Abstract
Argumentation is an important skill to learn. It is valuable not only in many professional contexts, such as the law, science, politics, and business, but also in everyday life. However, not many people are good arguers. In response to this, researchers and practitioners over the past 15–20 years have developed software tools both to support and teach argumentation. Some of these tools are used in individual fashion, to present students with the “rules” of argumentation in a particular domain and give them an opportunity to practice, while other tools are used in collaborative fashion, to facilitate communication and argumentation between multiple, and perhaps distant, participants. In this paper, we review the extensive literature on argumentation systems, both individual and collaborative, and both supportive and educational, with an eye toward particular aspects of the past work. More specifically, we review the types of argument representations that have been used, the various types of interaction design and ontologies that have been employed, and the system architecture issues that have been addressed. In addition, we discuss intelligent and automated features that have been imbued in past systems, such as automatically analyzing the quality of arguments and providing intelligent feedback to support and/or tutor argumentation. We also discuss a variety of empirical studies that have been done with argumentation systems, including, among other aspects, studies that have evaluated the effect of argument diagrams (e.g., textual versus graphical), different representations, and adaptive feedback on learning argumentation. Finally, we conclude by summarizing the “lessons learned” from this large and impressive body of work, particularly focusing on lessons for the CSCL research community and its ongoing efforts to develop computer-mediated collaborative argumentation systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). Designing effective multi-representational learning environments, Technical Report number 58. ESRC centre for research in development, instruction and training, University of Nottingham, UK.
Aleven, V., & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples: Empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In B. du Boulay & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 1997) (pp. 87–94). Amsterdam: IOS.
Allwood, J. (2002). Bodily communication dimensions of expression and content. In B. Granström, D. House, & I. Karlsson (Eds.), Multimodality in language and speech systems (pp. 7–26). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern information retrieval. Addison Wesley.
Baghaei, N., Mitrovic, A., & Irwin, W. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(2–3), 159–190.
Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Belgiorno, F., De Chiara, R., Manno, I., Overdijk, M., Scarano, V., & van Diggelen, W. (2008). Face to face cooperation with CoFFEE. In P. Dillenbourg & M. Specht (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2008) (pp. 49–57). Berlin: Springer.
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 2nd International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 1997) (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
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, 797–817.
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2–3), 125–165.
Bex, F., van den Braak, S., Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., Verheij, B., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2007). Sense-making software for crime investigation: How to combine stories and arguments? Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4), 145–168.
Bouyias, Y. N., Demetriadis, S. N., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2008). iArgue: A web-based argumentation system supporting collaboration scripts with adaptable fading. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2008) (pp. 477–479). IEEE Computer Society Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press.
Buckingham Shum, S. J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267–300.
Buckingham Shum, S. J., Uren, V., Li, G., Domingue, J., Motta, E., & Mancini, C. (2002). Designing representational coherence into an infrastructure for collective sense-making. Invited discussion paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Infrastructures for Distributed Collective Practices.
Buckingham Shum, S. J., Selvin, A. M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C. B., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 111–132). Berlin: Springer.
Bull, S., Brna, P., & Pain, H. (1995). Extending the scope of the student model. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5(1), 45–65.
Carr, C. S. (2003). Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 75–96). London: Springer.
Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., & Loui, R. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4), 337–383.
Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., et al. (2007). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.
Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘88) (pp. 140–152). New York: ACM.
Corbel, A., Girardot, J. J., & Jaillon, P. (2002). DREW: A dialogical reasoning web tool. In A. Méndez-Vilas & J. A. Mesa González (Eds.), Information Society and Education: Monitoring a Revolution, Proceedings of International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Education (ICTE 2002) (pp. 516–521).
de Groot, R., Drachman, R., Hever, R., Schwarz, B., Hoppe, U., Harrer, A., et al. (2007). Computer supported moderation of e-discussions: The ARGUNAUT approach. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Mice, minds, and society—The computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) Conference 2007, (pp. 165–167). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Devedzic, V., & Harrer, A. (2005). Software patterns in ITS architectures. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 63–94.
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. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 3(1), 5–23.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.
Doise, W., & Mugny, W. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.
Easterday, M. W., Aleven, V., & Scheines, R. (2007). ‘Tis better to construct or to receive? Effect of diagrams on analysis of social policy. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2007) (pp. 93–100). Amsterdam: IOS.
Feng, D., Kim, J., Shaw, E., & Hovy, E. (2006). Towards modeling threaded discussions through ontology-based analysis. In Proceedings of 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006) (pp. 1289–1294).
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. E., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design patterns. Elements of reusable object-oriented software. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Goldberg, D., Nichols, D., Oki, B. M., & Terry, D. (1992). Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Communications of the ACM, 35(12), 61–70.
Goodman, B. A., Linton, F. N., Gaimari, R. D., Hitzeman, J. M., Ross, H. J., & Zarrella, G. (2005). Using dialogue features to predict trouble during collaborative learning. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(1–2), 85–134.
Gordon, T. F., & Karacapilidis, N. (1997). The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1997) (pp. 10–18), New York: ACM.
Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 875–896.
Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.
Hair, D. C. (1991). Legalese: A legal argumentation tool. SIGCHI Bulletin, 23(1), 71–74.
Harrer, A., & Devedzic, V. (2002). Design and analysis patterns in its architectures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE’02) (pp. 523–527). Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Herman, I., & Marshall, M. S. (2000). GraphXML—an xml based graph interchange format. Available online: http://www.cwi.nl/ftp/CWIreports/INS/INS-R0009.pdf, last visited: 2009-10-29.
Hoppe, H. U., Giemza, A., Wichmann, A., Krauß, M., Baurens, B., Rigolleau, B., et al. (2008). Combined deliverable D3.2b—moderator’s interface and D4.2b—The off-line tracer. Part A (documentation). Argunaut project deliverable. Available online: http://www.argunaut.org/argunaut-d3-2b-d4-2b-PartA.pdf, last visited: 2009-10-29.
Israel, J., & Aiken, R. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning with an intelligent web-based system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17, 3–40.
Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43.
Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The Hermes system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259–277.
Karacapilidis, N., Tzagarakis, M., Karousos, N., Gkotsis, G., Kallistros, V., Christodoulou, S., et al. (2009). Tackling cognitively-complex collaboration with CoPe_it! International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 4(3), 22–38.
Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81.
Kim, J., Shaw, E., Ravi, S., Tavano, E., Arromratana, A., & Sarda, P. (2008). Scaffolding on-line discussions with past discussions: An analysis and pilot study of pedabot. In B. P. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference (ITS-08) (pp. 343–352). Berlin: Springer.
Klein, M., & Iandoli, L. (2008). Supporting collaborative deliberation using a large-scale argumentation system: The MIT collaboratorium, MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4691-08. Available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1099082, last visited: 2009-11-26.
Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyian inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 261–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kumar, R., Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y.-C., Joshi, M., & Robinson, A. (2007). Tutorial dialogue as adaptive collaborative learning support. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2007) (pp. 383–390). Amsterdam: IOS.
Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems. Working paper #131. Institut für Grundlagen der Planung I.A. University of Stuttgart, Germany. Available online: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/∼ellendo/rittel/rittel-issues.pdf, last visited: 2009-10-29.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360.
Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Hsi, S. (1998). Using the Internet to enhance student understanding of science: The knowledge integration environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1–2), 4–38.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.
Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2009). Using collaborative filtering algorithms as eLearning tools. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2009). IEEE Computer Society Press.
Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2009). Towards a flexible intelligent tutoring system for argumentation. In I. Adeo, N. Chen, Kinshuk, D. Sampson, & L. Zaitseva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 647–648). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.
Loui, R. P., Norman, J., Altepeter, J., Pinkard, D., Linsday, J., & Foltz, M. (1997). Progress on room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997) (pp. 207–214). ACM.
Lowrance, J. D. (2007). Graphical manipulation of evidence in structured arguments. Law, Probability & Risk, 6(1–4), 225–240.
Lowrance, J., Harrison, I., Rodriguez, A., Yeh, E., Boyce, T., Murdock, J., et al. (2008). Template-based structured argumentation. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 307–333). London: Springer.
Lund, K. (2007a). The importance of gaze and gesture in interactive multimodal explanation. Language Resources and Evaluation, 41(3–4), 289–303.
Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjorné, 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 (ijCSCL), 2(2–3), 273–295.
Lynch, C., Ashley, K., Aleven, V., & Pinkwart, N. (2006). Defining ill-defined domains; a literature survey. In V. Aleven, K. Ashley, C. Lynch, & N. Pinkwart (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains at the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2008) (pp. 1–10). Jhongli: National Central University.
Malone, T. W., & Klein, M. (2007). Harnessing collective intelligence to address global climate change. Innovations, 2(3), 15–26.
Marshall, C. C., Halasz, F. G., Rogers, R. A., & Janssen, W. C. (1991). Aquanet: A hypertext tool to hold your knowledge in place. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual ACM conference on Hypertext (HYPERTEXT ‘91) (pp. 261–275). New York: ACM.
McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning: Special Issue: Developing Dialogue for Learning, 20(3), 194–204.
McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (in press). Supporting collaborative learning and e-discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
McManus, M., & Aiken, R. (1995). Monitoring computer-based problem solving. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 307–336.
Muller Mirza, N., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.
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 (ijCSCL), 2(2–3), 247–272.
Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 113–131.
Murray, T., Woolf, B., & Marshall, D. (2004). Lessons learned from authoring for inquiry learning: A tale of authoring tool evolution. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2004) (pp. 197–206). Berlin: Springer.
Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D. L., Aqui, Y. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2007). Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International Journal on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(4), 479–500.
Okada, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2008). Evidence-based dialogue maps as a research tool to investigate the quality of school pupils’ scientific argumentation. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 291–315.
Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006a). Toward legal argument instruction with graph grammars and collaborative filtering techniques. In M. Ikeda, K. Ashley, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2006) (pp. 227–236). Berlin: Springer.
Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006b). Schwachstellenermittlung und Rückmeldungsprinzipen in einem intelligenten Tutorensystem für juristische Argumentation. In M. Mühlhäuser, G. Rößling & R. Steinmetz (Eds.), GI lecture notes in informatics—Tagungsband der 4. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik.
Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2007). Evaluating legal argument instruction with graphical representations using largo. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2007) (pp. 101–108). Amsterdam: IOS.
Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., Lynch, C., & Aleven, V. (2008a). Graph grammars: An ITS technology for diagram representations. In D. Wilson & H. C. Lane (Eds.), Proceedings of 21st International FLAIRS Conference (FLAIRS-21) (pp. 433–438). Coconut Grove: AAAI.
Pinkwart, N., Lynch, C., Ashley, K., & Aleven, V. (2008b). Re-evaluating Largo in the classroom: Are diagrams better than text for teaching argumentation skills? In B. P. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2008) (pp. 90–100). Berlin: Springer.
Rabiner, L. R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 257–286.
Ranney, M., & Schank, P. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S. Read & L. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 245–274). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Ravenscroft, A., Sagar, M., Baur, E., & Oriogun, P. (2008). Ambient pedagogies, meaningful learning and social software. In S. Hatzipanagos & S. Warburton (Eds.), Social software & developing community ontologies (pp. 432–450). Hershey: IGI Global.
Ravi, S., & Kim, J. (2007). Profiling student interactions in threaded discussions with speech act classifiers. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2007) (pp. 357–364). Amsterdam: IOS.
Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 14(3–4), 961–980.
Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures open constraints and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M. W. Shelly & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgment and optimality (pp. 282–315). New York: Wiley.
Rittel, H. W. T., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Robertson, J., Good, J., & Pain, H. (1998). BetterBlether: The design and evaluation of a discussion tool for education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 219–236.
Rolf, B., & Magnusson, C. (2002). Developing the art of argumentation. A software approach. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Argumentation. International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA-2002) (pp. 919–926).
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.
Rosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., et al. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 3(3), 237–271.
Roth, W.-M. (2000). From gesture to scientific language. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(11), 1683–1714.
Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.
Schank, P. (1995). Computational tools for modeling and aiding reasoning: Assessing and applying the theory of explanatory coherence. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. (University Microfilms No. 9621352).
Schellens, T., van Keer, H., de Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(2–3), 225–246.
Schneider, D. C., Voigt, C., & Betz, G. (2007). ArguNet—a software tool for collaborative argumentation analysis and research. Paper presented at the 7th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA VII).
Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Fostering argumentation in social and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(4), 449–478.
Sebastiani, F. (2002). Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(1), 1–47.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40–62.
Soller, A. (2004). Computational modeling and analysis of knowledge sharing in collaborative distance learning. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 14(4), 351–381.
Soller, A., Goodman, B. A., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (1998). Promoting effective peer interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. In B. P. Goettl, H. M. Halff, C. L. Redfield, & V. J. Shute (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 1998) (pp. 186–195). Berlin: Springer.
Soller, A., Monés, A. M., Jermann, P., & Mühlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 261–290.
Stahl, G. (2007). CSCL and its flash themes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(4), 359–362.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(4), 421–447.
Suthers, D. D. (2001). Architectures for computer supported collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001) (pp. 25–28), Madison.
Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.
Suthers, D. D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 1995) (pp. 266–273). Charlottesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Suthers, D. D., Toth, E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 1997) (pp. 272–279). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Suthers, D. D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E. E., Toth, J., et al. (2001). Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park: AAAI/MIT.
Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127.
Taentzer, G. (2001). Towards common exchange formats for graphs and graph transformation systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 44(4), 28–40.
Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House Trade.
Tedesco, P. (2003). MArCo: Building an artificial conflict mediator to support group planning interactions. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 117–155.
Thagard, P. (2006). Evaluating explanations in law, science, and everyday life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(3), 141–145.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsovaltzi, D., Rummel, N., McLaren, B. M., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., et al. (2010). Extending a virtual chemistry laboratory with a collaboration script to promote conceptual learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning (IJTEL), 2(1–2), 91–110.
van den Braak, S., & Vreeswijk, G. (2006). AVER: Argument visualization for evidential reasoning. In T. M. van Engers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2006) (pp. 151–156). Amsterdam: IOS.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.
van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer-supported argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham-Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 97–115). London: Springer.
van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for rationale. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4), 23–42.
VanLehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(3), 227–265.
Vizcaino, A., Contreras, J., Favela, J., & Prieto, M. (2000). An adaptive, collaborative environment to develop good habits in programming. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2000) (pp. 262–271). Berlin: Springer.
Verheij, B. (2003). Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1–2), 291–324.
Voss, J. F. (2006). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. In D. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 303–311). Berlin: Springer.
Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.
Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems. Los Altos: Kaufmann.
Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: The University Press.
Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The principles of judicial proof (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Kaufmann.
Woolf, B. P., Murray, T., Marshall, D., Dragon, T., Kohler, K., Mattingly, M., et al. (2005). Critical thinking environments for science education. In C. K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (AI-ED 2005) (pp. 702–709). Amsterdam: IOS.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for providing support for this research under the grant “LASAD - Learning to Argue, Support Across Domains.” Also, we want to thank the researchers and developers of the argumentation systems that we reviewed for their feedback in email surveys, and the reviewers for their useful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Overview of reviewed tools
Appendix: Overview of reviewed tools
Our review covered the systems, methods, and studies shown in the table below. In the rightmost column, in brackets, we provide the number of citations to the main paper of each system, based on a Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) as an indicator of the influence of each system. This Google search was done in October and November 2009. All URLs were last visited on 2009-10-27.
No | Tool | Feature description | Reference [#] |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | AcademicTalk | collaborative, educational, sentence openers, based on dialogue game theory | McAlister et al. 2004 [56] http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/ltri/research/projects/at.htm |
2 | Aquanet | collaborative, configurable ontology | Marshall et al. 1991 [216] |
3 | Araucaria | transcript, argument schemes, central database for argument exchange | Reed and Rowe 2004 [96] http://Araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk |
4 | Argue/ArguMed | argument assistance, legal domain | Verheij 2003 [66] http://www.ai.rug.nl/∼verheij/aaa/argumed3.htm |
5 | ArguNet | collaborative, Web-based | Schneider et al. 2007 [-] http://www.argunet.org |
6 | ARGUNAUT | educational, support system for human moderators, used with Digalo | De Groot et al. 2007 [12], McLaren et al. in press [-] http://www.argunaut.org |
7 | Athena | educational, report generator | Rolf and Magnusson 2002 [30] http://www.athenasoft.org |
8 | AVER | criminal investigations | van den Braak and Vreeswijk 2006 [5] |
9 | AVERs | criminal investigations | Bex et al. 2007 [13] |
10 | Belvedere v1 and v2 | educational, collaborative, ITS, scientific/evidential reasoning | |
11 | Belvedere v3 and v4 | educational, collaborative, multiple views, scientific /evidential reasoning | Suthers 2003 [39] http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/software/belvedere |
12 | BetterBlether | educational, collaborative, sentence openers | Robertson et al. 1998 [67] |
13 | Carneades | support of multiple proof-standards, IBIS | Gordon et al. 2007 [58] http://carneades.berlios.de |
14 | CoChemEx | educational, collaborative, inquiry learning, chemistry, scripted | Tsovaltzi et al. 2010 [-] |
15 | CoFFEE | educational, collaborative, multiple tools, configurable | Belgiorno et al. 2008 [1] http://www.coffee-soft.org/ |
16 | Collaboratorium | collaborative, IBIS | Klein and Iandoli 2008 [1], Malone and Klein 2007 [6] http://cci.mit.edu/research/climate.html |
17 | Collect-UML | Educational, collaborative, problem solving, UML diagrams, ITS | Baghaei et al. 2007 [6] |
18 | Compendium | successor of Questmap, collaborative, IBIS | Buckingham Shum et al. 2006 [54], Okada and Buckingham Shum 2008 [1] http://compendium.open.ac.uk |
19 | Convince Me | educational, model of coherent reasoning | Ranney and Schank 1998 [26] http://www.soe.berkeley.edu/∼schank/convinceme |
20 | CoPe_it! | successor of Hermes, (also) educational, collaborative, multiple views, support of multiple proof-standards, decision support, IBIS | Karacapilidis 2009 [-] |
21 | CycleTalk Chat Environment | educational, collaborative, problem solving, thermodynamics, tutorial dialogues | Kumar et al. 2007 [22] |
22 | DebateGraph | collaborative, local views | |
23 | Debatepedia | collaborative, wiki-based | |
24 | Digalo | educational, collaborative, configurable ontology | Schwarz and Glassner 2007 [4] http://www.dunes.gr |
25 | DREW | educational, collaborative, multiple tools | Corbel et al. 2002 [18] |
26 | Epsilon (with tutorial agent Pierce) | educational, collaborative, problem solving, OMT diagrams, sentence openers, interaction analysis, tutorial feedback, group and student model | Goodman et al. 2005 [28] |
27 | Epsilon (interaction analysis) | educational, collaborative, problem solving, OMT diagrams, sentence openers, interaction analysis | |
28 | Group Leader Tutor | educational, collaborative, sentence openers, Group Leader agent to facilitate interaction | |
29 | Hermes | collaborative, support of multiple proof-standards, decision support, IBIS | Karacapilidis and Papadias 2001 [128] http://www-sop.inria.fr/aid/hermes |
30 | IBIS/gIBIS | collaborative, notational support to solve wicked problems | Conklin and Begeman 1988 [1310] |
31 | iLogos | educational, causal diagrams | Easterday et al. 2007 [4] http://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/argument_mapping |
32 | Interloc | successor of AcademicTalk, educational, collaborative, sentence openers, configurable dialogue games | Ravenscroft et al. 2008 [1] http://www.interloc.org |
33 | KIE/SenseMaker, WISE | educational; container visualization, inquiry learning, science learning | Bell 1997 [142]; Bell and Linn 2000 [222], Linn et al. 2003 [89] http://tels.sourceforge.net/sensemaker |
34 | LARGO | educational; legal argumentation, ITS | Pinkwart et al. 2006a [23] |
35 | LASAD | educational, collaborative, flexible/configurable architecture, intelligent support | Loll et al. 2009 [-] http://cscwlab.in.tu-clausthal.de/lasad/ |
36 | Legalese | legal argumentation | Hair 1991 [10] |
37 | Pedabot | educational, support for technical discussion boards by IR | Kim et al. 2008 [4] |
38 | Questmap | collaborative, IBIS | Carr 2003 [32] |
39 | Rashi/Human Biology Inquiry Tutor | educational, ITS, inquiry learning, multiple tools | Woolf et al. 2005 [4] |
40 | Rationale | educational, multiple argument modes | Van Gelder 2007 [8] http://rationale.austhink.com |
41 | Reason!Able | educational | |
42 | Room 5 | collaborative, legal argumentation, implements dialogue game | Loui et al. 1997 [54] |
43 | SEAS | decision support, argument templates; table, starburst and constellation depictions of multidimensional arguments | Lowrance 2007 [4], Lowrance et al. 2008 [4] http://www.ai.sri.com/∼seas |
44 | TC3 | educational, collaborative, tool suite to support collaborative writing of argumentative texts | Munneke et al. 2003 [14] |
45 | Zeno | Predecessor of Carneades and Hermes, support of multiple proof-standards, decision support, IBIS | Gordon and Karacapilidis 1997 [213] |
46 | – | educational, collaborative | Jeong 2003 [115] |
47 | – | educational, collaborative, argumentation vee diagrams | Nussbaum et al. 2007 [2] |
48 | – | educational, collaborative, scripting by roles approach | Schellens et al. 2007 [3] |
49 | – | educational, collaborative, micro-scripting, Toulmin-based | Stegmann et al. 2007 [16] |
50 | – | educational, collaborative, integration of conceptual and discourse representations, uses Belvedere | Suthers et al. 2008 [37] |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N. et al. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer Supported Learning 5, 43–102 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x