Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. (2006a). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. (2006b). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 197–230).

  • 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). Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (1999). Argument and constructive integration. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.) & J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–201). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  • Baker, M. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations, and learning to model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien, The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303–324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (2002). Using argumentation map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449–505). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designs for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielman, V. A. (2000). Building community in a virtual classroom: Construction of a classroom culture in a postsecondary distance educational classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. A. J., & Renshaw, O. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). New York: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355–383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to empirical data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M. & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourese in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effect of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 50, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., & Land, S. M. (2006, April). Instructor modeling and online guidance for peer-questioning during online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argument as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Science, 11, 63–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 4, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebenezer, J., & Puvirajah, A. (2005). WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 561–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, van F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

  • Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrarri, M., & Elik, N. (2003). Influences on intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 21–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical and historical essays in logical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, J. (2005). The Wiki and the digital library. OCLC Systems & Services, 21, 18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2007). Enhancing collaborative argumentation in an online environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (in press).

  • Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 336–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halford, G. S., & McCredden, J. E. (1998). Cognitive science questions for cognitive development: The concepts of learning, analogy, and capacity. Learning and Instruction, 8, 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999, December). Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education course. First Monday. 4(12). Retrieved February 26, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_12/index.html.

  • Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1997). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60, 627–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1995). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated vs face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006, April). A functional approach to nature of science: Using epistemological understandings to construct and evaluate evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm of cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. New York: Springer.

  • Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 261–269). Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M. L., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of human development in education (pp. 731–764). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 567–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 57–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20, 269–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallin, I., & Anderson, K. V. (2000). Inviting constructive argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36, 120–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen, M. (1998). Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative interaction in higher education studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6:359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). How introverts versus extraverts approach small-group argumentative discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2006, April). Argumentation vee Diagrams enhance argument/counterargument integration in students’ writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. M. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Jacobson, T. E. (2004, July). Reasons that students avoid intellectual arguments. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument/counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, R., & Walker, A. (2003). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online, synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, 41–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., Prosser, B. (2005). A user’s guide to MLwiN (ver. 2). London, England: Centre for Multilevel Modeling, University of Bristol.

  • Rapoza, J. (2004). Macromedia tool used to Captivate. eWeek, 21(48), 60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influences of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, A. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right. If they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichert, M. A., & Stacy, A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 464–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organize chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 606–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of comp9uter mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers in Education, 34, 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177–204). Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorobej, M. (2006). A theory of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F. (1988). Problem-solving and reasoning in ill-structured problems. In T. H. M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C. A. (1976). On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments. Communication Monographs, 43, 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. W., Watkins, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis M., Dymock, D. (2001). Facilitating cross-cultural online discussions groups: Implications for practice. Distance Education, 22, 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Box 453003, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-3003, USA

    E. Michael Nussbaum, Denise L. Winsor, Yvette M. Aqui & Anne M. Poliquin

Authors
  1. E. Michael Nussbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denise L. Winsor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yvette M. Aqui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne M. Poliquin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Michael Nussbaum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nussbaum, E.M., Winsor, D.L., Aqui, Y.M. et al. Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. Computer Supported Learning 2, 479–500 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9025-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9025-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation