Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 127–157 | Cite as

Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams

  • Oliver ScheuerEmail author
  • Bruce M. McLaren
  • Armin Weinberger
  • Sabine Niebuhr
Article

Abstract

During the past two decades a variety of approaches to support argumentation learning in computer-based learning environments have been investigated. We present an approach that combines argumentation diagramming and collaboration scripts, two methods successfully used in the past individually. The rationale for combining the methods is to capitalize on their complementary strengths: Argument diagramming has been shown to help students construct, reconstruct, and reflect on arguments. However, while diagrams can serve as valuable resources, or even guides, during conversations, they do not provide explicit support for the discussion itself. Collaboration scripts, on the other hand, can provide direct support for the discussion, e.g., through sentence openers that encourage high quality discussion moves. Yet, students often struggle to comply with the rules of a script, as evidenced by both the misuse and nonuse of sentence openers. To try to benefit from the advantages of both of these instructional techniques, while minimizing their disadvantages, we combined and experimented with them within a single instructional environment. In particular, we designed a collaboration script that guides student dyads through a process of analyzing, interrelating and evaluating opposing positions on a contentious topic with a goal to jointly generate a well-reasoned conclusion. We compare a baseline version of the script, one that only involves argument diagramming, with an enhanced version that employs an additional peer critique script, implemented with sentence openers, in which student pairs were assigned the roles of a proponent and a constructive critic. The enhanced version of the script led to positive effects: student discussions contained a higher number of elaborative moves and students assessed their argumentation learning more positively.

Keywords

Computer-supported collaborative learning Collaboration scripts Peer-critique script Argumentation Argument mapping Adaptive support 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Toby Dragon, Christoph Fehige, Vera Gehlen-Baum, Dimitra Tsovaltzi, and Florian Zickwolf for advice and support in planning, organizing and conducting the second study. This work was supported by the German Research Foundation under the grant “LASAD—Learning to Argue: Generalized Support Across Domains.”

References

  1. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145–174). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 247–272.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL-1997 (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  9. Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavalier, R., & Weber, K. (2002). Learning, media, and the case of Dax Cowart: A comparison of text, film, and interactive media. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(3), 242–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2009). Engaging collaborative learners with helping agents. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2009) (pp. 365–372). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dansereau, D. F. (2005). Node-link mapping principles for visualizing knowledge and information. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization (pp. 61–81). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Mello, S., Olney, A., & Person, N. (2010). Mining collaborative patterns in tutorial dialogues. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 2(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  17. Doise, W., & Mugny, W. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  18. Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., McLaren, B. M., Harrer, A., Kynigos, C., Wegerif, R., & Yang, Y. (in press). Metafora: A web-based platform for learning to learn together in science and mathematics. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.Google Scholar
  19. Dragon, T., Woolf, B. P., Marshall, D., & Murray, T. (2006). Coaching within a domain independent inquiry environment. In M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, LNCS 4053 (pp. 144–153). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Easterday, M. W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., & Carver, S. M. (2009). Constructing causal diagrams to learn deliberation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(4), 425–445.Google Scholar
  21. Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrell, M. (2008). No computer program required: Even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical-thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy, 31(4), 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL Script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Constructive conflict in the schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41(3), 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2012). How tough should it be? Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills (pp. 169–197). Sharjah: Bentham Science.Google Scholar
  33. Loui, R. P., Norman, J., Altepeter, J., Pinkard, D., Linsday, J., & Foltz, M. (1997). Progress on room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997) (pp. 207–214). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjorné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (2010). Supporting collaborative learning and e-discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
  37. McManus, M. M., & Aiken, R. M. (1995). Monitoring computer-based problem solving. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 307–336.Google Scholar
  38. McManus, M. M., & Aiken, R. M. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills with a group leader computer tutor. Education and Information Technologies, 1, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002). Enhancing the quality of on-line discussions. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego.Google Scholar
  44. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K. D., Lynch, C., & Aleven, V. (2009). Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for making legal arguments with hypotheticals. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(4), 401–424.Google Scholar
  48. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 918–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rittel, H. W. T., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robertson, J., Good, J., & Pain, H. (1998). BetterBlether: The design and evaluation of a discussion tool for education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9(2), 219–236.Google Scholar
  52. Rosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., et al. (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(3), 237–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2013). CASE: A Configurable Argumentation Support Engine. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2013.3.Google Scholar
  57. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Harrell, M., & Weinberger, A. (2011). Scripting collaboration: What affects does it have on student argumentation? In T. Hirashima, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE-2011) (pp. 181–188). Chiang Mai: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.Google Scholar
  58. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2012). Automated analysis and feedback techniques to support and teach argumentation: A survey. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills (pp. 71–124). Sharjah: Bentham Science.Google Scholar
  59. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40–62.Google Scholar
  61. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Suthers, D. D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., et al. (2001). Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park: AAAI/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Suthers, D. D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 1995) (pp. 266–273). Charlottesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  68. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Twardy, C. R. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.Google Scholar
  72. van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., et al. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 54(3), 613–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The principles of judicial proof (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Scheuer
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Bruce M. McLaren
    • 1
    • 2
  • Armin Weinberger
    • 1
  • Sabine Niebuhr
    • 3
  1. 1.Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Clausthal University of TechnologyClausthalGermany
  4. 4.SaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations