Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Online discussions provide opportunities for learners to engage in argumentative debate, but learners rarely formulate well-grounded arguments or benefit individually from participating in online discussions. Learners often do not explicitly warrant their arguments and fail to construct counterarguments (incomplete formal argumentation structure), which is hypothesized to impede individual knowledge acquisition. Computer-supported scripts have been found to support learners during online discussions. Such scripts can support specific discourse activities, such as the construction of single arguments, by supporting learners in explicitly warranting their claims or in constructing specific argumentation sequences, e.g., argument–counterargument sequences, during online discussions. Participation in argumentative discourse is seen to promote both knowledge on argumentation and domain-specific knowledge. However, there have been few empirical investigations regarding the extent to which computer-supported collaboration scripts can foster the formal quality of argumentation and thereby facilitate the individual acquisition of knowledge. One hundred and twenty (120) students of Educational Science participated in the study with a 2 × 2-factorial design (with vs. without script for the construction of single arguments and with vs. without script for the construction of argumentation sequences) and were randomly divided into groups of three. Results indicated that the collaboration scripts could improve the formal quality of single arguments and the formal quality of argumentation sequences in online discussions. Scripts also facilitated the acquisition of knowledge on argumentation, without affecting the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & 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 (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmien, S., Kollar, I., Fischer, G., & Fischer, F. (2007). The interplay of internal and external scripts—a distributed cognition perspective. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 303–326). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, C. (1984). Blocking learner error states in a training-wheel system. Human Factors, 26(4), 377–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2004). “Split Where Interaction Should Happen,” a model for designing CSCL scripts. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen, & R. Joiner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning (pp. i–ii, CD-ROM). Tübinge: Knowledge Media Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & van den Bossche, P. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donmez, P., Rosé, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning—CSCL 2005 (pp. 125–134). Taipei, TW: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G. (1998). Multiple episode protocol analysis (MEPA 3.0): Department of Educational Sciences. The Netherlands: Utrecht University.

  • Fischer, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2006, April). Challenges of orchestrating computer-supported collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA).

  • Hanley, G. L. (1995). Teaching critical thinking: Focusing on metacognitive skills and problem solving. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 68–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C. (2005). Group work and conceptual growth in science: Taking account of post-group effects. Paper presented at the 11th Biennial Conference of EARLI.

  • Hron, A., Hesse, F.-W., Reinhard, P., & Picard, E. (1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computerunterstützten kollaborativen Lernen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25(1), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Constructive conflict in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 117–137.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1997). Ask to think–Tel why: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1991). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. In G. Denhière & J.-P. Rossi (Eds.), Text and text processing (pp. 107–153). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2005). Internal and external collaboration scripts in webbased science learning at schools. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 Years (pp. 331–340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen, M. (1992). Commenting on written arguments as a part of argumentation skills: Comparison between students engaged in traditional vs on-line study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(4), 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen, M. (1994). Assessing argumentation skills among Finnish university students. Learning and Instruction, 4(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google 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 and Instruction, 14, 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviors and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2, 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nistor, N. (2003). Koalah: A problem-based virtual seminar on the WWW. In R. C. Geibert & S. Hunter-Harvey (Eds.), Web-wise learning: Wisdom from the field (pp. 337–362). Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002, April). Enahancing the quality of on-line discussions. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

  • O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110). Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pithers, R. T. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Salomon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional 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: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. S. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skills. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1996). A theory of argumentive understanding: Relationship among position preference, judgements of goodness, memory and reasoning. Argumentation, 7, 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. (2003). A glance behind the scenes: The state of the art in the study of argumentation. Studies in communication Sciences, 3(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., & Yengo, L. A. (1983). Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (pp. 205–232). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., & van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Narrative structure, information certainty, emotional content, and gender as factors in a pseudo jury decision-making task. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 215–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Munich, Germany. Available at: http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/archive/00001120/01/Weinberger_Armin.pdf.

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating computer-supported collaborative learning with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and Biases in network-based knowledge communication in groups (pp. 15–37). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge—cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191–211). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LMU München, Leopoldstrasse 13, 80802, Munich, Germany

    Karsten Stegmann, Armin Weinberger & Frank Fischer

Authors
  1. Karsten Stegmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Armin Weinberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Stegmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. Computer Supported Learning 2, 421–447 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation