Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research

Aleixandre-Jimenez, 2007, Designing argumentation learning environments, 91 Andrew, 2000, Interpersonal scripts in the anger narratives told by clients in psychotherapy, Motivation and Emotion, 24, 271, 10.1023/A:1010792900030 Andriessen, 2003 Andriessen, 2006, Arguing to learn, 443 ∗∗Arnseth, 2006, Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 167, 10.1007/s11412-006-8874-3 Asterhan, 2007, The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626, 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626 Asterhan, 2009, Transformation of robust misconceptions through peer argumentation, 159 Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In G. Rijlaarsdam, & E. Esperet (series Eds.) & J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.). Studies in writing: (Vol. 5). Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202) Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Baker, 2003, Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions, 47 Baker, 2009, Intersubjective and intrasubjective rationalities in pedagogical debates: Realizing what one thinks, 145 ∗Baker, 2007, Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315, 10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4 ∗Baker, 1997, Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175, 10.1046/j.1365-2729.1997.00019.x Barron, 2003, When smart groups fail, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307, 10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1 Barth, 1982 ∗∗Beach, 2009, Learning argument practices through online role-play: Toward rhetoric of significance and transformation, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 460, 10.1598/JAAL.52.6.1 ∗Beers, 2005, Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments, Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623, 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.036 ∗Beers, 2007, ICT-support for grounding in the classroom, Instructional Science, 35, 535, 10.1007/s11251-007-9018-5 ∗∗Belland, 2008, A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students, Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401, 10.1007/s11423-007-9074-1 Biggs, 2003 ∗Brooks, 2006, Effect of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborate argumentation, Distance Education, 27, 371, 10.1080/01587910600940448 ∗Buder, 2008, Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 123, 10.1007/s11412-008-9037-5 Buckingham-Shum, 2003 Carmien, 2007, The interplay of internal and external scripts- a distributed cognition perspective, 303, 10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_17 Chinn, 1998, The structure of discussions that promote reasoning, Teachers College Record, 100, 315, 10.1177/016146819810000205 ∗Cho, 2002, The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving, Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 5, 10.1007/BF02505022 ∗Clark, 2009, Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 321, 10.1007/s10956-009-9159-1 ∗Clark, 2007, Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation, International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253, 10.1080/09500690600560944 ∗Clark, 2008, Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293, 10.1002/tea.20216 Clark, 2010, Online learning environments, scientific argumentation, and 21st century skills, 1 ∗∗Clark, 2007, Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments, Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343, 10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7 Clark, 2007, Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students’ argumentation, 217 ∗∗Coffin, 2009, Argument reconceived, Educational Review, 61, 301, 10.1080/00131910903045948 Conklin, 1988, GIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4, 303, 10.1145/58566.59297 Courtney, 2001, Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: Toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS, Decision Support Systems, 31, 17, 10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00117-2 ∗Crossa, 2008, Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities, International Journal of Science Education, 30, 837, 10.1080/09500690701411567 ∗De Vries, 2002, Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63, 10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3 ∗De Wever, 2007, Applying multilevel modelling on content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of the impact of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups, Learning and Instruction, 17, 436, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.001 Dillenbourg, 2002, Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design, 61 ∗∗Dillenbourg, 2008, The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 5, 10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1 Dillenbourg, 2006, Designing integrative scripts ∗∗Dillenbourg, 2007, Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x ∗Ding, 2009, Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving, Computers and Education, 52, 509, 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.009 Driver, 2000, Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms, Science Education, 84, 287, 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A ∗Erkens, 2008, Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 447, 10.1007/s11412-008-9052-6 ∗Erkens, 2005, Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing, Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 463, 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.038 ∗Ertl, 2006, Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments, Computers and Education, 47, 298, 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.001 ∗Ertl, 2006, Fostering collaborative knowledge construction in case-based learning scenarios in videoconferencing, Educational Computing Research, 35, 377, 10.2190/A0LP-482N-0063-J480 ∗Ertl, 2008, Supporting learning using external representations, Computers and Education, 51, 1599, 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.001 ∗Ertl, 2005, Fostering collaborative learning in videoconferencing: The influence of content schemes and collaboration scripts on collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes, Education Communication & Information, 5, 147, 10.1080/14636310500185927 Felton, 2001, The development of argumentative discourse skill, Discourse Processes, 32, 135, 10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_03 ∗Fischer, 2002, Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools, Learning and Instruction, 12, 213, 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00005-6 ∗Fischer, 2005, Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 405, 10.1207/s15327809jls1403_3 ∗∗Ge, 2004, A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions, Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 5, 10.1007/BF02504836 Ge, 2000, Pre-class planning to scaffold students for online collaborative learning activities, Educational Technology and Society, 3, 1 ∗Gerber, 2005, Instructor Influence on Reasoned Argument in Discussion Boards, Educational Technology Research & Development, 53, 25, 10.1007/BF02504864 ∗Golanics, 2008, Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00251.x Gress, 2010, Measurement and assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 806, 10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.012 ∗∗Hirsch, 2004, A structured dialogue tool for argumentative learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 72, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00068.x ∗Ho, 2009, Designing and implementing virtual enactive role-play and structured argumentation: Promises and pitfalls, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 381, 10.1080/09588220903184732 Infante, 1982, A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness, Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72, 10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13 Janssen, 2007, Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning?, Computers and Education, 49, 1037, 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004 ∗Janssen, 2010, Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning, Instructional Science, 38, 59, 10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1 ∗Jeong, 2005, The effects of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers on group interaction and performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6, 100 ∗Jeong, 2006, Gender interaction patterns and gender participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation, American Journal of Distance Education, 20, 195, 10.1207/s15389286ajde2004_2 ∗Jeong, 2006, The effects of conversational language on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation, Instructional Science, 34, 367, 10.1007/s11251-006-0002-2 ∗Jeong, 2007, The effects of intellectual openness and gender on critical thinking processes in computer-supported collaborative argumentation, Distance Education, 22, 1 ∗Jeong, 2006, The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation, Educational Technology Development and Research, 54, 543, 10.1007/s11423-006-0636-4 ∗Jeong, 2008, How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer-supported collaborative argumentation, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 875, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00789.x ∗Jeong, 2007, Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels, Computers and Education, 48, 427, 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002 ∗Jeong, 2008, The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 651, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00762.x Jermann, 2003, Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script, 205 ∗Joiner, 2003, The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking, International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 861, 10.1016/j.ijer.2004.11.008 ∗∗Jonassen, 2010, Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines, Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 439, 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8 Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In NASSP’s Student learning styles: Diagnosing and proscribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA. National Association of Secondary School Principles. Kester, 2005, Instructional interventions to enhance collaboration in powerful learning environments, Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 689, 10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.008 ∗Kim, 2007, Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 333, 10.1080/10508400701413419 Kirschner, 2002, Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning, Learning and Instruction, 12, 1, 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7 ∗Kirschner, 2008, Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments, Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 403, 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.028 Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C.S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. london:springer. Kirschner, 2004, Designing electronic collaborative learning environments, Education Technology Research & Development, 52, 47, 10.1007/BF02504675 ∗∗Kobbe, 2007, Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 211, 10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4 ∗Kollar, 2006, Collaboration scripts-a conceptual analysis, Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159, 10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2 ∗Kollar, 2007, Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning, Learning and Instruction, 17, 708, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021 Koschmann, 2003, CSCL, argumentation, and deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning Kuhn, 1991 Kuhn, 1992, Thinking as argument, Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155, 10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1 Kuhn, 1993, Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking, Science Education, 77, 319, 10.1002/sce.3730770306 Kuhn, 2005 Kuhn, 2009, Do students need to be taught how to reason?, Educational Research Review, 4, 1, 10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.001 Kuhn, 2005, Arguing on the computer, 125 Kuhn, 2008, Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?, Cognitive Development, 23, 435, 10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006 Kuhn, 1997, Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning, Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287, 10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1 Kuhn, 2003, The development of argument skills, Child Development, 74, 1245, 10.1111/1467-8624.00605 Kuhn, 2007, Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument, Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90, 10.1080/13546780600625447 Leitão, 2000, The potential of argument in knowledge building, Human Development, 43, 332, 10.1159/000022695 Leitão, 2003, Evaluating and selecting counterarguments, Written Communication, 20, 269, 10.1177/0741088303257507 ∗Lemus, 2004, Argument and decision making in computer-mediated groups, Journal of Communication, 54, 302, 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02630.x ∗Li, 2008, Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms, Computers and Education, 50, 1394, 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.013 ∗Lin, 2007, Innovations in teaching: An online debate series for first-year pharmacy students, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71, 1, 10.5688/aj710112 ∗Liu, 2008, An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity, Computers and Education, 50, 627, 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.002 ∗Lu, 2008, Supporting medical decision making with argumentation tools, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 425, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.005 ∗Lund, 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, 2, 273, 10.1007/s11412-007-9019-z ∗Marttunen, 1997, Electronic mail as a pedagogical delivery system: An analysis of the learning of argumentation, Research in Higher Education, 38, 345, 10.1023/A:1024950123766 ∗Marttunen, 1998, Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative interaction in higher education studies, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 387, 10.2190/AAJK-01XK-WDMV-8M0P ∗Marttunen, 2001, Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments, Instructional Science, 29, 127, 10.1023/A:1003931514884 ∗Marttunen, 2007, Collaborative learning through chat discussions and argument diagrams in secondary school, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 109, 10.1080/15391523.2007.10782500 ∗Marttunen, 2009, Secondary school students’ collaboration during dyadic debates face-to-face and through computer chat, Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 961, 10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.005 ∗McAlister, 2004, Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC, Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 20, 194, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00086.x McCutchen, 1987, Children’s discourse skill: Form and modality requirements of schooled writing, Discourse Processes, 10, 267, 10.1080/01638538709544676 ∗Mirza, 2007, Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 247, 10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5 ∗Monteserin, 2010, Assisting students with argumentation plans when solving problems in CSCL, Computers and Education, 54, 416, 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.025 ∗∗Morgan, 2006, Argumentation, geography education and ICT, Geography, 91, 11, 10.1080/00167487.2006.12094158 Morris, 2010, Designing roles, scripts, and prompts to support CSCL in gstudy, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 815, 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.001 ∗Munneke, 2007, Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1072, 10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003 ∗Munneke, 2003, The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning, International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113, 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00076-4 ∗Muukkonen, 2005, Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse?, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 527, 10.1207/s15327809jls1404_3 Nastasi, 1992, Social-cognitive behaviours and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments, Learning and Instruction, 2, 215, 10.1016/0959-4752(92)90010-J ∗Noroozi, 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, 309, 10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.009 Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., Popov, V., & Chizari, M. (in press). Effects of the Drewlite CSCL platform on students’ learning outcomes. In A. Juan, T. Daradoumis, M. Roca, S. E. Grasman, & J. Faulin (Eds.), Collaborative and distributed e-research: Innovations in technologies, strategies and applications (pp. 0–386). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-46660-125-3. Noroozi, O., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., Biemans, H. J. A., Geelen, M. M. E. E., van’t Veer, P., et al. (in press). Online discussion compensates for suboptimal timing of supportive information presentation in a digitally supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research & Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9217-2. Nussbaum, 2002, How introverts versus extroverts approach small-group argumentative discussions?, The Elementary School Journal, 10, 183, 10.1086/499699 ∗Nussbaum, 2005, The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.002 Nussbaum, 2008, Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001 ∗Nussbaum, 2008, Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument/counterargument integration in reflective writing, Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549, 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549 Nussbaum, 2003, Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573, 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00062-0 ∗Nussbaum, 2011, Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 443, 10.1080/10508406.2011.564567 ∗Nussbaum, 2007, Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing, Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59, 10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92 ∗Nussbaum, 2004, Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 113, 10.2190/H8P4-QJUF-JXME-6JD8 Nussbaum, 2005, The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing, Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157, 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157 ∗Nussbaum, 2008, Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning, International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1977, 10.1080/09500690701545919 ∗Nussbaum, 2007, Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 479, 10.1007/s11412-007-9025-1 O’Donnell, 1992, Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance, 120 ∗Oh, 2006, Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x Osborne, 2010, Arguing to learn in science. The role of collaborative, critical discourse, Science, 328, 463, 10.1126/science.1183944 ∗Overdijk, 2008, Appropriation of a graphical shared workspace. Organizing principles and their application, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 165, 10.1007/s11412-008-9038-4 Pea, 2004, The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423, 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 Pena-Shaff, 2001, An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer mediated communication environments, Journal of Interaction Learning Research, 12, 41 ∗Prinsen, 2006, The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment, British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 1037, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00692.x ∗Prinsen, 2009, Effects on participation of an experimental CSCL-programme to support elaboration: Do all students benefit?, Computers and Education, 52, 113, 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.001 Reznitskya, 2001, Influence of oral discussion on written argumentation, Discourse Processes, 32, 155, 10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596 ∗Rourke, 2007, Barriers to online critical discourse, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105, 10.1007/s11412-007-9007-3 Rummel, 2005, Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201, 10.1207/s15327809jls1402_2 Rummel, 2009, Learning to collaborate from being scripted or from observing a model, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 26, 69, 10.1007/s11412-008-9054-4 ∗Schellens, 2005, Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing?, Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957, 10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.025 ∗Schellens, 2006, Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups, Computers and Education, 46, 349, 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010 ∗Schellens, 2007, Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge Construction in asynchronous discussion groups?, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225, 10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2 ∗∗Scheuer, 2010, Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 43, 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x ∗Schwarz, 2007, Argumentation in a changing world, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 297, 10.1007/s11412-007-9020-6 ∗Schwarz, 2007, The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 449, 10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2 Schwarz, 2007, The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction. The case of proportional reasoning, Learning and Instruction, 17, 510, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.009 Schwarz, 2000, Two wrongs may make a right. If they argue together!, Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461, 10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2 ∗Schwarz, 2000, Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219, 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3 Slavin, 1986, Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analysis and traditional reviews, Educational Researcher, 15, 5, 10.3102/0013189X015009005 ∗∗Spatariu, 2007, A review of research on factors that impact aspects of online discussions quality, TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 51, 44, 10.1007/s11528-007-0041-9 Spelt, 2009, Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review, Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365, 10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z Spiro, 1990, Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and muli-dimensional traversal of complex subject matter, 163 Stasser, 1985, Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467, 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467 Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (in press). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive processing in computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5. ∗Stegmann, 2007, Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 421, 10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y Stein, 1999, The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill, 97 Strijbos, 2004, Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning, Computers and Education, 42, 403, 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004 ∗Strijbos, 2004, The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups, Small Group Research, 35, 195, 10.1177/1046496403260843 ∗Strijbos, 2007, The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: A matter of triangulation, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 353, 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.016 ∗Suthers, 2001, Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse, Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 254 ∗Suthers, 2003, An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183, 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2 ∗Taasoobshirazi, 2005, Promoting argumentative discourse: A design-based implementation and refinement of an astronomy multimedia curriculum, assessment model, and learning environment, Astronomy Education Review, 4, 53, 10.3847/AER2005003 Taboada, 2006, Applications of rhetorical structure theory, Discourse Studies, 8, 567, 10.1177/1461445606064836 Taboada, 2006, Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead, Discourse Studies, 8, 423, 10.1177/1461445606061881 ∗∗Tchounikine, 2008, Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings, International Journal Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 193, 10.1007/s11412-008-9039-3 Teasley, 1997, Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration?, 361 Toulmin, 1958 Van Amelsvoort, M. (2006). A space for debate. How diagrams support collaborative argumentation-based learning. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. ∗Van Amelsvoort, 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, 485, 10.1080/10508400701524785 ∗Van Amelsvoort, 2008, How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams, Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1293, 10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.004 Van Bruggen, J. M. (2003). Explorations in graphical argumentation: The use of external representations in collaborative problem solving. PhD dissertation, Open University, The Netherlands. Van Bruggen, 2003, A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization, 25 Van Bruggen, 2003, Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems, 177 ∗∗Van Bruggen, 2002, External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load, Learning and Instruction, 12, 121, 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00019-6 Van Dinther, 2011, Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education, Educational Research Review, 6, 95, 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003 ∗Van Drie, 2005, Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14, 25, 10.1080/14759390500200191 ∗Van Drie, 2005, Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL, Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 575, 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.024 Van Eemeren, 1992 Van Eemeren, 1999, Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse, Discourse Studies, 1, 479, 10.1177/1461445699001004005 Van Eemeren, 1996 Van Eemeren, 2008, Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves, Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 475, 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.002 Van Eemeren, 1987 Veerman, 2003, Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue, 117 ∗Veerman, 2000, Learning through synchronous electronic discussion, Computers and Education, 34, 269, 10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00050-0 ∗Veerman, 2002, Collaborative argumentation in academic education, Instructional Science, 30, 155, 10.1023/A:1015100631027 Voss, 1983, Individual differences in the solving of social science problems, 204 Voss, 2001, Argumentation in psychology: Background comments, Discourse Processes, 32, 89, 10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651593 Walton, 1992 Walton, 1996 Walton, 2000, The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies, Synthese, 123, 327, 10.1023/A:1005237527730 Walton, 2006, Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion, Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 745, 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.016 Wegner, 1987, Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind, 185 Wegner, 1995, A computer network model of human transactive memory, Social Cognition, 13, 1, 10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.319 ∗Weinberger, 2005, Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning, Instructional Science, 33, 1, 10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4 ∗∗Weinberger, 2006, A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning, Computers and Education, 46, 71, 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003 Weinberger, 2005, Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups, 717 ∗Weinberger, 2010, Learning to argue online. Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not), Computers in Human behavior, 28, 506, 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007 Weinberger, 2007, Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments, 191 ∗Yiong-Hwee, 2007, Using sentence openers to support students’ argumentation in an online learning environment, Educational Media International, 44, 207, 10.1080/09523980701491658