Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams

Instructional Science

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 127-157

  Scheuer, Oliver ^a,d   McLaren, Bruce M ^a,b   Weinberger, Armin ^a   Niebuhr, Sabine ^c  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CLAUSTHAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

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

Author keywords

Adaptive support; Argument mapping; Argumentation; Collaboration scripts; Computer supported collaborative learning; Peer critique script

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875545730     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: 15731952     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2. Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145–174). New York: Springer.
3. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science,33(3), 373–400.
4. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,5(3), 259–282.
5. 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 (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
6. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,2(2–3), 247–272.
7. Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,13, 175–193.
8. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL-1997 (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
9. Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction,12(3), 267–300.
10. Cavalier, R., & Weber, K. (2002). Learning, media, and the case of Dax Cowart: A comparison of text, film, and interactive media. Interactive Learning Environments,10(3), 242–262.
11. Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2009). Engaging collaborative learners with helping agents. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2009) (pp. 365–372). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
12. Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). 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,18(4), 321–333.
13. Dansereau, D. F. (2005). Node-link mapping principles for visualizing knowledge and information. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization (pp. 61–81). Berlin: Springer.
14. 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.
15. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning,3(1), 5–23.
16. D’Mello, S., Olney, A., & Person, N. (2010). Mining collaborative patterns in tutorial dialogues. Journal of Educational Data Mining,2(1), 1–37.
17. Doise, W., & Mugny, W. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.
18. Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., McLaren, B. M., Harrer, A., Kynigos, C., Wegerif, R., & Yang, Y. (in press). Metafora: A web-based platform for learning to learn together in science and mathematics. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.
19. Dragon, T., Woolf, B. P., Marshall, D., & Murray, T. (2006). Coaching within a domain independent inquiry environment. In M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, LNCS 4053 (pp. 144–153). Berlin: Springer.
20. Easterday, M. W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., & Carver, S. M. (2009). Constructing causal diagrams to learn deliberation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,19(4), 425–445.
21. Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior,21(3), 463–486.
22. Harrell, M. (2008). No computer program required: Even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical-thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy,31(4), 351–374.
23. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science,38(1), 59–88.
24. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education,48(3), 427–445.
25. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL Script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
26. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
27. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Constructive conflict in the schools. Journal of Social Issues,50(1), 117–137.
28. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher,38(5), 365–379.
29. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
30. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education,41(3), 291–308.
32. Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2012). How tough should it be? Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills (pp. 169–197). Sharjah: Bentham Science.
33. 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). New York: ACM Press.
34. 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,2(2–3), 273–295.
35. 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,20(3), 194–204.
36. McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (2010). Supporting collaborative learning and e-discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,20(1), 1–46.
37. McManus, M. M., & Aiken, R. M. (1995). Monitoring computer-based problem solving. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,6(4), 307–336.
38. McManus, M. M., & Aiken, R. M. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills with a group leader computer tutor. Education and Information Technologies,1, 75–96.
39. 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.
40. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review,7(2), 79–106.
41. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science,19(1), 29–52.
42. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology,33(3), 345–359.
43. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002). Enhancing the quality of on-line discussions. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego.
44. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review,14(1), 71–86.
45. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,23(2), 95–110.
46. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(3), 423–451.
47. Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K. D., Lynch, C., & Aleven, V. (2009). Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for making legal arguments with hypotheticals. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,19(4), 401–424.
48. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80(6), 918–930.
49. Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,23, 453–465.
50. Rittel, H. W. T., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,4, 155–169.
51. 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(2), 219–236.
52. 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,3(3), 237–271.
53. 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.
54. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,5(1), 43–102.
56. Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2013). CASE: A Configurable Argumentation Support Engine. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,. doi:10.1109/TLT.2013.3.
57. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Harrell, M., & Weinberger, A. (2011). Scripting collaboration: What affects does it have on student argumentation? In T. Hirashima, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE-2011) (pp. 181–188). Chiang Mai: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
58. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2012). Automated analysis and feedback techniques to support and teach argumentation: A survey. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills (pp. 71–124). Sharjah: Bentham Science.
59. 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,2(4), 449–478.
60. Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,12, 40–62.
61. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science,40(2), 297–323.
62. 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.
63. Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
64. Suthers, D. D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, 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 Press.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
69. Twardy, C. R. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy,27(2), 95–116.
70. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71. van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers,2(1), 85–90.
72. van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching,53, 41–46.
73. Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., et al. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education,54(3), 613–621.
74. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science,33(1), 1–30.
75. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education,46(1), 71–95.
76. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction,17(4), 416–426.
77. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior,26(4), 506–515.
78. Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The principles of judicial proof (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.