Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research

Educational Research Review

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 79-106

  Noroozi, Omid ^a   Weinberger, Armin ^b   Biemans, Harm J A ^a   Mulder, Martin ^a   Chizari, Mohammad ^c  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c TARBIAT MODARES UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Argumentation Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning; Argumentative knowledge construction; Collaborative argumentation; Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861186336     PISSN: 1747938X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006     Document Type: Review

References (203)

1. Aleixandre-Jimenez M. Designing argumentation learning environments. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research 2007, 91-115. Springer, New York. S. Erduran, M. Aleixandre-Jimenez (Eds.).
2. Andrew G., McMullen L.M. Interpersonal scripts in the anger narratives told by clients in psychotherapy. Motivation and Emotion 2000, 24(4):271-284.
3. Andriessen J., Baker M., Suthers D. Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments 2003, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
4. Andriessen J. Arguing to learn. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences 2006, 443-460. Cambridge University Press, New York. R.K. Sawyer (Ed.).
5. **Arnseth H.C., Ludvigsen S. Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2006, 1(2):167-185.
6. Asterhan C.S.C., Schwarz B.B. The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology 2007, 99(3):626-639.
7. Asterhan C.S.C., Schwarz B.B. Transformation of robust misconceptions through peer argumentation. Guided transformation of knowledge in classrooms 2009, 159-172. Routledge, Advances in Learning & Instruction series, New York, NY. B.B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, R. Hershkowitz (Eds.).
8. Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In G. Rijlaarsdam, & E. Esperet (series Eds.) & J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.). Studies in writing: (Vol. 5). Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202) Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
9. Baker M. Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. Arguing to learn: confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments 2003, 47-78. Kluwer, Boston. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, D. Suthers (Eds.).
10. Baker M. Intersubjective and intrasubjective rationalities in pedagogical debates: Realizing what one thinks. Guided transformation of knowledge in classrooms 2009, 145-158. Routledge, Advances in Learning & Instruction series, New York, NY. B.B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, R. Hershkowitz (Eds.).
11. *Baker M., Andriessen J., Lund K., Van Amelsvoort M., Quignard M. Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(3):315-357.
12. *Baker M., Lund K. Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1997, 13(3):175-193.
13. Barron B. When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2003, 12(3):307-359.
14. Barth E.M., Krabbe E.C.W. From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation 1982, W. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
15. **Beach R., Doerr-Stevens C. Learning argument practices through online role-play: Toward rhetoric of significance and transformation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 2009, 52(6):460-468.
16. *Beers P.J., Boshuizen H.P.A., Kirschner P.A., Gijselaers W.H. Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 2005, 21(4):623-643.
17. *Beers P.J., Kirschner P.A., Boshuizen H.P.A., Gijselaers W.H. ICT-support for grounding in the classroom. Instructional Science 2007, 35(6):535-556.
18. **Belland B.R., Glazewski K.D., Richardson J.C. A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development 2008, 56(4):401-422.
19. Biggs J.B. Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does 2003, Open University Press, Buckingham. 2nd ed.
20. *Brooks C.D., Jeong A.C. Effect of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborate argumentation. Distance Education 2006, 27(3):371-390.
21. *Buder J., Bodemer D. Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2008, 3(2):123-139.
22. Buckingham-Shum S. The roots of computer supported argument visualization, Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making 2003, Springer-Verlag, London.
23. Carmien S., Kollar I., Fischer G., Fischer F. The interplay of internal and external scripts- a distributed cognition perspective. Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives 2007, 303-326. Springer, New York. F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, I. Kollar (Eds.).
24. Chinn C.A., Anderson R.C. The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record 1998, 100(2):315-368.
25. *Cho K.L., Jonassen D.H. The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development 2002, 50(3):5-22.
26. *Clark D.B., D'Angelo C.M., Menekse M. 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 2009, 18(4):321-333.
27. *Clark D.B., Sampson V. Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education 2007, 29(3):253-277.
28. *Clark D.B., Sampson V. Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2008, 45(3):293-321.
29. Clark D.B., Sampson V., Stegmann K., Marttunen M., Kollar I., Janssen J., Weinberger A., Menekse M., Erkens G., Laurinen L. Online learning environments, scientific argumentation, and 21st century skills. E-collaborative knowledge construction: Learning from computer-supported and virtual environments 2010, 1-39. IGI Global, Hershey, PA. B. Ertl (Ed.).
30. **Clark D.B., Sampson V., Weinberger A., Erkens G. Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19(3):343-374.
31. Clark D.B., Stegmann K., Weinberger A., Menekse M., Erkens G. Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students' argumentation. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research 2007, 217-243. Springer, New York. S. Erduran, M. Aleixandre-Jimenez (Eds.).
32. **Coffin C., O'Halloran A.K. Argument reconceived. Educational Review 2009, 61(3):301-313.
33. Conklin J., Begeman M.L. GIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 1988, 4(6):303-331.
34. Courtney J.F. Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: Toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems 2001, 31(1):17-38.
35. *Crossa D., Taasoobshirazib G., Hendricksc C., Hickeya D.T. Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education 2008, 30(6):837-861.
36. *De Vries E., Lund K., Baker M. Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2002, 11(1):63-103.
37. *De Wever B., Van Keer H., Schellens T., Valcke M. Applying multilevel modelling on content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of the impact of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17(4):436-447.
38. Dillenbourg P. Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL 2002, 61-91. Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen. P.A. Kirschner (Ed.).
39. **Dillenbourg P., Hong F. The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2008, 3(1):5-23.
40. Dillenbourg P., Jermann P. Designing integrative scripts. Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives 2006, Springer, New York. F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, J. Haake (Eds.).
41. **Dillenbourg P., Tchounikine P. Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2007, 23(1):1-13.
42. *Ding N. Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computers and Education 2009, 52(2):509-519.
43. Driver R., Newton P., Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 2000, 84(3):287-312.
44. *Erkens G., Janssen J. Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2008, 3(4):447-470.
45. *Erkens G., Jaspers J., Prangsma M., Kanselaar G. Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior 2005, 21(3):463-486.
46. *Ertl B., Fischer F., Mandl H. Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers and Education 2006, 47(3):298-315.
47. *Ertl B., Kopp B., Mandl H. Fostering collaborative knowledge construction in case-based learning scenarios in videoconferencing. Educational Computing Research 2006, 35(4):377-397.
48. *Ertl B., Kopp B., Mandl H. Supporting learning using external representations. Computers and Education 2008, 51(4):1599-1608.
49. *Ertl B., Reiserer M., Mandl H. Fostering collaborative learning in videoconferencing: The influence of content schemes and collaboration scripts on collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes. Education Communication & Information 2005, 5(2):147-166.
50. Felton M., Kuhn D. The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes 2001, 32(2):135-153.
51. *Fischer F., Bruhn J., Gräsel C., Mandl H. Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction 2002, 12(2):213-232.
52. *Fischer F., Mandl H. Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2005, 14(3):405-441.
53. **Ge X., Land S.M. A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development 2004, 52(2):5-22.
54. Ge X., Yamashiro K., Lee J. Pre-class planning to scaffold students for online collaborative learning activities. Educational Technology and Society 2000, 3(3):1-16.
55. *Gerber S., Scott L., Clements D.H., Sarama J. Instructor Influence on Reasoned Argument in Discussion Boards. Educational Technology Research & Development 2005, 53(2):25-39.
56. *Golanics J.D., Nussbaum E.M. Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2008, 24(3):167-180.
57. Gress L.Z.C., Fior M., Hadwin F.A., Winne H.P. Measurement and assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior 2010, 26(5):806-814.
58. **Hirsch L., Saeedi M., Cornillon J., Litosseliti L. A structured dialogue tool for argumentative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2004, 20(1):72-80.
59. *Ho M.L.C., Rappa N.A., Chee Y.S. Designing and implementing virtual enactive role-play and structured argumentation: Promises and pitfalls. Computer Assisted Language Learning 2009, 22(5):381-408.
60. Infante D.A., Rancer A.S. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 1982, 46(1):72-80.
61. Janssen J., Erkens G., Kanselaar G., Jaspers J. Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning?. Computers and Education 2007, 49(4):1037-1065.
62. *Janssen J., Erkens G., Kirschner P.A., Kanselaar G. Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science 2010, 38(1):59-88.
63. *Jeong A.C. The effects of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers on group interaction and performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 2005, 6(3):100-110.
64. *Jeong A.C. Gender interaction patterns and gender participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. American Journal of Distance Education 2006, 20(4):195-210.
65. *Jeong A.C. The effects of conversational language on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Instructional Science 2006, 34(5):367-397.
66. *Jeong A.C. The effects of intellectual openness and gender on critical thinking processes in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education 2007, 22(1):1-18.
67. *Jeong A.C., Davidson-Shivers G. The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Development and Research 2006, 54(6):543-568.
68. *Jeong A.C., Frazier S. How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology 2008, 39(5):875-887.
69. *Jeong A.C., Joung S. Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers and Education 2007, 48(3):427-445.
70. *Jeong A.C., Lee J. The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology 2008, 39(4):651-665.
71. Jermann P., Dillenbourg P. Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. Learning to argue 2003, 205-226. Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. P. Dillenbourg (Ed.).
72. *Joiner R., Jones S. The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research 2003, 39(8):861-971.
73. **Jonassen D.H., Kim B. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development 2010, 58(4):439-457.
74. Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In NASSP's Student learning styles: Diagnosing and proscribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA. National Association of Secondary School Principles.
75. Kester L., Paas F. Instructional interventions to enhance collaboration in powerful learning environments. Computers in Human Behaviour 2005, 21(4):689-696.
76. *Kim I., Anderson R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel K., Archodidou A. Discourse patterns during children's collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2007, 16(3):333-370.
77. Kirschner P.A. Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction 2002, 12(1):1-10.
78. *Kirschner P.A., Beers P.J., Boshuizen H.P.A., Gijselaers W.H. Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 2008, 24(2):403-420.
79. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C.S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. london:springer.
80. Kirschner P.A., Strijbos J.W., Kreijns K., Beers P.J. Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Education Technology Research & Development 2004, 52(3):47-66.
81. **Kobbe L., Weinberger A., Dillenbourg P., Harrer A., Hämäläinen R., Häkkinen P., Fischer F. Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(2-3):211-224.
82. *Kollar I., Fischer F., Hesse F.W. Collaboration scripts-a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review 2006, 18(2):159-185.
83. *Kollar I., Fischer F., Slotta D.J. Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17(6):708-721.
84. Koschmann T. CSCL, argumentation, and deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning. Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments 2003, Kluwer, Dordrecht. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, D. Suthers (Eds.).
85. Kuhn D. The skills of argument 1991, Cambridge University Press.
86. Kuhn D. Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review 1992, 62(2):155-178.
87. Kuhn D. Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education 1993, 77(3):319-337.
88. Kuhn D. Education for thinking 2005, Harvard University Press.
89. Kuhn D. Do students need to be taught how to reason?. Educational Research Review 2009, 4(1):1-6.
90. Kuhn D., Goh W.W.L. Arguing on the computer. Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! 2005, 125-134. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, T.W. Chan (Eds.).
91. Kuhn D., Iordanou K., Pease M., Wirkala C. Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?. Cognitive Development 2008, 23(4):435-451.
92. Kuhn D., Shaw V., Felton M. Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 1997, 15(3):287-315.
93. Kuhn D., Udell W. The development of argument skills. Child Development 2003, 74(5):1245-1260.
94. Kuhn D., Udell W. Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning 2007, 13(2):90-104.
95. Leitão S. The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development 2000, 43(6):332-360.
96. Leitão S. Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication 2003, 20(3):269-306.
97. *Lemus D., Seibold D., Flanagin A., Metzger M. Argument and decision making in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Communication 2004, 54(2):302-320.
98. *Li D.D., Lim P.C. Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms. Computers and Education 2008, 50(4):1394-1410.
99. *Lin S.J., Crawford Y. Innovations in teaching: An online debate series for first-year pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2007, 71(1):1-8.
100. *Liu C.C., Tsai C.C. An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers and Education 2008, 50(3):627-639.
101. *Lu J., Lajoie S.P. Supporting medical decision making with argumentation tools. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2008, 33(3):425-442.
102. *Lund K., Molinari J., Sejourne A., Baker M. 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 2007, 2(2-3):273-295.
103. *Marttunen M. Electronic mail as a pedagogical delivery system: An analysis of the learning of argumentation. Research in Higher Education 1997, 38(3):345-363.
104. *Marttunen M. Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative interaction in higher education studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research 1998, 18(4):387-405.
105. *Marttunen M., Laurinen L. Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science 2001, 29(2):127-153.
106. *Marttunen M., Laurinen L. Collaborative learning through chat discussions and argument diagrams in secondary school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 2007, 40(1):109-126.
107. *Marttunen M., Laurinen L. Secondary school students' collaboration during dyadic debates face-to-face and through computer chat. Computers in Human Behavior 2009, 25(4):961-969.
108. *McAlister S., Ravenscroftw A., Scanlon E. Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted learning 2004, 20(3):194-204.
109. McCutchen D. Children's discourse skill: Form and modality requirements of schooled writing. Discourse Processes 1987, 10(3):267-289.
110. *Mirza N.M., Tartas V., Perret-Clermont A.P., De Pietro J. Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(2-3):247-272.
111. *Monteserin A., Schiaffino S., Amandi A. Assisting students with argumentation plans when solving problems in CSCL. Computers and Education 2010, 54(2):416-426.
112. **Morgan A. Argumentation, geography education and ICT. Geography 2006, 91(2):11-19.
113. Morris R., Hadwin A.F., Gress C.L.Z., Miller M., Fior M., Church H., Winne P.H. Designing roles, scripts, and prompts to support CSCL in gstudy. Computers in Human Behavior 2010, 26(5):815-824.
114. *Munneke L., Andriessen J., Kanselaar G., Kirschner P. Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior 2007, 23(3):1072-1088.
115. *Munneke L., Van Amelsvoort M., Andriessen J. The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research 2003, 39(1-2):113-131.
116. *Muukkonen H., Lakkala M., Hakkarainen K. Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse?. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2005, 14(4):527-565.
117. Nastasi B.K., Clements D.H. Social-cognitive behaviours and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction 1992, 2(3):215-238.
118. *Noroozi O., Biemans H.J.A., Busstra M.C., Mulder M., Chizari M. Differences in learning processes between successful and less successful students in computer-supported collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and health. Computers in Human Behavior 2011, 27(1):309-318.
119. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., Popov, V., & Chizari, M. (in press). Effects of the Drewlite CSCL platform on students' learning outcomes. In A. Juan, T. Daradoumis, M. Roca, S. E. Grasman, & J. Faulin (Eds.), Collaborative and distributed e-research: Innovations in technologies, strategies and applications (pp. 0-386). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-46660-125-3.
120. Noroozi, O., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., Biemans, H. J. A., Geelen, M. M. E. E., van't Veer, P., et al. (in press). Online discussion compensates for suboptimal timing of supportive information presentation in a digitally supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research & Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9217-2.
121. Nussbaum E.M. How introverts versus extroverts approach small-group argumentative discussions?. The Elementary School Journal 2002, 10(3):183-197.
122. *Nussbaum E.M. The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2005, 30(3):286-313.
123. Nussbaum E.M. Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2008, 33(3):345-359.
124. *Nussbaum E.M. Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument/counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology 2008, 100(3):549-565.
125. Nussbaum E.M., Bendixen L.D. Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2003, 28(4):573-595.
126. *Nussbaum E.M., Edwards O.V. Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2011, 20(3):443-488.
127. *Nussbaum E.M., Schraw G. Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. Journal of Experimental Education 2007, 76(1):59-92.
128. *Nussbaum E.M., Hartley K., Sinatra G.M., Reynolds R.E., Bendixen L.D. Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2004, 30(1-2):113-137.
129. Nussbaum E.M., Kardash C.M. The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology 2005, 97(2):157-169.
130. *Nussbaum E.M., Sinatra M.G., Poliquin A. Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education 2008, 30(15):1977-1999.
131. *Nussbaum E.M., Winsor D.L., Aqui Y.M., Poliquin A.M. Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(4):479-500.
132. O'Donnell A.M., Dansereau D.F. Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning 1992, 120-141. University Press, Cambridge, MA. R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, N. Miller (Eds.).
133. *Oh S., Jonassen D.H. Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2006, 23(2):95-110.
134. Osborne J. Arguing to learn in science. The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 2010, 328(5977):463-466.
135. *Overdijk M., Van Diggelen W. Appropriation of a graphical shared workspace. Organizing principles and their application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2008, 3(2):165-192.
136. Pea R.D. The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2004, 13(3):423-451.
137. Pena-Shaff J., Martin W., Gay G. An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer mediated communication environments. Journal of Interaction Learning Research 2001, 12(1):41-68.
138. *Prinsen F.R., Volman M.L.L., Terwel J. The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology 2006, 38(6):1037-1055.
139. *Prinsen F.R., Volman M.L.L., Terwel J., Van den Eeden P. Effects on participation of an experimental CSCL-programme to support elaboration: Do all students benefit?. Computers and Education 2009, 52(1):113-125.
140. Reznitskya A., Anderson R.C., McNurlin B., Nguyen-Jahiel K., Archodidou A., Kim S.Y. Influence of oral discussion on written argumentation. Discourse Processes 2001, 32(2-3):155-175.
141. *Rourke L., Kanuka H. Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(1):105-126.
142. Rummel N., Spada H. Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2005, 14(2):201-241.
143. Rummel N., Spada H., Hauser S. Learning to collaborate from being scripted or from observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2009, 26(4):69-92.
144. *Schellens T., Valcke M. Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing?. Computers in Human Behavior 2005, 21(6):957-975.
145. *Schellens T., Valcke M. Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education 2006, 46(4):349-370.
146. *Schellens T., Van Keer H., De Wever B., Valcke M. Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge Construction in asynchronous discussion groups?. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(2-3):225-246.
147. **Scheuer O., Loll F., Pinkwart N., McLaren B.M. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2010, 5(1):43-102.
148. *Schwarz B.B., De Groot R. Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(2-3):297-313.
149. *Schwarz B.B., Glassner A. The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(4):449-478.
150. Schwarz B.B., Linchevski L. The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction. The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17(5):510-531.
151. Schwarz B.B., Neuman Y., Biezuner S. Two wrongs may make a right. If they argue together!. Cognition and Instruction 2000, 18(4):461-494.
152. *Schwarz B., Neuman Y., Gil J., Ilya M. Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2000, 12(2):219-256.
153. Slavin R.E. Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analysis and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher 1986, 15(9):5-11.
154. **Spatariu A., Linda F.Q., Hartley K. A review of research on factors that impact aspects of online discussions quality. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 2007, 51(3):44-48.
155. Spelt E.J.H., Biemans H.J.A., Tobi H., Luning P.A., Mulder M. Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review 2009, 21(4):365-378.
156. Spiro R.J., Jehng J.C. Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and muli-dimensional traversal of complex subject matter. Cognition education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology 1990, 163-205. Erlbaum, Hillsdale. D. Nix, R.J. Spiro (Eds.).
157. Stasser G., Titus W. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985, 48(6):1467-1478.
158. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (in press). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive processing in computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5.
159. *Stegmann K., Weinberger A., Fischer F. Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2007, 2(4):421-447.
160. Stein N.L., Bernas R. The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. Foundations of argumentative text processing 1999, 97-116. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. J. Andriessen, P. Corrier (Eds.).
161. Strijbos J.W., Martens R.L., Jochems W.M.G. Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers and Education 2004, 42(4):403-424.
162. *Strijbos J.W., Martens R.L., Jochems W.M.G., Broers N.J. The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research 2004, 35(2):195-229.
163. *Strijbos J.W., Martens R.L., Jochems W.M.G., Broers N.J. The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: A matter of triangulation. Computers in Human Behavior 2007, 23(1):353-380.
164. *Suthers D. Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science 2001, 7(3):254-277.
165. *Suthers D., Hundhausen C. An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2003, 12(2):183-219.
166. *Taasoobshirazi G., Hickey D.T. Promoting argumentative discourse: A design-based implementation and refinement of an astronomy multimedia curriculum, assessment model, and learning environment. Astronomy Education Review 2005, 4(1):53-70.
167. Taboada M., Mann W. Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies 2006, 8(4):567-588.
168. Taboada M., Mann W. Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 2006, 8(3):423-459.
169. **Tchounikine P. Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2008, 3(2):193-233.
170. Teasley S. Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration?. Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition 1997, 361-384. Springer, Berlin. L.B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, B. Burge (Eds.).
171. Toulmin S. The Uses of Argument 1958, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
172. Van Amelsvoort, M. (2006). A space for debate. How diagrams support collaborative argumentation-based learning. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
173. *Van Amelsvoort M., Andriessen J., Kanselaar G. Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2007, 16(4):485-521.
174. *Van Amelsvoort M., Andriessen J., Kanselaar G. How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Computers in Human Behavior 2008, 24(3):1293-1313.
175. Van Bruggen, J. M. (2003). Explorations in graphical argumentation: The use of external representations in collaborative problem solving. PhD dissertation, Open University, The Netherlands.
176. Van Bruggen J.M., Boshuizen H.P., Kirschner P.A. A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making 2003, 25-49. Springer, London. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham-Shum, C.S. Carr (Eds.).
177. Van Bruggen J.M., Kirschner P.A. Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments 2003, 177-204. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, D. Suthers (Eds.).
178. **Van Bruggen J., Kirschner P., Jochems W. External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction 2002, 12(1):121-138.
179. Van Dinther M., Dochy F., Segers M. Factors affecting students' self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review 2011, 6(2):95-108.
180. *Van Drie J., Van Boxtel C., Erkens G., Kanselaar G. Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology. Pedagogy and Education 2005, 14(1):25-41.
181. *Van Drie J., Van Boxtel C., Jaspers J., Kanselaar G. Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behaviour 2005, 21(4):575-602.
182. Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective 1992, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
183. Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1999, 1(4):479-497.
184. Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R., Henkemans F.S. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments 1996, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
185. Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R., Henkemans F.S. Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics 2008, 40(3):475-493.
186. Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R., Kruiger T. Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies 1987, Dordrecht, Foris Publications.
187. Veerman A.L. Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments 2003, 117-143. Kluwer, Amsterdam. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, D. Suthers (Eds.).
188. *Veerman A.L., Andriessen J.E.B., Kanselaar G. Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers and Education 2000, 34(3-4):269-290.
189. *Veerman A.L., Andriessen J.E.B., Kanselaar G. Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science 2002, 30(3):155-186.
190. Voss J.F., Tyler S.W., Yengo L.A. Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. Individual differences in cognition 1983, 204-232. New York, Academic Press. R.F. Dillon, R.R. Schmeck (Eds.).
191. Voss J.F., Van Dyke J.A. Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes 2001, 32(2-3):89-111.
192. Walton D.N. Plausible argument in everyday conversation 1992, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
193. Walton D.N. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning 1996, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
194. Walton D.N. The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese 2000, 123(3):327-346.
195. Walton D.N. Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics 2006, 38(5):745-777.
196. Wegner D.M. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. Theories of group behavior 1987, 185-208. Springer-Verlag, New York. B. Mullen, G.R. Goethals (Eds.).
197. Wegner D.M. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition 1995, 13(3):1-21.
198. *Weinberger A., Ertl B., Fischer F., Mandl H. Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science 2005, 33(1):1-30.
199. **Weinberger A., Fischer F. A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education 2006, 46(1):71-95.
200. Weinberger A., Stegmann K., Fischer F. Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. Computer supported collaborative learning: The next 10 years! 2005, 717-726. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. T. Koschmann, D.D. Suthers, T.K. Chan (Eds.).
201. *Weinberger A., Stegmann K., Fischer F. Learning to argue online. Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human behavior 2010, 28(4):506-515.
202. Weinberger A., Stegmann K., Fischer F., Mandl H. Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge - cognitive, computational and educational perspectives 2007, 191-211. Springer, New York. F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, I. Kollar (Eds.).
203. *Yiong-Hwee T., Churchill D. Using sentence openers to support students' argumentation in an online learning environment. Educational Media International 2007, 44(3):207-218.