Evaluating the quality of dialogical argumentation in CSCL: moving beyond an analysis of formal structure

Over the last decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online learning environments to promote argumentative discourse between students. This symposium examines some of the diverse ways researchers have attempted to examine how students engage in argumentation and to assess the effectiveness of CSCL environments in fostering productive argumentation. The papers presented as part of this symposium will focus on four different categories of analytic frameworks: (1) nature and function of contributions within the dialog, (2) nature of reasoning, (3) conceptual quality, and (4) patterns and trajectories of participant interaction. Example analytic frameworks from each category are presented in detail rich enough to illustrate their nature and structure. Synthetic discussions of each category consider the frameworks in light of the underlying theoretical perspectives on argumentation, pedagogical goals, and online environmental structures.

[1]  F. Fischer,et al.  A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2006, Comput. Educ..

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

[3]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation , 2006 .

[4]  M. Pressley,et al.  Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions , 1999 .

[5]  J. Piaget,et al.  The equilibration of cognitive structures : the central problem of intellectual development , 1985 .

[6]  L. Resnick,et al.  Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition , 1997 .

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

[8]  Stephanie D. Teasley.  Talking about reasoning : How important is the peer in peer collaboration? , 1997 .

[9]  Selma Leitão,et al.  The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building , 2000, Human Development.

[10]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Scripting Argumentative Knowledge Construction in Computer-Supported Learning Environments , 2007 .

[11]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

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

[13]  R. Duschl,et al.  "Doing the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in High School Genetics , 2000 .

[14]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology , 2005, CSCL.

[15]  M. Jiménez-Aleixandre,et al.  Argument in High School Genetics. , 1997 .

[16]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  The development of argument skills. , 2003, Child development.

[17]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions , 2005, CSCL.

[18]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory , 1996 .