Advertisement

Designing Argumentation Tools for Collaborative Learning

  • Gellof Kanselaar
  • Gijsbert Erkens
  • Jerry Andriessen
  • Maaike Prangsma
  • Arja Veerman
  • Jos Jaspers
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)

Abstract

The focus of education has shifted towards working actively, constructively and collaboratively, as this is believed to enhance learning. The studies discussed here deals with the influence of different CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) tools on argumentation processes during collaboration. The purpose of our research is to investigate the effect of computer supported environments and its tools on the final product through differences in the participants’ collaboration processes. In this chapter we will concentrate on students collaboratively taking part in argumentation via CMC systems. Computer environments that support collaborative writing can emphasize both the constructivist and collaborative aspects through its active and interactive nature.

Keywords

Collaborative Learn Transition Diagram Text Quality Constructive Activity Computer Mediate Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andriessen J., Baker M., & Suthers D. (in press). In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting co gnitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments.Google Scholar
  2. Andriessen J., Erkens G., Overeem E., & Jaspers J. (1996). Using complex information in argumentation for collaborative text production. Paper presented at the UCIS’ 96 conference, Poitier, France.Google Scholar
  3. Baker M. (1992). Modeling negotiation in intelligent teaching dialogue. In R. Moyse & M. T. Elsom-Cook (Eds.), Knowledge negotiation. London: Academic Press Limited.Google Scholar
  4. Baker M., De Vries E., & Lund K. (1999). Designing computer-mediated epistemic interactions. In S. P. Lajoie & M. Vivet (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 139–146). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boxtel, C. Van (2000). Collaborative concept learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Chanquoy, L. (1996, October). Connectives and argumentative text: a developmental study. Paper presented at the First International Workshop on Argumentative Text Processing, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  7. Coirier, P., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specificity of argumentative writing. In J. E. B. Andriessen & P. Collier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 1-29). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Erkens, G. (1997). Coo peratief probleemoplossen met computers in het ondenv~s: Het modelleren van cooperatieve dialogen voor de ontwikkeling van intelligence onderw~systemen [Cooperative problem solving with computers in education: Modelling of cooperative dialogues for the design of intelligent educational systems]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Erkens, G., Prangsma, M. E., Jaspers, J. G. M., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Computer supported collaborative and argumentative writing. Utrecht: Utrecht University, ICOISOR Onderwijsresearch.Google Scholar
  10. Glasersfeld, E. von (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80,121-140.Google Scholar
  11. Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher, 20, 5-17.Google Scholar
  12. Henri, F. (1995). Distance learning and computer mediated communication: Interactive, quasi-interactive or monologue? In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (Vol. 128, pp. 145-165). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Kanselaar, G., Jong, T. de, Andriessen, J. E. B., & Goodyear, P. (2000). New technologies. In P R. J. Simons, J. L. van der Linden & T. Duffy (Eds.),. New learning (pp. 49-72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Kanselaar, G., & Erkens, G. (1996). Interactivity in co-operative problem solving with computers. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 185-202). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Petragha, J. (1997). The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The journal of the learning sciences, 2, 235-276.Google Scholar
  18. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). Construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the writing partner. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 289-317). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Salomon, G. (1997, August 26-30). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies. Some issues to be concerned. Invited key-note address presented at the EARLI conference, Athens.Google Scholar
  21. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivistic framework. Educational Technology, 35,31-38.Google Scholar
  22. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons. Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201-229). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995, August). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. Paper presented at the AIEd 95, the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (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. Proceedings of the first european conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp.577-584). Maastricht, the Netherlands, University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  25. Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1995)..Argumentatie. Groningen: Woltersgroep, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Veerman A. L., & Treasure Jones T. (1999). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In P. Coirier & J. E. B. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 203–230). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-Supported collaborative learning through argumentation. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: Print Partners Ipskamp.Google Scholar
  29. Veerman A. L., & Andriessen J.E.B. (1997, September, 4-6). Academic learning & meriting through the use of educational technology. Presented at the conference on Learning & Teaching Argumentation, Middlesex University, London.Google Scholar
  30. Veerman A. L., Andriessen J. E. B., & Kanselaar G. (2000.) Enhancing learning through synchronous discussion. Computers & Education, 34, (2–3),1–22.Google Scholar
  31. Wampold B. E., & Margolin G. (1982). Nonparametric strategies to test the independence of behavioral states in sequential data. Pychological Bulletin, 92, 755–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gellof Kanselaar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gijsbert Erkens
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jerry Andriessen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maaike Prangsma
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arja Veerman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jos Jaspers
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesUtrecht Universitythe Netherlands
  2. 2.TNO Human Factorsthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations