Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions

  • E. Michael Nussbaum
  • Denise L. Winsor
  • Yvette M. Aqui
  • Anne M. Poliquin
Article

Abstract

We examine the effect of online Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs) on the quality of students’ argumentation during asynchronous, online discussions. With AVDs, students develop arguments on both sides of a controversial issue and then develop an integrated, overall final conclusion. In this study, students used AVDs individually before composing discussion notes, and then—at the end of the discussion—jointly created a group AVD using Wiki technology. Compared to a control group, the experimental intervention was found to significantly enhance the integration of arguments and counterarguments (specifically, compromises) and fostered opinion change. For AVDs to be effective, however, it was found to be necessary to include specific scaffolds on how to evaluate argument strength and/or to provide practice and feedback in using the AVDs.

Keywords

Argument Argumentation Computer-mediated communication Computer-supported collaborative learning Cooperative learning Critical thinking Discussion groups Group discussion Internet Web-based instruction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andriessen, J. (2006a). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andriessen, J. (2006b). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 197–230).Google Scholar
  5. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). 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). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, M. (1999). Argument and constructive integration. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.) & J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–201). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, M. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations, and learning to model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien, The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303–324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. 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. 47–78). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bell, P. (2002). Using argumentation map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449–505). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designs for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bielman, V. A. (2000). Building community in a virtual classroom: Construction of a classroom culture in a postsecondary distance educational classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, R. A. J., & Renshaw, O. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  16. Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355–383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to empirical data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M. & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourese in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–97.Google Scholar
  21. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effect of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 50, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Choi, I., & Land, S. M. (2006, April). Instructor modeling and online guidance for peer-questioning during online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argument as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Science, 11, 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 4, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ebenezer, J., & Puvirajah, A. (2005). WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 561–589.Google Scholar
  29. Eemeren, van F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  30. Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Ferrarri, M., & Elik, N. (2003). Influences on intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 21–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical and historical essays in logical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Frumkin, J. (2005). The Wiki and the digital library. OCLC Systems & Services, 21, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
  35. Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2007). Enhancing collaborative argumentation in an online environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (in press).Google Scholar
  36. Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Halford, G. S., & McCredden, J. E. (1998). Cognitive science questions for cognitive development: The concepts of learning, analogy, and capacity. Learning and Instruction, 8, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999, December). Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education course. First Monday. 4(12). Retrieved February 26, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_12/index.html.
  41. Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1997). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60, 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1995). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  45. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jonassen, D., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated vs face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006, April). A functional approach to nature of science: Using epistemological understandings to construct and evaluate evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  49. 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), 333–370.Google Scholar
  50. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm of cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 261–269). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  54. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lampert, M. L., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of human development in education (pp. 731–764). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 567–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20, 269–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mallin, I., & Anderson, K. V. (2000). Inviting constructive argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36, 120–133.Google Scholar
  61. Marttunen, M. (1998). Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative interaction in higher education studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  63. Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  64. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6:359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). How introverts versus extraverts approach small-group argumentative discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nussbaum, E. M. (2006, April). Argumentation vee Diagrams enhance argument/counterargument integration in students’ writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  70. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. M. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nussbaum, E. M., & Jacobson, T. E. (2004, July). Reasons that students avoid intellectual arguments. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  72. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument/counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  76. Pilkington, R., & Walker, A. (2003). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online, synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rabash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., Prosser, B. (2005). A user’s guide to MLwiN (ver. 2). London, England: Centre for Multilevel Modeling, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  79. Rapoza, J. (2004). Macromedia tool used to Captivate. eWeek, 21(48), 60.Google Scholar
  80. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influences of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  86. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, A. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right. If they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  88. Teichert, M. A., & Stacy, A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 464–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organize chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 606–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of comp9uter mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers in Education, 34, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  93. van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177–204). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  94. Vorobej, M. (2006). A theory of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Voss, J. F. (1988). Problem-solving and reasoning in ill-structured problems. In T. H. M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  96. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  97. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  98. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Willard, C. A. (1976). On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments. Communication Monographs, 43, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Williams, S. W., Watkins, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis M., Dymock, D. (2001). Facilitating cross-cultural online discussions groups: Implications for practice. Distance Education, 22, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Michael Nussbaum
    • 1
  • Denise L. Winsor
    • 1
  • Yvette M. Aqui
    • 1
  • Anne M. Poliquin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations