Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts

  • Karsten StegmannEmail author
  • Armin Weinberger
  • Frank Fischer


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.


Computer-supported collaboration scripts Argumentative knowledge construction Online discussion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 53–76.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, C. (1984). Blocking learner error states in a training-wheel system. Human Factors, 26(4), 377–389.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Erkens, G. (1998). Multiple episode protocol analysis (MEPA 3.0): Department of Educational Sciences. The Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  17. 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).Google Scholar
  18. Hanley, G. L. (1995). Teaching critical thinking: Focusing on metacognitive skills and problem solving. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 68–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Hron, A., Hesse, F.-W., Reinhard, P., & Picard, E. (1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computerunterstützten kollaborativen Lernen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25(1), 56–69.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Constructive conflict in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marttunen, M. (1994). Assessing argumentation skills among Finnish university students. Learning and Instruction, 4(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviors and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Pithers, R. T. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 237–249.Google Scholar
  46. Resnick, L. B., Salomon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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:
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karsten Stegmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Armin Weinberger
    • 1
  • Frank Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.LMU MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations