Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates

  • Michael BakerEmail author
  • Jerry Andriessen
  • Kristine Lund
  • Marie van Amelsvoort
  • Matthieu Quignard


In this paper we present a framework for analysing when and how students engage in a specific form of interactive knowledge elaboration in CSCL environments: broadening and deepening understanding of a space of debate. The framework is termed “Rainbow,” as it comprises seven principal analytical categories, to each of which a colour is assigned, thus enabling informal visualisation by the analyst of the extent to which students are engaging in interaction relating to potential achievement of its pedagogical goal. The categories distinguish between activities that are part of the prescribed assignment and activities that are not, and between task-focused and non-task-focused activities. Activities focused on managing the interaction itself are distinguished from argumentative interaction. Notably, an operational definition of what it means to broaden and deepen understanding in this case is also provided here. The functional Rainbow analysis is complemented by an analysis of topics and subtopics that enables identification of one form of conceptual deepening of the question. In comparison with existing analysis techniques, Rainbow synthesises much of what is known into a single framework, with a broad theoretical base. The usability and educational relevance of the framework has been validated experimentally across a variety of collaborative learning tasks and communication media. Possible and actual extensions to the framework are discussed, with respect to additional CSCL tools, domains and tasks.


Argumentation Collaborative learning Debate Interaction analysis Methodology Pedagogy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allwood, J., Nivre, J., & Ahlsén, E. (1991). On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics no. 64. University of Gothenburg, Department of Linguistics, Sweden.Google Scholar
  2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J., & Suthers, D. (2003a). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. 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
  3. Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003b). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79–115). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In P. Coirier & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M. J. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations and learning to model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, M. J. (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. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.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. Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Lund, K., & Séjourné, A. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (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.Google Scholar
  9. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Bunt, H. C. (1989). Information dialogues as communicative action in relation to partner modelling and information processing. In M. M. Taylor, F. Néel, & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), The structure of multimodal dialogue (pp. 47–74). The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Bunt, H. C. (1995). Dialogue control functions and interaction design. In R. J. Beun, M. J. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and instruction, modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Natural Dialogue and Interactive Student Modeling (pp. 197–214). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2006). Characteristics of students’ argumentation practices when supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, J. (1992). An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Coirier, P., & Andriessen, J. (Eds.) (1999). Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
  18. Corbel, A., Girardot, J. J., & Jaillon, P. (2002). DREW: A dialogical reasoning web tool, ICTE2002. Int. Conf. on ICT’s in Education. Badajoz, Espagne, 13–16 November 2002.Google Scholar
  19. Corbel, A., Jaillon, P., Serpaggi, X., Baker, M., Quignard, M., Lund, K., et al. (2003). DREW: Un outil Internet pour créer des situations d’apprentissage coopérant [DREW: An internet tool for creating cooperative learning situations]. In C. Desmoulins, C. Marquet, & D. Bouhineau (Eds.), EIAH2003 Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain, Actes de la conférence EIAH 2003. Strasbourg, 15–17 April 2003 (pp. 109–113). Paris: INRP.Google Scholar
  20. De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In H. Spada & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines (pp. 189–205). London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  22. Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  23. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grosz, B. J. (1981). Focusing and description in natural language dialogues. In A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.Google Scholar
  26. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koschmann, T. (2001). Revisiting the paradigms of instructional technology. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 15–22). Melbourne, Australia, Downloaded from the Internet on 7 December 2005:
  28. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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(2), 131–146.Google Scholar
  31. Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moeschler, J. (1985). Argumentation et Conversation : Eléments pour une analyse pragmatique du discours [Argumentation and conversation: Elements for a pragmatic analysis of discourse]. Paris: Crédif-Hatier.Google Scholar
  33. Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument: Elements of applied semantics. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. [Treatise on argumentation: The new rhetoric]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  35. Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Perret, J.-F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41–62). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pilkington, R. M. (1999). analysing educational discourse: The DISCOUNT scheme. Technical Report no. 99/2. CBLU, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from
  37. Quignard, M. (2000). Modélisation cognitive de l’argumentation dialoguée. Etudes de dialogues d’eleves en resolution de probleme de sciences physiques. [Cognitive modelling of argumentation dialogue. Studies of students in physics problem-solving]. Unpublished PhD thesis in Cognitive Science. Grenoble: Université Joseph Fourier.Google Scholar
  38. Quignard, M. (2005). A collaborative model of argumentation in dyadic problem-solving interactions. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  39. Roulet, E. (1991). On the structure of conversation as negotiation. In J. R. Searle, et al. (Eds.), (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 91–99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Schelling, M., Moeschler, J., & Rubattel, C. (1991). L’articulation du discours en français contemporain [The articulation of discourse in contemporary French]. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  41. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards and analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Spada, H., Meier, A., Rummel, N., & Hauser, S. (2005). A new method to assess the quality of collaborative process in CSCL. In T. Koschmann, T.-W. Chan, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The next 10 years! (Proceedings of CSCL 2005, Taiwan) (pp. 622–631). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp. 53–85). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (vol. II, pp. 37–54). London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  45. Suthers, D. (2006). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 1–28. [Final draft at].Google Scholar
  46. Suthers, D., Dwyer, N., Vatrapu, R., & Medina, R. (2007). An abstract transcript notation for analysing interactional construction of meaning in online learning. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawai`i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-40), January 3-6, 2007, Waikoloa, Hawai`i (CD-ROM): Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). [Final draft at].
  47. Suthers, D., Toth, E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL’97) (pp. 272–279). Toronto, accessed on December 10–14, 1997 at
  48. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Trognon, A. (1990). Relations intersubjectives dans les débats [Intersubjective relations in debates]. In A. Berrendonner & H. Parret (Eds.), L’interaction communicative [Communicative interaction] (pp. 195–213). Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  50. Trognon, A. (1993). How does the process of interaction work when two interlocutors try to resolve a logical problem? Cognition and Instruction, 11(3–4), 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trognon, A., & Batt, M. (2003). Comment représenter le passage de l’intersubjectif à l’intrasubjectif ? Essai de Logique Interlocutoire. [How to represent the transition from the intersubjective to the subjective: An essay in interlocutionary logic]. L’Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 32(3), 399–436.Google Scholar
  52. Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences (in press).Google Scholar
  53. van Bruggen, J., & Kirschner, P. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177–203). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  54. Van der Puil, C., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2004). Exploring relational regulation in computer mediated (collaborative) learning interaction: A developmental perspective. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.Google Scholar
  56. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117–143). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  58. Vion, R. (1992). La Communication Verbale: Analyse des Interactions. [Verbal communication: Interaction analysis]. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  59. Voss, J. (Ed.) (2001). Argumentation in psychology [Special issue]. Discourse Processes, 32(2 & 3).Google Scholar
  60. Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyse argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46, 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2007). Transana v2.2x. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin.

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Baker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jerry Andriessen
    • 2
  • Kristine Lund
    • 3
  • Marie van Amelsvoort
    • 4
  • Matthieu Quignard
    • 5
  1. 1.CNRS and University of Paris, MODYCO LaboratoryNanterre CedexFrance
  2. 2.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.ICAR laboratory, CNRSUniversity of LyonLyonFrance
  4. 4.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  5. 5.LORIA, CNRSUniversity of NancyNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations