Arguing to Learn

doi:10.1017/9781108888295.026

21 - Arguing to Learn

from Part IV - Learning Together

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022

Jerry Andriessen and

Michael Baker

Edited by

R. Keith Sawyer

Show author details

R. Keith Sawyer: Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Book contents

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

argumentation collaboration community of learners engagement externalization articulation scientific practices scaffolding

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 428 - 447
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.026 [Opens in a new window]
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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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_1 CrossRef Google 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/edu0000014 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.2017.09.003 CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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/s11412-016-9232-8 CrossRef Google 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.2019.100352 Google 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:10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856 Google Scholar

Schwarz, B., & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316493960 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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:10.3115/1149293.1149376 CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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/s11412–016-9240-8 Google 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:10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547 CrossRef Google 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.2018.03.003 Google 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/s10648–016-9361-7 Google Scholar

Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), 321–329.CrossRef Google 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

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.