Promoting Argumentation Competence: Extending from First- to Second-Order Scaffolding Through Adaptive Fading

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 153-176

  Noroozi, Omid ^a,b   Kirschner, Paul A ^c,d   Biemans, Harm J A ^b   Mulder, Martin ^b  

^a TARBIAT MODARES UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Adaptive education; Argumentation; Fading; Learning; Scaffolding

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013073393     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in higher education. Improving practice through theory and research. New York: Routledge.
2. Andrew, G., & McMullen, L. M. (2000). Interpersonal scripts in the anger narratives told by clients in psychotherapy. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 271–284.
3. 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.
4. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Transformation of robust misconceptions through peer argumentation. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 159–172). London: Routledge.
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. 47–78). Boston: Kluwer.
6. Baker, M. (2009). Intersubjective and intrasubjective rationalities in pedagogical debates: Realizing what one thinks. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Guided transformation of knowledge in classrooms (pp. 145–158). New York: Routledge, Advances in Learning & Instruction Series.
7. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.
8. Biemans, H. J. A., & Simons, P. R. J. (1996). Computer-assisted instruction and conceptual change. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 81–108.
9. Bouyias, Y., & Demetriadis, S. (2012). Peer-monitoring vs. micro-script fading for enhancing knowledge acquisition when learning in computer-supported argumentation environments. Computers and Education, 59(2), 236–249.
10. Carmien, S., Kollar, I., Fischer, G., & Fischer, F. (2007). The interplay of internal and external scripts- a distributed cognition perspective. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 303–326). New York: Springer.
11. Cheng, K. H., Hou, H. T., & Wu, S. Y. (2014). Exploring students’ emotional responses and participation in an online peer assessment activity: a case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 271–287.
12. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline. Computers and Education, 48(3), 409–426.
13. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). 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, 17(4), 436–447.
14. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
15. 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 (ITS-06) (pp. 144–153). Berlin: Springer.
16. Eger, N., Ball, L.J., Stevens, R., & Dodd, J. (2007). Cueing retrospective verbal reports in usability testing through eye-movement replay. In L.J. Ball, M.A. Sasse, C. Sas, T.C. Ormerod, A. Dix, P. Bagnall, & T. McEwan (Eds.), People and Computers XXI - HCI..but not as we know it: Proceedings of HCI 2007 - Volume 1 (129-137). Swindon, UK: The British Computer Society.
17. Fastré, G. M. J., van der Klink, M. R., Amsing-Smit, P., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2014). Assessment criteria for competency-based education: a study in nursing education. Instructional Science, 42(6), 971–994.
18. Fastré, G. M., van der Klink, M., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). The effects of performance-based assessment criteria on student performance and self-assessment skills. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(4), 517–532.
19. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.
20. Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful level in teams: a review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144.
21. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.
22. Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: the students’ views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 53–69.
23. Hernandez-Leo, D., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Villasclaras-Fernandez, E. D., Asensio-Perez, J. I., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2010). A multicase study for the evaluation of a pattern-based visual design process for collaborative learning. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 21(6), 313–331.
24. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 146–154.
25. Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.
26. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Learning to argue (pp. 205–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
27. Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387–406.
28. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.
29. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 373–392.
30. King. A, (2002) Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote High-Level Cognitive Processing. Theory Into Practice 41(1), 33–39.
31. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham-Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
32. Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8.
33. Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.
34. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.
35. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts-a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.
36. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, D. J. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721.
37. Kollar, I., Pilz, F., & Fischer, F. (2014). Why it is hard to make use of new learning spaces: a script perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 7–18.
38. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
39. Kumar, R., Rosé, C., 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 (AIED 2007) (pp. 383-390). Amsterdam: IOS.
40. Lee, H.S., & Songer N.B. (2004). Longitudinal knowledge development: scaffolds for inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
41. Leutner, D. (2000). Double-fading support—a training approach to complex software systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(4), 347–357.
42. McAlister, S., Ravenscroftw, 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.
43. 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.
44. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
45. Mu, J., Stegmann, K., Mayfield, E., Ros’e, C., & Fischer, F. (2012). The ACODEA framework: Developing segmentation and classification schemes for fully automatic analysis of online discussions. IJCSCL, 7(2), 285–305.
46. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401.
47. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2011). 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 Behaviour, 27(1), 309–318.
48. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education, 31(1), 20–31.
49. Noroozi, O., & McAlister, S. (2017). Software tools for scaffolding argumentation competence development. In M. Mulder, (Ed.), Competence-based vocational and professional education. Bridging the worlds of work and education (pp.819-839). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_38.
50. 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.
51. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers and Education, 61(2), 59–76.
52. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, M. G., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999.
53. Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203.
54. 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.
55. Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006). 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.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. Prichard, J. S., Stratford, R. J., & Bizo, L. A. (2006). Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 256–265.
59. Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520.
60. Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 453–465.
61. Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: a new approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 139–160.
62. Ravenscroft, A., & McAlister, S. (2006). Digital games and learning in cyberspace: a dialogical approach. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(1), 37–50.
63. Ravenscroft, A., & Pilkington, R. M. (2000). Investigation by design: developing dialogue models to support reasoning and conceptual change. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(1), 273–298.
64. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: a cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.
65. Renkl, A., Atkinson, K. R., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works – a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 59–82.
66. 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 CSCL. IJCSCL, 3(3), 237–272.
67. Salomon, G. (1992). Effects with and of computers and the study of computer based learning environments. In E. De Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl & L. Verschaffel (Eds.). Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (NATO-ASI Series F: Computer and System Sciences, Vol. 84, pp. 249-263). Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
68. Samraj, B. (2004). Discourse features of the student-produced academic research paper: variations across disciplinary courses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(1), 5–22.
69. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: does it improve knowledge Construction in asynchronous discussion groups? IJCSCL, 2(2-3), 225–246.
70. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. IJCSCL, 5(1), 43–102.
71. 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.
72. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2013). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, 42(4), 127–157.
73. Schunn, C., Godley, A., & DeMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 13–23.
74. Schwarz, B. B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. IJCSCL, 2(2-3), 297–313.
75. Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
76. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive processing in computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323.
77. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. IJCSCL, 2(4), 421–447.
78. 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.
79. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.
80. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.
81. Tsai, Y. C., & Chuang, M. T. (2013). Fostering revision of argumentative writing through structured peer assessment. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 116(1), 210–221.
82. Tsovaltzi, D., Melis, E., & McLaren, B. M. (2012). Erroneous examples: Effects on learning fractions in a web-based setting. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3), 191–230.
83. Tsovaltzi, D., Rummel, N., McLaren, B. M., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., & Braun, I. (2010). Extending a virtual chemistry laboratory with a collaboration script to promote conceptual learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1-2), 91–110.
84. Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: integrating cognitive and social–cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 155–174.
85. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005a). Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 205–221.
86. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Witte, P. (2005b). Uncovering the problem-solving process: cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 237–244.
87. Van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Attention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 785–791.
88. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning (Second Revised ed.). New York: Routledge.
89. Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.
90. Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K. & Fischer, F. (2015). Fostering argumentation skills in mathematics with adaptable collaboration scripts: only viable for good self-regulators? In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschmann, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning. The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL) 2015 - Volume II (pp. 576-580). International Society of the Learning Sciences: University of Gothenburg.
91. Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2016). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7.
92. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: the role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 746–756.
93. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2014). Where is the evidence? A meta-analysis on the role of argumentation for the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 75(2), 218–228.
94. Wecker, C., Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Prechtl, H. (2010). Fostering online search competence and domain-specific knowledge in inquiry classrooms: effects of continuous and fading collaboration scripts. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences: Learning in the disciplines (pp. 810-817). Chicago: ISLS.
95. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46(1), 71–95.
96. Wood, H. A., & Wood, D. J. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers & Education, 33(2), 153–170.
97. Yang, Y. F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1202–1210.