Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 343–374 | Cite as

Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments

  • Douglas B. ClarkEmail author
  • Victor Sampson
  • Armin Weinberger
  • Gijsbert Erkens
Original Article


Over the last decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online learning environments to support students engaging in dialogic argumentation. This review examines five categories of analytic frameworks for measuring participant interactions within these environments focusing on (1) formal argumentation structure, (2) conceptual quality, (3) nature and function of contributions within the dialogue, (4) epistemic nature of reasoning, and (5) argumentation sequences and interaction patterns. Ultimately, the review underscores the diversity of theoretical perspectives represented within this research, the nature of dialogic interaction within these environments, the importance of clearly specifying theoretical and environmental commitments throughout the process of developing or adopting an analytic framework, and the role of analytic frameworks in the future development of online learning environments for argumentation.


Online learning environments Dialogic argumentation Analytic frameworks 



This review was partially funded by the US National Science Foundation (REC-0334199: TELS: The Educational Accelerator: Technology-Enhanced Learning in Science), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; FI 792/2-2), and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (no. 411-02-121: CRoCiCL project).


  1. Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. 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). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. 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 (in press).Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Quignard, M., van Amelsvoort, M., Lund, K., Salminen, T., et al. (2002). A framework for analysing pedagogically oriented computer-mediated debates: Rainbow. Cahier de Recherche, Research report IC-3-2002. GRIC–Université Lumière Lyon2, Équipe Interaction and Cognition.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115–143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2005). Analyzing The Quality Of Argumentation Supported By Personally Seeded Discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference June 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007a). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (in press).Google Scholar
  8. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007b). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education 29(3), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2007). Technology for argumentation. S. Erduran & M. Aleixandre-Jimenez (Eds.). Argumentation in Science Education: Recent Developments and Future Directions (in press).Google Scholar
  10. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (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
  11. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers and Education, 46, 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dönmez, 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, Taiwan: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran and M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in Science Education: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis (MEPA). Version 4.10. (computer software). The Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  17. Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2006). Automatic coding of communication in collaboration protocols. Proceedings of the 7th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2006), Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  18. Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Computer support for collaborative and argumentative writing. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.) Powerful Learning Environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157– 176). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  19. Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217–259.Google Scholar
  20. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.) (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Forman, E., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You're going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8, 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hesse, F. (2007). Being told to do something or just being aware of something? An alternative approach to scripting in CSCL. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge - cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 91–98). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior 23(3):1105–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2006). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences June/July, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  27. 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, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Jermann, P., Soller, A., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2001). From mirroring to guiding: a review of state of art technology for supporting collaborative learning. Paper presented at the European Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (EU-CSCL’01), Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Kolodner, J. L., Schwarz, B., Barkai, R. D., Levy-Neumand, E., Tcherni, A., & Turbovsk, A. (1997). Roles of a case library as a collaborative tool for fostering argumentation. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL 97) (pp. 150–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leitão, S. (2007). Arguing and learning. In J. Valsiner, C. Lightfoot, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Advances in cultural psychology—Constructing human development: Vol. 2, Challenges and strategies for studying human development in cultural contexts. Greenwich, CT: InfoAge (in press).Google Scholar
  37. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75, 65–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. Special issue: Computer support for collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22–25, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2006). Assessment of Argument in Science Education: A Critical Review of the Literature. Paper presented at the international conference of the learning sciences conference July 2006. Bloomington, IN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  45. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education, 46(4), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of CSCL argumentative environments for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. In R. Saljo (Ed.), Information Technologies and Transformation of Knowledge (in press).Google Scholar
  49. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2, 3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sober, E. (1993). Philosophy of Biology. Boulder, Westview Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2004). Scripting argumentation in computer-supported learning environments. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen, & R. Joiner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyabable computer-supported learning. Proceedings for the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGS instructional design and learning and instruction with computers (CD-ROM) (pp. 320–330). Tuebingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.Google Scholar
  52. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577–592). Maastricht, The Netherlands: University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  53. Suthers, D. D., Toth, E. E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL ’97: The second international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 272–279). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  54. Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Thorley, R. (1992). Classroom conceptual ecologies: contrasting discourse in conceptual change instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Boston 1992.Google Scholar
  56. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. van Boxtel, C., & Roelofs, E. (2001). Investigating the quality of student discourse: What constitutes a productive student discourse? Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 55–62.Google Scholar
  58. Veerman, A. L. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117–143). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  59. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Munich: Ludwig–Maximilians University.Google Scholar
  61. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46, 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge—Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191–211). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas B. Clark
    • 1
    Email author
  • Victor Sampson
    • 2
  • Armin Weinberger
    • 3
  • Gijsbert Erkens
    • 4
  1. 1.College of EducationArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.University of MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations