Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T10:24:25.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - Arguing to Learn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Jerry Andriessen
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
Jerry Andriessen
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

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.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 443 - 460
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

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.)

References

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Pearson, P. D., Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., & Mosenthal, P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.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., Erkens, G., van de Laak, C. M., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In Andriessen, J., Baker,, M. & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79–116). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.
Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In Hall, R., Miyake, N., & Enyedy, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97 (pp. 10–19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, P. (2002). Science is argument: Developing sociocognitive supports for disciplinary argumentation. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449–455). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: 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., & Lehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Oostendorp, H. (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world (pp. 253–283). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax & semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jaspers, J., & Erkens, G. (2002, September). VCRI. Virtual Collaborative Research Institute (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle 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: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development 74(5), 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, T. (1962, 1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leitão, S. (2001). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2, 2.Google Scholar
Levin, & Moore, (1980). Dialogue-games: Meta-communication structure for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). Question-begging in noncumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munneke, L.Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J.,(2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonnon, E. (1996). Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d'exploration. Langue Francaise, 112, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petraglia, J. (1998). The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pilkington, R., & Walker, A., (2003). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, C. (ed.) (1993). Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4). Special issue: Discourse and Shared Reasoning.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.CrossRefGoogle 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: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: evaluating, explaning, and generating evidence. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 285–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 254–277.Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & Suthers, D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House Trade.Google Scholar
Tiberghien, A., & Vries, E. (1997). Relating characteristics of learning situations to learner activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In Kirschner, P. A., Shum, S. J. Buckingham, & Carr, C. S. (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25–47). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R., (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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 Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117–143). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, J., & Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning & instruction, 1, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., & Yengo, L. A. (1983). Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. In Dillon, R. F. & Schmeck, R. R. (Eds). Individual differences in cognition (pp. 204–232). New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123, 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1989). Question-reply argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, New York: Suny Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Arguing to Learn
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.027
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Arguing to Learn
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.027
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Arguing to Learn
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.027
Available formats
×