Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T06:10:36.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Arguing to Learn

from Part IV - Learning Together

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

By
Jerry Andriessen  and
Michael Baker
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews collaborative argumentation, where a community of learners works together to advance the collective state of knowledge through debate, engagement, and dialogue. Engagement in collaborative argumentation can help students learn to think critically and independently about important issues and contested values. Students must externalize their ideas and metacognitively reflect on their developing understandings. This chapter summarizes the history of argumentation theory; how arguing can contribute to learning through making knowledge explicit, conceptual change, collaboration, and reasoning skills; how argumentation skill develops in childhood; and how argumentation varies in different cultural and social contexts. The chapter concludes by describing a variety of tools that scaffold effective argumentation, including through computer-mediated communication forums and argumentation maps.

Keywords

argumentationcollaborationcommunity of learnersengagementexternalizationarticulationscientific practicesscaffolding
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 428 - 447
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135–167. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1502_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriessen, J. (2005). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In O’Donnell, A., Hmelo, C., & Erkens, G. (Eds.), Collaboration, reasoning, and technology (pp. 277–321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: Examples of actual practices with argumentation tools. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 195–213). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & van der Puil, C. (2011). Socio-cognitive tension in collaborative working relations. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Saljo, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 222–242). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2013). Argument diagrams and learning: Cognitive and educational perspectives. In Schraw, G., McCrudden, M., & Robinson, D. (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 329–356). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2020). On collaboration: Personal, educational and societal arenas. Boston, MA; Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill-Sense.Google Scholar
Andriessen, J., & Sandberg, J. (1999). Where is education heading and how about AI? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2), 130–150.Google Scholar
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Babichenko, M. (2015). The social dimension of learning through argumentation: Effects of human presence and discourse style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 740–755. doi:10.1037/edu0000014Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.). (2013). Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2020). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Major, L. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 76–88). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., & Van Lehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1986). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 8, pp. 105–352). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1933)Google Scholar
Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1975). Social interaction and cognitive development. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 367–383.Google Scholar
Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B., & Porat, D. (2011). Changes in narrative and argumentative writing by students discussing “hot” historical issues. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, C. (1996). Le développement des discours argumentatifs [The development of argumentative discourses]. Lausanne, Switzerland: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., & Baker, M. J. (2018). Striking a balance: Argumentation and socio-emotional processes in collaborative learning interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, M. W., Seitz, C. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 259–265). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.Google Scholar
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leitão, S. (2001). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2, Article 2.Google Scholar
Levin, J., & Moore, J. (1980). Dialogue-games: Meta-communication structure for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395–420.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). Question-begging in noncumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 117–133.Google Scholar
Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 67–90). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonnon, E. (1996). Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d’exploration [Argumentative activities and elaboration of new knowledge]. Langue Francaise, 112, 67–87.Google Scholar
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.Google Scholar
Peng, K., & Nisbett, E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Picard, R. W., Papert, S., Bender, W., et al. (2004). Affective learning – a manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 253–269.Google Scholar
Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. P. (2016) Group emotions: The social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123–156. doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, C. (Ed.). (1993). Special issue: Discourse and shared reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4).Google Scholar
Rapanta, C., & Christodoulou, A. (2019). Walton’s types of argumentation dialogues as classroom discourse sequences. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100352Google Scholar
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H., & Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1848–1869. doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856Google Scholar
Schwarz, B., & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316493960Google Scholar
Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. B., Kolikant, Y. B. D., & Mishenkina, M. (2012). “Co-alienation” mediated by common representations in synchronous e-discussions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3–4), 216–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 179–199). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition: The collaborative locus of agency in CSCL. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The next 10 years! – CSCL’05, 632–640. doi:10.3115/1149293.1149376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 113–133.Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. In Schnase, J. L. & Cunnius, E. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL’95 (pp. 341–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York, NY: Random House Trade.Google Scholar
Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369. doi:10.1007/s11412–016-9240-8Google Scholar
Tiberghien, A., & de Vries, E. (1997). Relating characteristics of learning situations to learner activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 163–174.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tzou, C., Meixi, , Suárez, E., et al. (2019). Storywork in STEM-Art: Making, materiality and robotics within everyday acts of indigenous presence and resurgence. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 306–326. doi:10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–522.Google Scholar
Van Amelsvoort, M., & Schilperoord, J. (2018). How number and size of text boxes in argument diagrams affect opinions. Learning and Instruction, 57, 57–70. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.003Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Developments in argumentation theory. In Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 43–57). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511. doi:10.1007/s10648–016-9361-7Google Scholar
Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, J., & Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337–350.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123(3), 327–346.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×