Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions

We examine the effect of online Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs) on the quality of students’ argumentation during asynchronous, online discussions. With AVDs, students develop arguments on both sides of a controversial issue and then develop an integrated, overall final conclusion. In this study, students used AVDs individually before composing discussion notes, and then—at the end of the discussion—jointly created a group AVD using Wiki technology. Compared to a control group, the experimental intervention was found to significantly enhance the integration of arguments and counterarguments (specifically, compromises) and fostered opinion change. For AVDs to be effective, however, it was found to be necessary to include specific scaffolds on how to evaluate argument strength and/or to provide practice and feedback in using the AVDs.

[1]  Charles Arthur Willard,et al.  On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments , 1976 .

[2]  W. P. Nelson.  Sometimes two wrongs may make a right! , 1980, Medical times.

[3]  Karen Strohm Kitchner.  Cognition, Metacognition, and Epistemic Cognition , 1983 .

[4]  R. Mayer.  Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition , 1983 .

[5]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[6]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning How to Learn , 1984 .

[7]  Robbie Case,et al.  Intellectual development : birth to adulthood , 1985 .

[8]  M. Chi,et al.  The Nature of Expertise , 1988 .

[9]  D. Kuhn.  THE SKILLS OF ARGUMENT , 2008, Education for Thinking.

[10]  R. Mayer.  Thinking, problem solving, cognition, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[11]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[12]  Patricia A. Heller,et al.  Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving , 1992 .

[13]  Patricia A. Heller,et al.  Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups , 1992 .

[14]  S. Jackson,et al.  Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse , 1993 .

[15]  Merrilee H. Salmon,et al.  Reasoning in Conversation , 1993 .

[16]  C. Pontecorvo,et al.  Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics , 1993 .

[17]  J. Greeno.  Gibson's affordances. , 1994, Psychological review.

[18]  William W. Cobern,et al.  Science education as an exercise in foreign affairs , 1995 .

[19]  R. Driver,et al.  Small-Group Discussion in Physics: Peer Interaction Modes in Pairs and Fours. , 1996 .

[20]  N. Mercer.  The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom , 1996, Language and the Joint Creation of Knowledge.

[21]  Richard Fulkerson,et al.  Teaching the Argument in Writing , 1996 .

[22]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes , 1997 .

[23]  Richard Andrews,et al.  Learning to argue , 1997 .

[24]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 1997 .

[25]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment , 1997, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[26]  G. Halford,et al.  Cognitive Science Questions for Cognitive Development: The Concepts of Learning, Analogy, and Capacity. , 1998 .

[27]  William F. Brewer,et al.  An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. , 1998 .

[28]  Paul D. Eggen,et al.  Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms , 1998 .

[29]  Miika Marttunen,et al.  Electronic Mail as a Forum for Argumentative Interaction in Higher Education Studies , 1998 .

[30]  Leslie R. Herrenkohl,et al.  Participant Structures, Scientific Discourse, and Student Engagement in Fourth Grade , 1998 .

[31]  Janice,et al.  Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge , 1998 .

[32]  J. Petraglia.  Reality by Design: The Rhetoric and Technology of Authenticity in Education , 1998 .

[33]  B. Zimmerman.  Academic studing and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective , 1998 .

[34]  N. Mercer,et al.  From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development , 1999 .

[35]  V. A. Bielman.  Building community in a virtual classroom: Construction of classroom culture in a postsecondary distance education class , 1999 .

[36]  Noriko Hara,et al.  Students' Frustrations with a Web-Based Distance Education Course , 1999, First Monday.

[37]  Matthew W. Keefer,et al.  Judging the Quality of Peer-Led Student Dialogues , 2000 .

[38]  H. Cowie,et al.  Social interaction in learning and instruction : the meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge , 2000 .

[39]  Peter Renshaw,et al.  Collective argumentation: a sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching , 2000 .

[40]  James Boyle,et al.  Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: a review and case study , 2000, Comput. Educ..

[41]  M. Linn,et al.  Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment , 2000 .

[42]  Irwin Mallin,et al.  Inviting Constructive Argument , 2000 .

[43]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  The Structure of Discourse in Collaborative Learning , 2000 .

[44]  J. Osborne,et al.  Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms , 2000 .

[45]  P. Coirier,et al.  Foundations of argumentative text processing , 2000 .

[46]  M. Linn,et al.  Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE , 2000 .

[47]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course , 2000 .

[48]  Yair Neuman,et al.  Two Wrongs May Make a Right ... If They Argue Together! , 2000 .

[49]  Barbara J. Daley,et al.  Facilitating cross‐cultural online discussion groups: Implications for practice , 2001 .

[50]  Takashi Yamauchi,et al.  Learning from human tutoring , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[51]  A. Goldman,et al.  Knowledge in a Social World , 2001 .

[52]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving , 2001 .

[53]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Developing Conceptual Understanding and Procedural Skill in Mathematics: An Iterative Process. , 2001 .

[54]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument , 2001 .

[55]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving , 2002 .

[56]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  How Introverts versus Extroverts Approach Small-Group Argumentative Discussions , 2002, The Elementary School Journal.

[57]  D. Suthers,et al.  “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry , 2002 .

[58]  Anat Zohar,et al.  Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics , 2002 .

[59]  M. Baker,et al.  Computer-Mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions , 2002 .

[60]  M. Baker.  ARGUMENTATIVE INTERACTIONS, DISCURSIVE OPERATIONS AND LEARNING TO MODEL IN SCIENCE , 2002 .

[61]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  Making Group Brainstorming More Effective: Recommendations From an Associative Memory Perspective , 2002 .

[62]  Angelica M. Stacy,et al.  Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas , 2002 .

[63]  Lydia T. Tien,et al.  Implementation of a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Approach in an Undergraduate Organic Chemistry Course. , 2002 .

[64]  P. Dillenbourg,et al.  Elaborating New Arguments Through a CSCL Script , 2003 .

[65]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  CSCL, Argumentation, and Deweyan Inquiry , 2003 .

[66]  R. Sternberg.  What Is an “Expert Student?” , 2003 .

[67]  Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry , 2003 .

[68]  E. Davis.  Prompting Middle School Science Students for Productive Reflection: Generic and Directed Prompts , 2003 .

[69]  Baruch B. Schwarz,et al.  The Blind and the Paralytic: Supporting argumentation in Everyday and Scientific Issues , 2003 .

[70]  Selma Leitão,et al.  Evaluating and Selecting Counterarguments , 2003 .

[71]  R. Cooper.  Applying cognitive science to the teaching of science: commentary on "The Role of Communication in Learning to Model" edited by Paul Brna, Michael Baker, Keith Stenning, and André Tiberghien. , 2003 .

[72]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Designing External Representations to Support Solving Wicked Problems , 2003 .

[73]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Argumentation, Computer Support, and the Educational Context of Confronting Cognitions , 2003 .

[74]  Jerry Andriessen,et al.  The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning , 2003 .

[75]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments , 2003 .

[76]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Intentional Conceptual Change , 2003 .

[77]  T. Koschmann,et al.  CSCL 2 : carrying forward the conversation , 2003 .

[78]  M. Baker.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED ARGUMENTATIVE INTERACTIONS FOR THE CO-ELABORATION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTIONS , 2003 .

[79]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  Argument and conceptual engagement , 2003 .

[80]  M. Ferrari,et al.  Influences on intentional conceptual change , 2003 .

[81]  Rachel Pilkington,et al.  Facilitating Debate in Networked Learning: Reflecting on Online Synchronous Discussion in Higher Education. , 2004 .

[82]  Lisa D. Bendixen,et al.  Personality Interactions and Scaffolding in On-Line Discussions , 2004 .

[83]  R. Sawyer.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Introduction , 2014 .

[84]  Jeremy Frumkin,et al.  The Wiki and the digital library , 2005, OCLC Syst. Serv..

[85]  N. Rummel,et al.  Learning to Collaborate: An Instructional Approach to Promoting Collaborative Problem Solving in Computer-Mediated Settings , 2005 .

[86]  Paul Kirchner,et al.  Arguing to learn , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[87]  Gijsbert Erkens,et al.  Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology , 2005 .

[88]  M. Finocchiaro.  Arguments about Arguments: Systematic, Critical, and Historical Essays In Logical Theory , 2005 .

[89]  Jazlin V. Ebenezer,et al.  WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes , 2005 .

[90]  Enhancing collaborative argumentation in an online environment , 2005 .

[91]  D. Kuhn.  Education for Thinking , 1986, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[92]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation , 2005 .

[93]  Mark Vorobej,et al.  A Theory of Argument , 2006 .

[94]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology , 2006 .

[95]  Jerry Andriessen.  Collaboration in Computer Conferencing , 2006 .

[96]  G. Leinhardt,et al.  Going the Distance With Online Education , 2006 .

[97]  Carol K. K. Chan,et al.  Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[98]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Situating CoWeb: a scholarship of application , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[99]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Discourse Patterns During Children's Collaborative Online Discussions , 2007 .

[100]  E. Nussbaum,et al.  Promoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Students' Writing , 2007 .