Skip to main content

Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. As authors of this review, Douglas Clark and Victor Sampson worked to ensure accurate representation of this framework.

  2. We kindly thank Deanna Kuhn for her comments and corrections of our description and application of her framework in this section.

  3. We kindly thank Erica de Vries for her comments and corrections of our description and application of her framework in this section.

  4. As an author of this review, Gijsbert Erkens worked to ensure accurate representation of this framework.

  5. We kindly thank Marije van Amelsvoort for her comments and corrections of our description and application of her framework in this section.

  6. We kindly thank Maria Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre for her comments and corrections of our description and application of her framework in this section.

  7. We kindly thank Selma Leitão for her comments and corrections of our description and application of her framework in this section.

  8. We kindly thank Michael Baker for his comments and corrections of our description and application of his framework in this section.

  9. As an author of this review, Armin Weinberger worked to ensure accurate representation of this framework.

References

  • Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • 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 

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007b). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education 29(3), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis (MEPA). Version 4.10. (computer software). The Netherlands: Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.) (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75, 65–104.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 365–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22–25, 43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education, 46(4), 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1993). Philosophy of Biology. Boulder, Westview Press.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Thorley, R. (1992). Classroom conceptual ecologies: contrasting discourse in conceptual change instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Boston 1992.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas B. Clark.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clark, D.B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A. et al. Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 343–374 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7

Keywords

  • Online learning environments
  • Dialogic argumentation
  • Analytic frameworks