Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 43-102

  Scheuer, Oliver ^a   Loll, Frank ^b   Pinkwart, Niels ^b   McLaren, Bruce M ^a  

^a GERMAN RESEARCH CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DFKI   (Germany)

^b CLAUSTHAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Analysis and feedback; Argument visualization; Argumentation systems; Collaborative argumentation; Empirical studies of argumentation systems

Indexed keywords

EID: 76649137969     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). Designing effective multi-representational learning environments, Technical Report number 58. ESRC centre for research in development, instruction and training, University of Nottingham, UK.
2. Aleven, V., & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples: Empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In B. du Boulay & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 1997) (pp. 87-94). Amsterdam: IOS.
3. Allwood, J. (2002). Bodily communication dimensions of expression and content. In B. Granström, D. House, & I. Karlsson (Eds.), Multimodality in language and speech systems (pp. 7-26). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
4. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern information retrieval. Addison Wesley.
6. Baghaei, N., Mitrovic, A., & Irwin, W. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(2-3), 159-190.
7. Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
8. Belgiorno, F., De Chiara, R., Manno, I., Overdijk, M., Scarano, V., & van Diggelen, W. (2008). Face to face cooperation with CoFFEE. In P. Dillenbourg & M. Specht (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2008) (pp. 49-57). Berlin: Springer.
9. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 1997) (pp. 10-19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
10. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
11. Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2-3), 125-165.
12. Bex, F., van den Braak, S., Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., Verheij, B., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2007). Sense-making software for crime investigation: How to combine stories and arguments? Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1-4), 145-168.
13. Bouyias, Y. N., Demetriadis, S. N., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2008). iArgue: A web-based argumentation system supporting collaboration scripts with adaptable fading. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2008) (pp. 477-479). IEEE Computer Society Press.
14. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press.
15. Buckingham Shum, S. J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267-300.
16. Buckingham Shum, S. J., Uren, V., Li, G., Domingue, J., Motta, E., & Mancini, C. (2002). Designing representational coherence into an infrastructure for collective sense-making. Invited discussion paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Infrastructures for Distributed Collective Practices.
17. Buckingham Shum, S. J., Selvin, A. M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C. B., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 111-132). Berlin: Springer.
18. Bull, S., Brna, P., & Pain, H. (1995). Extending the scope of the student model. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5(1), 45-65.
19. Carr, C. S. (2003). Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 75-96). London: Springer.
20. Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., & Loui, R. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4), 337-383.
21. Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., et al. (2007). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293-316.
22. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426.
23. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '88) (pp. 140-152). New York: ACM.
24. Corbel, A., Girardot, J. J., & Jaillon, P. (2002). DREW: A dialogical reasoning web tool. In A. Méndez-Vilas & J. A. Mesa González (Eds.), Information Society and Education: Monitoring a Revolution, Proceedings of International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Education (ICTE 2002) (pp. 516-521).
25. de Groot, R., Drachman, R., Hever, R., Schwarz, B., Hoppe, U., Harrer, A., et al. (2007). Computer supported moderation of e-discussions: The ARGUNAUT approach. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Mice, minds, and society-The computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) Conference 2007, (pp. 165-167). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
26. Devedzic, V., & Harrer, A. (2005). Software patterns in ITS architectures. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 63-94.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 3(1), 5-23.
30. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier.
31. Doise, W., & Mugny, W. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.
32. Easterday, M. W., Aleven, V., & Scheines, R. (2007). 'Tis better to construct or to receive? Effect of diagrams on analysis of social policy. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2007) (pp. 93-100). Amsterdam: IOS.
33. Feng, D., Kim, J., Shaw, E., & Hovy, E. (2006). Towards modeling threaded discussions through ontology-based analysis. In Proceedings of 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006) (pp. 1289-1294).
34. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. E., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design patterns. Elements of reusable object-oriented software. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman.
35. Goldberg, D., Nichols, D., Oki, B. M., & Terry, D. (1992). Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Communications of the ACM, 35(12), 61-70.
36. Goodman, B. A., Linton, F. N., Gaimari, R. D., Hitzeman, J. M., Ross, H. J., & Zarrella, G. (2005). Using dialogue features to predict trouble during collaborative learning. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(1-2), 85-134.
37. Gordon, T. F., & Karacapilidis, N. (1997). The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1997) (pp. 10-18), New York: ACM.
38. Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 875-896.
39. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199-220.
40. Hair, D. C. (1991). Legalese: A legal argumentation tool. SIGCHI Bulletin, 23(1), 71-74.
41. Harrer, A., & Devedzic, V. (2002). Design and analysis patterns in its architectures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE'02) (pp. 523-527). Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press.
42. Herman, I., & Marshall, M. S. (2000). GraphXML-an xml based graph interchange format. Available online: http://www. cwi. nl/ftp/CWIreports/INS/INS-R0009.pdf, last visited: 2009-10-29.
43. Hoppe, H. U., Giemza, A., Wichmann, A., Krauß, M., Baurens, B., Rigolleau, B., et al. (2008). Combined deliverable D3. 2b-moderator's interface and D4. 2b-The off-line tracer. Part A (documentation). Argunaut project deliverable. Available online: http://www. argunaut. org/argunaut-d3-2b-d4-2b-PartA. pdf, last visited: 2009-10-29.
44. Israel, J., & Aiken, R. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning with an intelligent web-based system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17, 3-40.
45. Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25-43.
46. Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The Hermes system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259-277.
47. Karacapilidis, N., Tzagarakis, M., Karousos, N., Gkotsis, G., Kallistros, V., Christodoulou, S., et al. (2009). Tackling cognitively-complex collaboration with CoPe_it! International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 4(3), 22-38.
48. 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.
49. Kim, J., Shaw, E., Ravi, S., Tavano, E., Arromratana, A., & Sarda, P. (2008). Scaffolding on-line discussions with past discussions: An analysis and pilot study of pedabot. In B. P. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference (ITS-08) (pp. 343-352). Berlin: Springer.
50. Klein, M., & Iandoli, L. (2008). Supporting collaborative deliberation using a large-scale argumentation system: The MIT collaboratorium, MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4691-08. Available online: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1099082, last visited: 2009-11-26.
51. Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyian inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 261-269). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
52. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Kumar, R., Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y.-C., Joshi, M., & Robinson, A. (2007). Tutorial dialogue as adaptive collaborative learning support. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2007) (pp. 383-390). Amsterdam: IOS.
54. Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems. Working paper #131. Institut für Grundlagen der Planung I. A. University of Stuttgart, Germany. Available online: http://www. cc. gatech. edu/~ellendo/rittel/rittel-issues. pdf, last visited: 2009-10-29.
55. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360.
56. Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Hsi, S. (1998). Using the Internet to enhance student understanding of science: The knowledge integration environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 4-38.
57. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
58. Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2009). Using collaborative filtering algorithms as eLearning tools. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2009). IEEE Computer Society Press.
59. Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2009). Towards a flexible intelligent tutoring system for argumentation. In I. Adeo, N. Chen, Kinshuk, D. Sampson, & L. Zaitseva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 647-648). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.
60. 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). ACM.
61. Lowrance, J. D. (2007). Graphical manipulation of evidence in structured arguments. Law, Probability & Risk, 6(1-4), 225-240.
62. Lowrance, J., Harrison, I., Rodriguez, A., Yeh, E., Boyce, T., Murdock, J., et al. (2008). Template-based structured argumentation. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 307-333). London: Springer.
63. Lund, K. (2007a). The importance of gaze and gesture in interactive multimodal explanation. Language Resources and Evaluation, 41(3-4), 289-303.
64. 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 (ijCSCL), 2(2-3), 273-295.
65. Lynch, C., Ashley, K., Aleven, V., & Pinkwart, N. (2006). Defining ill-defined domains; a literature survey. In V. Aleven, K. Ashley, C. Lynch, & N. Pinkwart (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains at the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2008) (pp. 1-10). Jhongli: National Central University.
66. Malone, T. W., & Klein, M. (2007). Harnessing collective intelligence to address global climate change. Innovations, 2(3), 15-26.
67. Marshall, C. C., Halasz, F. G., Rogers, R. A., & Janssen, W. C. (1991). Aquanet: A hypertext tool to hold your knowledge in place. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual ACM conference on Hypertext (HYPERTEXT '91) (pp. 261-275). New York: ACM.
68. 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: Special Issue: Developing Dialogue for Learning, 20(3), 194-204.
69. McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (in press). Supporting collaborative learning and e-discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
70. McManus, M., & Aiken, R. (1995). Monitoring computer-based problem solving. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 307-336.
71. Muller Mirza, N., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.
72. Muller Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & de Pietro, J.-F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(2-3), 247-272.
73. 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.
74. Murray, T., Woolf, B., & Marshall, D. (2004). Lessons learned from authoring for inquiry learning: A tale of authoring tool evolution. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2004) (pp. 197-206). Berlin: Springer.
75. Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D. L., Aqui, Y. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2007). Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International Journal on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(4), 479-500.
76. Okada, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2008). Evidence-based dialogue maps as a research tool to investigate the quality of school pupils' scientific argumentation. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 291-315.
77. Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006a). Toward legal argument instruction with graph grammars and collaborative filtering techniques. In M. Ikeda, K. Ashley, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2006) (pp. 227-236). Berlin: Springer.
78. Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006b). Schwachstellenermittlung und Rückmeldungsprinzipen in einem intelligenten Tutorensystem für juristische Argumentation. In M. Mühlhäuser, G. Rößling & R. Steinmetz (Eds.), GI lecture notes in informatics-Tagungsband der 4. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik.
79. Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2007). Evaluating legal argument instruction with graphical representations using largo. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2007) (pp. 101-108). Amsterdam: IOS.
80. Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., Lynch, C., & Aleven, V. (2008a). Graph grammars: An ITS technology for diagram representations. In D. Wilson & H. C. Lane (Eds.), Proceedings of 21st International FLAIRS Conference (FLAIRS-21) (pp. 433-438). Coconut Grove: AAAI.
81. Pinkwart, N., Lynch, C., Ashley, K., & Aleven, V. (2008b). Re-evaluating Largo in the classroom: Are diagrams better than text for teaching argumentation skills? In B. P. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2008) (pp. 90-100). Berlin: Springer.
82. Rabiner, L. R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 257-286.
83. Ranney, M., & Schank, P. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S. Read & L. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 245-274). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
84. Ravenscroft, A., Sagar, M., Baur, E., & Oriogun, P. (2008). Ambient pedagogies, meaningful learning and social software. In S. Hatzipanagos & S. Warburton (Eds.), Social software & developing community ontologies (pp. 432-450). Hershey: IGI Global.
85. Ravi, S., & Kim, J. (2007). Profiling student interactions in threaded discussions with speech act classifiers. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2007) (pp. 357-364). Amsterdam: IOS.
86. Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 14(3-4), 961-980.
87. Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures open constraints and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M. W. Shelly & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgment and optimality (pp. 282-315). New York: Wiley.
88. Rittel, H. W. T., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
89. 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, 219-236.
90. Rolf, B., & Magnusson, C. (2002). Developing the art of argumentation. A software approach. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Argumentation. International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA-2002) (pp. 919-926).
91. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276.
92. 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 (ijCSCL), 3(3), 237-271.
93. Roth, W.-M. (2000). From gesture to scientific language. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(11), 1683-1714.
94. 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.
95. Schank, P. (1995). Computational tools for modeling and aiding reasoning: Assessing and applying the theory of explanatory coherence. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. (University Microfilms No. 9621352).
96. Schellens, T., van Keer, H., de Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(2-3), 225-246.
97. Schneider, D. C., Voigt, C., & Betz, G. (2007). ArguNet-a software tool for collaborative argumentation analysis and research. Paper presented at the 7th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA VII).
98. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Fostering argumentation in social and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227-260). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
99. 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 (ijCSCL), 2(4), 449-478.
100. Sebastiani, F. (2002). Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(1), 1-47.
101. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
102. Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40-62.
103. Soller, A. (2004). Computational modeling and analysis of knowledge sharing in collaborative distance learning. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 14(4), 351-381.
104. Soller, A., Goodman, B. A., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (1998). Promoting effective peer interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. In B. P. Goettl, H. M. Halff, C. L. Redfield, & V. J. Shute (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 1998) (pp. 186-195). Berlin: Springer.
105. Soller, A., Monés, A. M., Jermann, P., & Mühlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 261-290.
106. Stahl, G. (2007). CSCL and its flash themes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(4), 359-362.
107. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(4), 421-447.
108. Suthers, D. D. (2001). Architectures for computer supported collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001) (pp. 25-28), Madison.
109. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
110. 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.
111. 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.
112. Suthers, D. D., Toth, E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 1997) (pp. 272-279). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
113. Suthers, D. D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E. 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.
114. 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.
115. Taentzer, G. (2001). Towards common exchange formats for graphs and graph transformation systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 44(4), 28-40.
116. Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House Trade.
117. Tedesco, P. (2003). MArCo: Building an artificial conflict mediator to support group planning interactions. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 117-155.
118. Thagard, P. (2006). Evaluating explanations in law, science, and everyday life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(3), 141-145.
119. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
120. Tsovaltzi, D., Rummel, N., McLaren, B. M., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., et al. (2010). Extending a virtual chemistry laboratory with a collaboration script to promote conceptual learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning (IJTEL), 2(1-2), 91-110.
121. van den Braak, S., & Vreeswijk, G. (2006). AVER: Argument visualization for evidential reasoning. In T. M. van Engers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2006) (pp. 151-156). Amsterdam: IOS.
122. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
123. van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85-90.
124. van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer-supported argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham-Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 97-115). London: Springer.
125. van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for rationale. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1-4), 23-42.
126. VanLehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(3), 227-265.
127. Vizcaino, A., Contreras, J., Favela, J., & Prieto, M. (2000). An adaptive, collaborative environment to develop good habits in programming. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2000) (pp. 262-271). Berlin: Springer.
128. Verheij, B. (2003). Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 291-324.
129. Voss, J. F. (2006). Toulmin's model and the solving of ill-structured problems. In D. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 303-311). Berlin: Springer.
130. Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
131. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
132. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71-95.
133. Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems. Los Altos: Kaufmann.
134. Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: The University Press.
135. Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The principles of judicial proof (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
136. Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Kaufmann.
137. Woolf, B. P., Murray, T., Marshall, D., Dragon, T., Kohler, K., Mattingly, M., et al. (2005). Critical thinking environments for science education. In C. K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (AI-ED 2005) (pp. 702-709). Amsterdam: IOS.