshire, UK): Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pintrich, P. R. & Garcia, T. (1991). ‘Students’ goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom’. In Maehr, M. & Pintrich, P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Goals and Self-Regulatory Processes (Vol. 7, pp. 371–402) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Plantin, C. (1996). L’Argumentation. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar

Plantin, C. (2005). L’argumentation - Histoire, théories, perspectives. [Argumentation – History, Theories, Perspectives]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plantin, C. (2011). Les bonnes raisons des émotions. Principes et méthode pour l’étude du discours émotionné. [The Good Reasons of Emotions: Principles and Method for the Study of Emotional Discourse]. Berne: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pólya, G. (1948) How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Pólya, G. (1954) Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Vol. I: Induction and Analogy in Mathematics, and Vol. II: Patterns of Plausible Inference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Pontecorvo, C. & Girardet, H. (1993). ‘Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics’. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3–4), 365–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pontefract, C. & Hardman, F. C. (2005). ‘The discourse of classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools’. Comparative Education, 41(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2011). ‘Effects of epistemological sensitization on source choices’. Instructional Science, 39(6), 805–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prusak, N., Hershkowitz, R. & Schwarz, B. B. (2012). ‘From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., King, K. & Teppo, A. (2005). ‘Advancing mathematical activity: a practice-oriented view of mathematical thinking’. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rav, Y. (1999). ‘Why do we prove theorems?’ Philosophia Mathematica, 7, 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reisman, A. (2012). ‘Reading like a historian: a document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools’. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C. & Clarke, S. (2015). Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue. Washington, DC: AERA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salmon, M., Michaels, S. & O’Connor, C. (2010). ‘How (well structured) talk builds the mind’. In Preiss, D. & Sternberg, R. (eds.), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development (pp. 163–94). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H. & Holowchak, M. (1993). ‘Reasoning in conversation’. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–64.Google Scholar

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C. & Kuo, L. (2007). ‘Teaching and learning argumentation’. Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A. & Kim, S. (2001). ‘Influence of oral discussion on written argument’. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rigotti, E. & Greco Morasso, S. (2009). ‘Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource’. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices (pp. 9–66). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, And Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roschelle, J. (1992). ‘Learning by collaborating: converging conceptual change’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosebery, A., Warren, B. & Conant, F. (1992). ‘Appropriating scientific discourse: findings from language minority classrooms’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M., Mason, R. A. & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). ‘Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005). ‘Learning to collaborate: an instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rummel, N., Spada, H. & Hauser, S. (2009). ‘Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model’. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sabine, G. H. (1966). A History of Political Theory. London: George G. Harrap.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation’. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sandoval, W. (2003). ‘Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sarason, S. B. (1971). Revisiting the Culture of School and the Problem of Change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, K. (1994). ‘Computer support for knowledge-building communities’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schellens, T., van Keer, H., de Wever, B. & Valcke, M. (2007). ‘Scripting by assigning roles: does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups?’ International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N. & McLaren, B. M. (2010). ‘Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state-of-the-art’. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schubauer-Leoni, M.-L., Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Grossen, M. (1992). ‘The construction of adult child intersubjectivity in psychological research and in school’. In Cranach, M. V., Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (eds.), Social Representations and the Social Bases of Knwledge, Swiss Psychological Society (Vol. 1, pp. 69–77). Berne: Hogrefe & Hube.Google Scholar

Schuitema, J., Ten Dam, G. & Veugelers, W. (2008). ‘Teaching strategies for moral education: a review’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwarz, B. B. (2003). ‘Collective reading of multiple texts in argumentative activities’. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 133–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwarz, B. B. (2009). ‘Argumentation and learning’. In Muller-Mirza, and Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices (pp. 91–126). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwarz, B. B. (2011). ‘“Hevruta” learning in Lithuanian yeshivas: recurrent learning of Talmudic issues’. In Etkes, I., El’or, T., Heyd, M. & Schwarz, B. B. (eds.), Education and Religion: Authority and Autonomy (pp. 279–308). ST. Louis, MO: Magness.Google Scholar

Schwarz, B. B. (2014). ‘Authoritative or authoritarian voices in traditional learning in Jewish institutions’. In Iannacone, A. & Zittoun, T. (eds.), Activities of Thinking in Social Spaces (pp. 129–46). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar

Schwarz, B. B. (2015). ‘Discussing argumentative texts as a traditional Jewish learning practice’. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C. & Clarke, S. (eds.), Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 153–62). Washington, DC: AREA.Google Scholar