16 SES 05.5 PS, General Poster Exhibition
General Poster Session during Lunch
Engaging learners in dialogical argumentation is an educational approach for preparing learners to manage today’s complex issues. In dialogical argumentation, learning partners collectively contribute reasons and evidence from different viewpoints in order to build up a shared understanding of the issue at stake with the goal of learning. In the learning sciences, this collective exploration of the dialogical space of solutions is considered as an important approach to foster argumentative knowledge construction (Stegmann et al., 2007 & in press). In argumentative knowledge construction, learners are supposed to build arguments and support a position, to consider and weigh arguments and counter-arguments, to test, enlighten, and clarify their uncertainties, to elaborate on the learning materials, and thus acquire knowledge and achieve understanding about complex ill-structured problems. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) settings in which learners argue in teams have been designed to facilitate representing, constructing, and sharing of arguments in multiple formats (see Noroozi & Biemans et al., 2011 & 2012; Noroozi & Busstra et al., 2012; Noroozi & Weinberger et al., in press). Various forms of collaboration scripts have been designed to facilitate particular process categories of argumentative knowledge construction such as the construction of single arguments by supporting learners to warrant their claims as well as the construction of argumentation sequences by supporting learners in following specific argumentation sequences e.g. argument, counterargument, integration etc. (see Stegmann et al., 2007; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). In spite of positive effects of these scripts on the discourse activities they were directed at and also on the acquisition of knowledge on argumentation, not all of them facilitated the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge (see Kollar et al., 2007; Stegmann et al., 2007). The reason is that these scripts demand learners to allocate a considerable part of their cognitive capacity to argumentation and hence little cognitive effort and time could be allocated to joint elaboration of the learning materials, additional resources, external memories and contributions of the learning partners for enhanced domain-specific knowledge acquisition (Stegmann et al., 2007 & 2012). This is striking since there is evidence showing that cognitive elaboration of the learning materials is positively related to knowledge acquisition (see Stegmann et al., 2012). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction may, therefore, not only be a question of how to support process categories of argumentative discourse activities, but also a question of how to foster elaboration of the learning materials for enhanced domain-specific knowledge acquisition. This study thus investigates how scripts can be designed in a transactive manner to facilitate both argumentative discourse activities and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in a multidisciplinary CSCL setting. In addition, the extent to which this transactive discussion script influenced learners’ knowledge on argumentation was studied.
Berkowitz, M.W., & Gibbs, J.C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 399-410. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., Slotta, D.J. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708-721. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H.J.A., Busstra, M.C., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2011). Differences in learning processes between successful and less successful students in computer-supported collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and health. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 309-318. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H.J.A., Busstra, M.C., Mulder, M., Popov, V., & Chizari, M. (2012). Effects of the Drewlite CSCL platform on students’ learning outcomes. In Juan, A., Daradoumis, T., Roca, M., Grasman, S. E., & Faulin, J. (Eds.), Collaborative and Distributed E-Research: Innovations in Technologies, Strategies and Applications (pp. 276-289). IGI Global. Noroozi, O., Busstra, M.C., Mulder, M., Biemans, H.J.A., Geelen, M.M.E.E., van’t Veer, P. & Chizari, M. (2012). Online discussion compensates for suboptimal timing of supportive information presentation in a digitally supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(2), 193-221. Noroozi, O., Weinberger., Biemans, H.J.A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (in press). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421-447. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive processing in computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297-323. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46(1), 71-95.
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.