Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 297–323 | Cite as

Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment

  • Karsten StegmannEmail author
  • Christof Wecker
  • Armin Weinberger
  • Frank Fischer
Article

Abstract

This study explores the relation between argumentation in online discussions, cognitive elaboration, and individual knowledge acquisition. In a one-factorial experimental design with 48 participants we investigated the effect of an argumentative computer-supported collaboration script (with vs. without) on the formal quality of argumentation, cognitive elaboration, and individual knowledge acquisition in online discussions. Furthermore, we examined the relation between the formal quality of argumentation, cognitive elaboration, and individual knowledge acquisition. Empirical evidence was found that a computer-supported collaboration script can foster formal quality of argumentation as well as corresponding cognitive elaboration. Construction of formally sound arguments is positively related to both deep cognitive elaboration and individual acquisition of knowledge on argumentation.

Keywords

Argumentation Cognitive elaboration Computer-supported collaborative learning Collaboration scripts Online discussion Think-aloud protocols 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

References

  1. Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vasniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present and future? Memory, 10(5/6), 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Grave, W. S., Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2001). Effects of problem-based discussion on studying a subsequent text: A randomized trial among first year medical students. Instructional Science, 29(1), 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dönmez, P., Rosé, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! Proceedings of the international conference on computer supported collaborative learning 2005 (pp. 125–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(3), 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer, F., Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., & Kollar, I. (2011). Online-Diskussionen in der Hochschullehre: Kooperationsskripts können das fachliche Argumentieren verbessern [Online discussions in higher education: Collaboration scripts can improve scientific argumentation]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57(3), 326–337.Google Scholar
  12. Graesser, A. C., & Kreuz, R. J. (1993). A theory of inference generation during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 16, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hron, A., Hesse, F.-W., Reinhard, P., & Picard, E. (1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computerunterstützten kollaborativen Lernen [Structured cooperation in computer-supported collaborative learning]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25(1), 56–69.Google Scholar
  14. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Learning to argue (Vol. 1, pp. 205–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, D., & Goh, W. W. L. (2005). Arguing on the computer. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years (pp. 125–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Litosseliti, L., Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Salminen, T. (2005). Computer-based and face-to-face collaborative argumentation in secondary schools in England and Finland. Education, Communication and Information, 5, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler-Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interaction of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 and Instruction, 14, 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Resnick, L. B., Salomon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y. C., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 237–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, C., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). The worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multi-dimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stein, B. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1979). Constraints on effective elaboration: Effects of precision and subject generation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 769–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wang, Y., Rosé, C. P., Joshi, M., Fischer, F., Weinberger, A., & Stegmann, K. (2007). Context based classification for automatic collaborative learning process analysis. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (Vol. 158, pp. 662–664). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  37. Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school. In A. M. O’Donnel & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 117–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (in press). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.001.
  39. Wecker, C., Stegmann, K., Bernstein, F., Huber, M. J., Kalus, G., Rathmeyer, S., et al. (2010). S-COL: A Copernican turn for the development of flexibly reusable collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005a). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2005b). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! Proceedings of the international conference on computer supported collaborative learning 2005 (pp. 717–726). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karsten Stegmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christof Wecker
    • 1
  • Armin Weinberger
    • 2
  • Frank Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.LMU MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations