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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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.
Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 53–76.
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.
Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.
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.
Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, C. (1984). Blocking learner error states in a training-wheel system. Human Factors, 26(4), 377–389.
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.
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.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
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.
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.
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.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Constructive conflict in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 117–137.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.
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.
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.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.
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.
Marttunen, M. (1994). Assessing argumentation skills among Finnish university students. Learning and Instruction, 4(2), 175–191.
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.
Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviors and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2, 215–238.
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.
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.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
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.
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.
Pithers, R. T. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 237–249.
Resnick, L. B., Salomon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–630.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.
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.
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.
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.
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–355.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
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
- Computer-supported collaboration scripts
- Argumentative knowledge construction
- Online discussion