Technology-enhanced learning environments offer a range of features to facilitate active learning through evidence-based argumentation (e.g., Fabos & Young, 1999; Kollar et al., 2005; Marttunen & Laurinen, 2001; Pea, 1994; Roschelle & Pea, 1999; Schellens & Valcke, 2006). This chapter examines the affordances of these environments, the research behind their development, and the expected benefit of technology-enhanced argumentation. We discuss environments specifically developed for science education as well as other environments that have strong relevance for argumentation in science education. We organize our discussion around two main categories of support for argumentation: facilitating collaborative argumentation and facilitating the construction of individual arguments and contributions. After discussing representative features for supporting argumentation within online environments, we discuss the integration of subsets of these features within four environments in alignment with the specific pedagogical goals and theoretical commitments of their developers. Finally, we discuss future directions for research on argumentation and learning in technology-enhanced environments.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Collaborative Learning
- Computer Support Collaborative Learn
- Online Learning Environment
- Asynchronous Mode
- Computer Support Collaborative Learn
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
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). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Science, 12, 307–359.
Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 1997) (pp. 10–19). Toronto, Canada: Toronto University Press.
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academic Press.
Broeken, M. (2006, May). VCRI: Using shared visualisations for collaboration. Paper presented at the 6th European Tcl/Tk Users Meeting, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany.
Carter, L. (2003). Argument in hypertext: Writing strategies and the problem of order in a nonsequential world. Computers and Composition, 20, 3–22.
Cavalli-Sforza, V., Lesgold, A., & Weiner, A. (1992). Strategies for contributing to collaborative arguments. Proceedings of the Fourteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 755–760. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In E. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.
Clark, D. B. (2004). Hands-on investigation in Internet environments: Teaching thermal equilibrium. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis., & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2005). Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, June.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (in press). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Clough, E. E., & Driver, R. (1985). Secondary students’ conceptions of the conduction of heat: Bringing together scientific and personal views. The Physical Educator, 20, 176–182.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.
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, NL: Open University of the Netherlands.
Dönmez, P., Rosé, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning—CSCL 2005 (pp. 125–134). Taipei, Taiwan: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.
Erickson, G., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Heat and temperature. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 52–83). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2006). Automatic coding of communication in collaboration protocols. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2006), Bloomington, IN.
Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Computer support for collaborative and argumentative writing. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.
Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217–259.
Fischer, F. (2001). Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion. Analyse und Förderung in computerunterstützten Kooperationsszenarien [Collaborative knowledge construction. Analysis and facilitation in computer-supported collaborative scenarios]. München, Germany: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213–232.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.) (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.
Fisher, C., & Larkin, J. H. (1986). Diagrams as working memory for scientific problem solving (Technical report). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University Department of Psychology.
Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a Grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55–87.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1965). Wissenschaft der Logik. Stuttgart, Germany: Frommann/Holzboog.
Hesse, F. (2007). Being told to do something or just being aware of something? An alternative approach to scripting in CSCL. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, J., & Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge - cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 91–98). New York: Springer.
Hoadley, C. (1999). Scaffolding scientific discussion using socially relevant representations in networked multimedia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Hoadley, C., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through on-line peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839–857.
Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23–36.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Janssen, J., Broeken, M., Jaspers, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2004). Computerized representation of coordination in collaborative learning. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://www.fss.uu.nl/edsci/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=42FirefoxHTML/Shell/Open/Command
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Broeken, M. (2006, June). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during online collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 2nd Special Interest Meeting of EARLI SIGs Instructional Design & Learning and Instruction with Computers, Leuven, Belgium.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2006, June/July). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.
Jaspers, J., & Broeken, M. (2005, May). VCRI: A groupware application for CSCL research. Paper presented at the European Tcl/Tk Users Meeting, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany.
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, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Jermann, P., Soller, A., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2001). From mirroring to guiding: a review of state of art technology for supporting collaborative learning. Paper presented at the European Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference. (EU-CSCL’01), Maastricht, NL.
Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861–971.
King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.) (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (in press). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2005). Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based science learning at schools. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 331–340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kolodner, J. L., Schwarz, B., Barkai, R. D., Levy-Neumand, E., Tcherni, A., & Turbovsk, A. (1997). Roles of a case library as a collaborative tool for fostering argumentation. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL 97) (pp. 150–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kuhn, D., & Goh, W. W. L. (2005). Arguing on the computer. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 125–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.
Lewis, E. L. (1996). Conceptual change among middle school students studying elementary thermodynamics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(1), 3–31.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE Design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.
Marttunen, M. (1992). Commenting on written arguments as a part of argumentation skills: Comparison between students engaged in traditional vs. on-line study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(4), 289–302.
Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153.
Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2007, July). Effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on interactive argumentation. Paper to be presented at the CSCL 2007 Conference, New Brunswick, NY.
Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Doubleday.
Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75, 65–104.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. Special Issue: Computer support for collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285–299.
Pfister, H.-R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer.
Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 255–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Resnick, L. B., Salomon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. S. Kuhn & R. W. Damon (Eds.), Cognition, perception and language, Vol. 2 (5th ed., pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22–25 and 43.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(4), 349–370.
Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (in press). The role of CSCL argumentative environments for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. In R. Saljo (Ed.), Information technologies and transformation of knowledge.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2004). Scripting argumentation in computer-supported learning environments. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen, & R. Joiner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Proceedings of the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGs Instructional Design and Learning and Instruction with Computers (CD-ROM) (pp. 320–330). Tuebingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577–592). Maastricht, NL: University of Maastricht.
Tabak, I. (1999). Unraveling the development of scientific literacy: Domain-specific inquiry support in a system of cognitive and social interactions, dissertation abstracts international Vol. A 60 (pp. 4323). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Tabak, I. (2000). Exploring a range of student-directed inquiry processes and their influence on the construction of scientific conceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.
Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393–429.
Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (1997). Domain-specific inquiry support: Permeating discussions with scientific conceptions. In Proceedings of From Misconceptions to Constructed Understanding, Meaningful Learning Research Group, Ithaca, NY.
Tabak, I., Reiser, B. J., Spillane, J. P. (1999). BGuILE: Teachers, students and materials interacting to construct biological knowledge. In CILT99 the 1999 Annual CILT Conference, San Jose, CA.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2003). A glance behind the scenes: The state of the art in the study of argumentation. Studies in Communication Sciences, 3(1), 1–23.
Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117–143). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
Veerman, A. L., & Treasure-Jones, T. (1999). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In P. Coirier & J. E. B. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 203–230). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the third conference on computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 640–650). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., & Yengo, L. A. (1983). Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (pp. 205–232). New York: Academic.
Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.
Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2001). Scripts and scaffolds in text-based CSCL: fostering participation and transfer. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—and how they may be overcome (pp. 15–37). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge—cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191–211). New York: Springer.
Wolfe, C. R. (1995). Homespun hypertext: Student-constructed hypertext as a tool for teaching critical thinking. Special issue: Psychologists teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 29–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clark, D.B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., Erkens, G. (2007). Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments to Support Students' Argumentation. In: Erduran, S., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6669-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6670-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)