Skip to main content

Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams

Abstract

During the past two decades a variety of approaches to support argumentation learning in computer-based learning environments have been investigated. We present an approach that combines argumentation diagramming and collaboration scripts, two methods successfully used in the past individually. The rationale for combining the methods is to capitalize on their complementary strengths: Argument diagramming has been shown to help students construct, reconstruct, and reflect on arguments. However, while diagrams can serve as valuable resources, or even guides, during conversations, they do not provide explicit support for the discussion itself. Collaboration scripts, on the other hand, can provide direct support for the discussion, e.g., through sentence openers that encourage high quality discussion moves. Yet, students often struggle to comply with the rules of a script, as evidenced by both the misuse and nonuse of sentence openers. To try to benefit from the advantages of both of these instructional techniques, while minimizing their disadvantages, we combined and experimented with them within a single instructional environment. In particular, we designed a collaboration script that guides student dyads through a process of analyzing, interrelating and evaluating opposing positions on a contentious topic with a goal to jointly generate a well-reasoned conclusion. We compare a baseline version of the script, one that only involves argument diagramming, with an enhanced version that employs an additional peer critique script, implemented with sentence openers, in which student pairs were assigned the roles of a proponent and a constructive critic. The enhanced version of the script led to positive effects: student discussions contained a higher number of elaborative moves and students assessed their argumentation learning more positively.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. We initially planned to integrate argument diagram activities, but ultimately could not do so because of technical problems.

References

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145–174). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 373–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 259–282.

    Article  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 (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: 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, 2(2–3), 247–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL-1997 (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalier, R., & Weber, K. (2002). Learning, media, and the case of Dax Cowart: A comparison of text, film, and interactive media. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(3), 242–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2009). Engaging collaborative learners with helping agents. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2009) (pp. 365–372). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 321–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau, D. F. (2005). Node-link mapping principles for visualizing knowledge and information. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization (pp. 61–81). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  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., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Mello, S., Olney, A., & Person, N. (2010). Mining collaborative patterns in tutorial dialogues. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 2(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., McLaren, B. M., Harrer, A., Kynigos, C., Wegerif, R., & Yang, Y. (in press). Metafora: A web-based platform for learning to learn together in science and mathematics. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

  • Dragon, T., Woolf, B. P., Marshall, D., & Murray, T. (2006). Coaching within a domain independent inquiry environment. In M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, LNCS 4053 (pp. 144–153). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterday, M. W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., & Carver, S. M. (2009). Constructing causal diagrams to learn deliberation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(4), 425–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, M. (2008). No computer program required: Even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical-thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy, 31(4), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41(3), 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2012). How tough should it be? Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills (pp. 169–197). Sharjah: Bentham Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P., Norman, J., Altepeter, J., Pinkard, D., Linsday, J., & Foltz, M. (1997). Progress on room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997) (pp. 207–214). New York: ACM Press.

  • Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjorné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (2010). Supporting collaborative learning and e-discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20(1), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • McManus, M. M., & Aiken, R. M. (1995). Monitoring computer-based problem solving. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 307–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • McManus, M. M., & Aiken, R. M. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills with a group leader computer tutor. Education and Information Technologies, 1, 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002). Enhancing the quality of on-line discussions. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego.

  • O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110.

    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 

  • Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K. D., Lynch, C., & Aleven, V. (2009). Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for making legal arguments with hypotheticals. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(4), 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 918–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 453–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. T., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J., Good, J., & Pain, H. (1998). BetterBlether: The design and evaluation of a discussion tool for education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9(2), 219–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., et al. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 237–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2013). CASE: A Configurable Argumentation Support Engine. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,. doi:10.1109/TLT.2013.3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Harrell, M., & Weinberger, A. (2011). Scripting collaboration: What affects does it have on student argumentation? In T. Hirashima, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE-2011) (pp. 181–188). Chiang Mai: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2012). Automated analysis and feedback techniques to support and teach argumentation: A survey. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills (pp. 71–124). Sharjah: Bentham Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., et al. (2001). Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park: AAAI/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 1995) (pp. 266–273). Charlottesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Twardy, C. R. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53, 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., et al. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 54(3), 613–621.

    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., & 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., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The principles of judicial proof (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Toby Dragon, Christoph Fehige, Vera Gehlen-Baum, Dimitra Tsovaltzi, and Florian Zickwolf for advice and support in planning, organizing and conducting the second study. This work was supported by the German Research Foundation under the grant “LASAD—Learning to Argue: Generalized Support Across Domains.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Scheuer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scheuer, O., McLaren, B.M., Weinberger, A. et al. Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instr Sci 42, 127–157 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5

Keywords

  • Computer-supported collaborative learning
  • Collaboration scripts
  • Peer-critique script
  • Argumentation
  • Argument mapping
  • Adaptive support