26 - Arguing to Learn  pp. 443-460

Arguing to Learn

By Jerry Andriessen

Image View Previous Chapter Next Chapter



Many people think that arguing interferes with learning. They link argumentation to a certain type of oppositional argument that is increasingly prevalent in our media culture. Tannen (1998) analyzed the aggressive types of argument that are frequently seen on talk shows and in the political sphere, where representatives of two opposed viewpoints spout talking points at each other. In these forms of argumentation, the goal is not to work together toward a common position, but simply to score points. All teachers and parents have seen children engaged in this type of argumentation, and most would probably agree that it has little to contribute to education.

The learning sciences are studying a different kind of argumentation, which I call collaborative argumentation. For example, collaborative argumentation plays a central role in science; science advances not by the accumulation of facts, but by debate and argumentation (Kuhn, 1962, 1970; Bell, 2004). Even when two scientists disagree, they still share the common values of science and both of them are interested in achieving the same goals. Argumentation in science is not oppositional and aggressive; it is a form of collaborative discussion in which both parties are working together to resolve an issue, and in which both scientists expect to find agreement by the end of the argument. Exposure to collaborative argumentation can help students learn to think critically and independently about important issues and contested values.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson , R. Barr , M. L. Kamil , & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.
Andriessen, J. (2005). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A. O'Donnell , C. Hmelo , & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaboration, reasoning, and technology (pp. 277–321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., van de Laak, C. M., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen , M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79–116). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baker, M. , & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.
Baker, M. J. (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). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baker, M. J. (2004). Recherches sur l'élaboration de connaissances dans le dialogue [Research on knowledge elaboration in dialogues]. Synthèse pour l'habilitation à diriger les recherches. Université Nancy 2.
Barth, E. M. , & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall , N. Miyake , & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97 (pp. 10–19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bell, P. (2002). Science is argument: Developing sociocognitive supports for disciplinary argumentation. In T. Koschmann , R. Hall , & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449–455). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn , E. A. Davis , & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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(8), 797–817.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bransford, J. D. , Brown, A. L. , & Cocking, R. , (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Chi, M. T. H. , & Van Lehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105.
Goldman, S. R., Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., Williams, S., & Tzou, C. T. (2003). Science inquiry in a digital age: Possibilities for making thinking visible. In H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world (pp. 253–283). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax & semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). London: Academic Press.
Jaspers, J. , & Erkens, G. (2002, September). VCRI. Virtual Collaborative Research Institute (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Keefer, M. W. , Zeitz, C. L. , & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81.
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. 259–265). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.
Kuhn, D. , & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development 74(5), 1245–1260.
Kuhn, D. , Shaw, V. , & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
Kuhn, T. (1962, 1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.
Leitão, S. (2001). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2, 2.
Levin & Moore (1980). Dialogue-games: Meta-communication structure for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395–420.
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.
Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). Question-begging in noncumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 117–133.
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, 20(3), 194–204.
Means, M. L. , & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.
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.
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.
Nonnon, E. (1996). Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d'exploration. Langue Francaise, 112, 67–87.
Petraglia, J. (1998). The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pilkington, R. , & Walker, A. , (2003). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, 41–63.
Pontecorvo, C. (ed.) (1993). Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4). Special issue: Discourse and Shared Reasoning.
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.
Schwarz, 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). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
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.
Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.). Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: evaluating, explaning, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 285–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 254–277.
Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen , M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Suthers, D. D. , & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.
Suthers, D. D. , Hundhausen, C. D. , & Girardeau, L. E. (2003). Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 41, 335–351.
Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House Trade.
Tiberghien, A. , & De Vries, E. (1997). Relating characteristics of learning situations to learner activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 163–174.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with 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. 25–47). London: Springer.
Van Eemeren, F. , & Grootendorst, R. , (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Eemeren, F. , Grootendorst, R. , & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Developments in argumentation theory. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.). Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 43–57). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation. [Doctoral dissertation]. Enschede: Print Partners Ipskamp.
Veerman, A. L. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen , M. Baker , & D. Suthers (Eds). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117–143). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Voss, J. , & Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning & instruction, 1, 337–350.
Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., & Yengo, L. A. (1983). Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds). Individual differences in cognition (pp. 204–232). New York, Academic Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. ( M. Cole , V. John-Steiner , S. Scribner , & E. Souberman , Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walton, D. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123, 327–346.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Question-reply argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press.
Walton, D. N. , & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, New York: Suny Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.