Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the relation between argumentation in online discussions, cognitive elaboration, and individual knowledge acquisition. In a one-factorial experimental design with 48 participants we investigated the effect of an argumentative computer-supported collaboration script (with vs. without) on the formal quality of argumentation, cognitive elaboration, and individual knowledge acquisition in online discussions. Furthermore, we examined the relation between the formal quality of argumentation, cognitive elaboration, and individual knowledge acquisition. Empirical evidence was found that a computer-supported collaboration script can foster formal quality of argumentation as well as corresponding cognitive elaboration. Construction of formally sound arguments is positively related to both deep cognitive elaboration and individual acquisition of knowledge on argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vasniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present and future? Memory, 10(5/6), 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grave, W. S., Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2001). Effects of problem-based discussion on studying a subsequent text: A randomized trial among first year medical students. Instructional Science, 29(1), 33–44.

    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. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! Proceedings of the international conference on computer supported collaborative learning 2005 (pp. 125–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(3), 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., & Kollar, I. (2011). Online-Diskussionen in der Hochschullehre: Kooperationsskripts können das fachliche Argumentieren verbessern [Online discussions in higher education: Collaboration scripts can improve scientific argumentation]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57(3), 326–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., & Kreuz, R. J. (1993). A theory of inference generation during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 16, 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hron, A., Hesse, F.-W., Reinhard, P., & Picard, E. (1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computerunterstützten kollaborativen Lernen [Structured cooperation in computer-supported collaborative learning]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25(1), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Lawrence 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litosseliti, L., Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Salminen, T. (2005). Computer-based and face-to-face collaborative argumentation in secondary schools in England and Finland. Education, Communication and Information, 5, 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler-Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interaction of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Salomon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y. C., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (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, 237–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, C., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). The worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multi-dimensional 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    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 

  • Stein, B. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1979). Constraints on effective elaboration: Effects of precision and subject generation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 769–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Rosé, C. P., Joshi, M., Fischer, F., Weinberger, A., & Stegmann, K. (2007). Context based classification for automatic collaborative learning process analysis. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (Vol. 158, pp. 662–664). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school. In A. M. O’Donnel & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 117–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (in press). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.001.

  • Wecker, C., Stegmann, K., Bernstein, F., Huber, M. J., Kalus, G., Rathmeyer, S., et al. (2010). S-COL: A Copernican turn for the development of flexibly reusable collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 321–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005a). 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 and Education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2005b). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! Proceedings of the international conference on computer supported collaborative learning 2005 (pp. 717–726). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Chapter  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, 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LMU München, Leopoldstrasse 13, 80802, Munich, Germany

    Karsten Stegmann, Christof Wecker & Frank Fischer

  2. Saarland University, Campus C5 4, 66123, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Armin Weinberger

Authors
  1. Karsten Stegmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christof Wecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Armin Weinberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frank Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Stegmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A. et al. Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instr Sci 40, 297–323 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation