Visualization of argumentation as shared activity

Gijsbert Erkens, Jeroen Janssen, Paul A. Kirschner

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

    20 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    The use of argumentation maps in CSCL does not always provide students with the intended support for their collaboration. In this chapter we compare two argumentation maps from two research projects, both meant to support the collaborative writing of argumentative essays based on external sources. In the COSAR-project, the Diagram-tool with which students could specify positions, proarguments, con-arguments, supports, refutations and conclusions in a free graphical format to write a social studies essay, was highly appreciated by students and teachers, but did not result in better essays. In the CRoCiCL-project, the Debate-tool with which students could specify positions, proarguments, con-arguments, supports and refutations in a structured graphical format, meant to visualize the argumentative strength of the positions, resulted in better history essays. The difference in representational guidance between both tools might explain these differences in effects, with the Debate-tool stimulating students to attend to the justification of positions and their strengths.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationUse of Representations in Reasoning and Problem Solving
    Subtitle of host publicationAnalysis and Improvement
    EditorsLieven Verschaffel, Erik de Corte, Ton de Jong, Jan Elen
    Place of PublicationNew York
    PublisherRoutledge
    Chapter13
    Pages242-260
    Number of pages19
    Edition1
    ISBN (Electronic)9780203847824, 0203847822
    ISBN (Print)9780415556743, 9780415556736
    Publication statusPublished - 2010

    Publication series

    SeriesNew Perspectives on Learning and Instruction

    Keywords

    • Argumentation
    • Visualization
    • Collaborative learning

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Visualization of argumentation as shared activity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this