First- and second-order scaffolding of argumentation competence and domain-specific knowledge acquisition: a systematic review

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 329-345

  Valero Haro, Anahuac ^a   Noroozi, Omid ^a,b   Biemans, Harm ^a   Mulder, Martin ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b TARBIAT MODARES UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Argumentation; computer supported argumentation; computer supported collaborative learning; effect; scaffolding

Indexed keywords

EID: 85070283588     PISSN: 1475939X     EISSN: 17475139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2019.1612772     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Andresen, M. A., (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 249–257.
2. Andrew, G., & McMullen, L., (2000). Interpersonal scripts in the anger narratives told by clients in psychotherapy. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 271–284.
3. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D., (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J., Andriessen, M., Baker, & D., Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
4. Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J., (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 3–22.
5. Belland, B. R., (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 285–309. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4
6. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C., (2008). A Scaffolding Framework to Support the Construction of Evidence-Based Arguments among Middle School Students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401–422. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9074-1
7. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C., (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z
8. Bloom, B. S., (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
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, 236–249. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.001
10. Buckingham Shum, S. J. (2003). The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In P., Kirschner, S. J., Buckingham Shum, & C. S., Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Program tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 3–24). London: Springer-Verlag doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_1
11. Chen, C. H., & She, H. C., (2012). The impact of recurrent on-line synchronous scientific argumentation on students’ argumentation and conceptual change. Educational Technology and Society, 15, 197–210.
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, 321–333. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9159-1
13. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M., (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3
14. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D., (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
15. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J., (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
16. Dysthe, O., (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 339–352. doi:10.1080/03075070220000716
17. Gilbert, M. A., (2004). Emotion, argumentation and informal logic. Informal Logic, 24, 245–264.
18. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K., (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M., Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G., (2006, June–July). Visualization participation to facilitate argumentation. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Jeong, A. C., & Lee, J., (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 651–665.
21. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190. doi:10.1080/09500690210134857
22. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., (1994). Together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C., (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871. doi:10.1080/0950069980200707
24. Khine, M. S., Yeap, L. L., & Chin Lok, A. T., (2003). The quality of message ideas, thinking and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Educational Media International, 40, 115–126. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092161
25. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S., (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer-Verlag.
26. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D., (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–721.
27. Kuhn, D., (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kuhn, D., (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Kumar, R., (2011). Research methodology a step-by-step guide for beguinners. London: SAGE Publications.
30. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G., (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363–374.
31. Leitão, S., (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.
32. Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F., (1996). Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk tasking, and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1250–1267.
33. Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O’Donnell-Johnson, T., (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K., Hogan & M., Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108–144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
34. Loll, F., Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., & Pinkwart, N., (2010). Learning to argue using computers–A view from teachers, researchers, and system developers. In V., Aleven, J., Kay, & J., Mostow (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 6095, pp. 377–379). Berlin: Springer.
35. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Sejourne, 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, 273–295.
36. Lynch, C., Ashley, K. D., Pinkwart, N., & Aleven, V., (2009). Concepts, structures, and goals: Redefining ill-definedness. International Journal of AI in Education, 19, 253–266.
37. Macdonald, I., (2000). What do we mean by transition, and what is the problem? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 9, 7–20.
38. Marée, T. J., van Bruggen, J. M., & Jochems, W. M. G., (2013). Effective self-regulated science learning through multimedia-enriched skeleton concept maps. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31, 16–30.
39. Mulder, M., (2014). Conceptions of professional competence. In S., Billett, C., Harteis, H., Gruber, & M., Mulder (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 107–137). Dordrecht: Springer.
40. 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, 2, 247–272. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5
41. Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M., (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 153–176. doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
42. Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M., (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 189–223.
43. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M., (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7, 79–106.
44. 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 & Education, 61, 59–76.
45. Osborne, J., (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.
46. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S., (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
47. Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M., (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 643–658.
48. 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, 483–520.
49. Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S., & Baur, E., (2006). Development, piloting and evaluation of InterLoc: An Open Source tool supporting dialogue games in education. Final Project Report, Learning Technology Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, UK & JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), Bristol, UK.
50. Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R. B., & Hartley, J. R., (2007). Reclaiming thinking: Dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. Special Issue of British Journal of Educational Psychology: Psychological Insights into the Use of New Technologies in Education, II(5), 39–57.
51. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-y., (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596
52. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H., (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.
53. Salmon, G., (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page.
54. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T., (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9
55. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M., (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010
56. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B., (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 43–102.
57. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S., (2013). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, 42, 127–157.
58. Slof, B., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A., (2012). The effects of constructing domain-specific representations on coordination processes and learning in a CSCL-environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1478–1489. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.011
59. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F., (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40, 297–323.
60. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F., (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 421–447.
61. Teasley, S. D., (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B., Resnick, R., Säljö, C., Pontecorvo, & B., Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.
62. Toulmin, S. E., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. Tsovaltzi, D., Greenhow, C., & Asterhan, C., (2015). When friends argue: Learning from and through social network site discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 567–569. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.021
64. Tsovaltzi, D., Puhl, T., Judele, R., & Weinberger, A., (2014). Group awareness support and argumentation scripts for individual preparation of arguments in Facebook. Computers & Education, 76, 108–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.012
65. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf
66. van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. A., (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J., Andriessen, M., Baker, & D., Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn (Vol. 1, pp. 177–203). Dordrecht: Springer.
67. van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G., (2005). Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14, 25–41.
68. van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G., (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575–602. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.024
69. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A., (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (2nd ed.). New york, NY: Routledge.
70. Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G., (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00050-0
71. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S., (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101–131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213
72. Vygotsky, L. S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M., Cole Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
73. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F., (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. [Methodological Issues in Researching CSCL]. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.
74. Weinberger, A., Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Stegmann, K., (2013). Inducing socio-cognitive conflict in Finnish and German groups of online learners by CSCL script. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 333–349. doi:10.1007/s11412-013-9173-4
75. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F., (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007
76. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G., (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
77. Yeh, K.-H., & She, H.-C., (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students’ argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55, 586–602.
78. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F., (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62. doi:10.1002/tea.10008